Jump to content

Talk:Temple Mount/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Active Shabbat

Hello everybody. Wow, lots of changes of this Shabbat. Will be happy to but in. Have made one technical edit, removed the text Nishidani added about the sign at the entrance (with an explanation in the edit summary), and added half a sentence so far. All the rest is more or less fine with me.Debresser (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hope you had a fine Shabbat, Dovid. As explained above, in the balancing act of NPOV, the secular court decision was both misrepresented from the source, and lacked a balancing statement, which I added. It was not quite thrown into the soup as balancing the prior statement. As it now is after your edit, in my view it is, it is unbalanced. I think all of this should be collected in one section and not be dispersed in several places, and written synthetically, and my point was to that end, in the eventuality we can collate the disiecta membra in NPOV fashion. I look forward to your collaboration on this.Nishidani (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
In case you have 'missed' it. The source you used doesn't even mention the status quo which makes the edit OR. After your insistence on clarifying Havakook is talking about Susya, I expect you to follow the same standards.Settleman (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Nishidani, and nice to meet you again.
The question whether it is allowed by halakha for Jews to ascend there, or to be more precise, where precisely one is allowed to go, has many points of view. The sign you mentioned, was put up by the rabbinate for two reasons, as I see things: 1. To make sure no Jew would go where it is not allowed, by forbidding ascend altogether (a usual step of rabbis, to be stricter than the law, in order to prevent its desecration). 2. As a result of political pressure, in the form of an official request, trying to minimize the Jewish presence on the Temple Mount as much as possible, precisely in order to acquiesce the Arabs. Both these reasons I mention can be sourced.
Please also notice that if halakha forbids Jews to ascend there, ascend of non-Jews is even more forbidden by the halakha, which the sign is considerate (or political) enough not to mention directly. Debresser (talk) 22:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Re the second point, I don't have the impression that the rabbinate fusses on this, though I may be wrong. I don't see my evidence that the kind of remark we associate with the extremist national-religious viewpoint on halakha is shared there. I am reminded by your use of 'desecration' of Baruch ben-Yosef's ’every Jew is obliged to go up (to the Temple Mount) in order to nullify the desecration of God’s name that has been created by Arab access and control of the site.’ Marshall J. Breger,Yitzhak Reiter,Leonard Hammer (eds.) Sacred Space in Israel and Palestine: Religion and Politics, Routledge, 2013 p.2. Note that 'Arabs' are the object of halakhic outrage, but the author is careful not to offend the Western goyim in his blanket dismissal. Nishidani (talk) 10:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
By the way, Dovid. As you know, I recognize that you have a certain impatience that at times tempts you to ignore the rather strict rules here and assuming good faith by a good editor I don't mechanically report the infractions, other than just dropping you a note. You broke 1R last night, and I think you are obliged to revert back in the deletion of the list of incidents.
(1st revert) Sign may be relevant, but shouldn't be thrown into the soup reverts (with some reason) my edit here
(2nd revert)(a) is a partial revert of my subsequent edit introducing a list of incidents that you consider ‘not noteworthy, and seems indiscriminate’
(b). as does this.
These edits are interrupted by my own edits, and therefore break 1R. I will explain why the list is necessary in my view presently.Nishidani (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Contradictory History

The lead section states that the site remained undeveloped from 70CE to the Arab Conquest (complete with source, which is followed largely verbatim). It is generally attested that a temple to Jupiter was in fact constructed on the site, and archaeological evidence indicates a subsequent Christian structure, both of which are covered within the article with appropriate sources. I would have amended the header accordingly, but don't know what wikipedia policy is regarding contradicting or dissing previously quoted sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.150.238 (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Feel free to remove:'Afterwards the site remained undeveloped for six centuries, until the Arab conquest.' It is a useless source and false. All sourcing for the historic part of the article should be rigorously taken from the abundant academic material on the TempleMount/Haram al-Sharif.Nishidani (talk) 10:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

List of attempts to blow up the TM

I added the list of incidents regarding attempts to blow up or destroy the Muslim sites because the Israeli period was (justly) a celebration of Jewish feelings at accessing finally the Mount, with absolutely no word whatsoever about the problems that arose for Muslims as a consequence. Several incidents of attempting to smash a major Muslim religious site are not trivial: they are necessary background for the detailed and extensive documentation given in three large sections: (a)Israeli period (b) Under Israeli control and (c) Management and Access, all of which have numerous errors (sovereignty’ , ‘annexation’ and devastatingly bad sourcing or citation messes). These three sections give extensive witness to Jewish/Israeli concerns with little balance fore the other POV. Compare the British Mandatory Period which has zero content and only a malicious link to 'Palestinian riots'. I.e. the message is:'We have heritage and Arabs are recalcitrantly interfering with it and stopping the law (Israeli authority) and us from what is our due.

(a) In June 1968 an Australian tried to set fire to Al-Aqsa: on April 11, 1982 a Jew hid in the Dome of the Rock and sprayed gunfire, killing 2 Palestinians and wounding 44; in 1974,1977,and 1983 groups led by Yoel Lerner conspired to blow up both the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa; on 26 January 1984 waqf guards detected Bnei Yehuda members trying to infiltrate the area; On October 8, 1990, Israeli forces patrolling the site blocked worshipers from accessing it. A tear gas canister was detonated among the female worshipers, which caused events to escalate.

Note that you stop short (and retain only) ‘Palestinian Muslims protested violently.' Leaving that adjectivized description in while eliding the list of grievances that preceeds it just consolidates the drift of these sections that mention Palestinian archaeological damage, rioters, stone-throwing, while nothing is left indicating the other POV, i.e. that Palestinians have, in their own POV, solid reasons for being extremely wary of a Jewish presence on that site, since attempts to destroy the whole Islamic heritage have been frequent.

(b) In December 1997, Israeli security services preempted an attempt by Jewish extremists to throw a pig's head wrapped in the pages of the Qu'ran into the area, in order to spark a riot and embarrass the government.(Klein)

There is nothing arbitrary (‘indiscriminate’)in that list, which is mostly (part preexisted) taken from a section of Menachem Klein’s book specifically dealing with 3 kinds of Jewish activist behaviour regarding the Temple Mount. Secondly, to call it ‘minor’ is odd. To the Palestinians (and I would think both the world at large and the Israeli authorities), attempts to destroy both the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa are not ‘minor’. It may strike you as minor that someone plans to wrap a pig's head in a copy of the Qur'an to incite a massive riot by Arabs forcing an Israeli response and perhaps a bloody intifada, just to pressure the government to back more settlements, but to the eyes of those offended by this kind of thing, it is part and parcel of an historic fear, recapitulating what happened in the 1929 incidents. People have long memories there. Nishidani (talk) 10:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I still see no great relevance to a list of incidents. Not to mention that setting fire to the Al Aqsa should be mentioned in the Al Aqsa article. The pig head is a fluke incident, and in any case has no specific relation to the Temple Mount. A shooting is just a terrorist incident and doesn't show any bog picture. Especially compared to the tens of terrorist actions perpetrated by Palestinians yearly, which does make a certain point.
'The pig's head is a fluke incident.' Well you don't protest that this extremely offensive gesture is registered as part of the reason behind the Bar Kochba revolt:

These three factors, the graven images, the sacrifice of pigs before the altar, and the prohibition of circumcision, constituted for non-Hellenized Jews a new abomination of desolation, and thus Bar Kochba launched the Third Jewish Revolt.

But when a Jewish terrorist does this to achieve the same effect with Palestinians, it is just a 'fluke'. Again, this is not rational judgement, but giving weight to Jewish concerns, while ignoring similar Palestinian concerns. For the record the objections are pointless given that we have a very good monograph by Motti Inbari Jewish Fundamentalism and the Temple Mount: Who Will Build the Third Temple?, SUNY Press, 2012, which treats what you dismiss as 'flukes', or 'irrelevances' as an intimate part of the Temple Mount's recent history.Nishidani (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I have to go now because of the upcoming holiday, so I can't state my points in a7 more orderly fashion, but I see no general point or statement raising from these incidents. And even if there is one, you would need a source for that point, to avoid WP:SYNTH. Debresser (talk) 13:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
You broke 1R. Revert. Don't constrain me, esp. in this period (4-5 hours before Rosh HaShanah is ample time to perform a 30 obligatory edit), to make a formal complaint. It is called playing by the rules, on a level field. Nishidani (talk) 13:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Is all of this text sourced to Klein as well?

In June 1968 an Australian tried to set fire to Al-Aqsa: on April 11, 1982 a Jew hid in the Dome of the Rock and sprayed gunfire, killing 2 Palestinians and wounding 44; in 1974,1977,and 1983 groups led by Yoel Lerner conspired to blow up both the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa; on 26 January 1984 Waqf guards detected Bnei Yehuda members trying to infiltrate the area; On October 8, 1990, Israeli forces patrolling the site blocked worshipers from accessing it. A tear gas canister was detonated among the female worshipers, which caused events to escalate.

Please note that I am still of a mind to remove this, since I see not much relevance to some isolated incidents over a period of tens of years. Also note that these are not "attempts to blow up the Temple Mount", as this section is called, rather there are all types of incidents in this list, which strengthens the impression that it is indiscriminate.

I do prefer to wait a little and see more comments before removing this, mostly as a personal courtesy to you, although I would be perfectly within my rights to remove this until you establish consensus for your addition. Debresser (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The point is, per NPOV there are two perspectives here. What you consider of little 'relevance' is a reflection of one POV ('Arab' memories of the Temple Mount's history don't compare with 'ours', presumably). Unfortunately, the Palestinians have very much in mind, in reading these activities, the whole history of attempts to take the whole mount over, and, as any conversation, not to speak of reading, with a Palestinian Jerusalemite would tell you, each of those incidents is seared in their memory. As I noted Klein (and other sources I could adduce) lists them in one section, so the charge that it is an indiscriminate list is completely unfocused.Nishidani (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I disagree, for the two reasons mentioned above. Let's try and get a third opinion, perhaps? Debresser (talk) 08:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

BOLD edit by Pluto

You removed a lot of text with insufficient explanation. I have reverted to the last point that your changes were OK with me. WP:BRD

The text from High Court of Justice is extremely important and relevant (and neutral).

Some explanation about Murabitat being undue while it is directly related to the status quo seem questionable especially when you enter the story of Goren suggesting to destroy the dome of the rock which not directly related to the status quo and is mentioned in the article in a more appropriate location. Settleman (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani FYI, I opened this thread to discuss Pluto's BOLD removal and changes. Please self revert and the conversation. Settleman (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
You haven't read the Gonen source, misrepresented as a High Court decision what was given in the source as the opinion of the Court President, failed to clarify that the high court opinion suggested it is an abstract right, but one subject to political judgements, not legal fiat, handing over decisions on the merits of Jewish prayer and presence from the judiciary to politicians. Your 'buts' and 'howevers' gave the impression the police were contravening an explicit legal opinion and civil right. POV pushing, in short. Secondly Debresser without comment or discussion has refused to restore material he elided while breaking 1 R. I found Pluto's edits reasonable.Nishidani (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm the one who first brought Gonen so don't tell me about 'not reading it'. It has since gone through some edits by editors who likely didn't take a look at it. You think the High Court needs further improvement - improve don't remove. And in any case, you have removed a lot more material with no sufficient explanation. Your edit is BOLD and unacceptable. Settleman (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Settleman, including his reasons. Debresser (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
You may agree with Settleman, but he misconstrued Gonen and in stating I'm the one who first brought Gonen so don't tell me about 'not reading it', overlooks the fact that Gonen was in the article long before he became an editor. He hasn't replied to the points I made but simply ndenied them.Nishidani (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Folks, Aharon Barak was not president of the Supreme Court until 1995. In 1976 he was Attorney General of Israel, which I think precludes the possibility that he was sitting on the court in any capacity at all. Gonen's text is thus mystifying. Was Barak speaking in 1976 as Attorney General, or is Gonen quoting a comment Barak made much later on the 1976 case? Or maybe Gonen has mistaken him for the actual court president at the time (either Agranat or Zussman)? I don't know. Lots of Gonen's book is misleading or confusing like this, alas. Zerotalk 01:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

So the case was H.C. 99/76, "Cohen v. Minister of Police", president Agranat. From footnote 6 on page 278 here, it seems that the words are indeed from Barak, but as Attorney General not as court president. Gonen has it mixed up. In reporting this case it is essential to note that Cohen's petition was rejected. Zerotalk 01:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
But wait! Gonen got this information from a book of Berkovitz, which may be the same as in English here. Berkovitz has the same quotation but from a different case: "In H.C. Solomon vs. the Israel Police, President of the Supreme Court Aharon Barak ruled..", but doesn't give a year or case number. There is only a reference to the publication of the case, "P.D. 49(5), p. 369, opposite the letters b-c." Volume 49 is much more recent, approximately 1995, when indeed Barak was court president. Gonen's paragraph silently jumped from 1976 to ca. 1995. Zerotalk
Now I found it, probably. H.C. 2431/95 "Gershon Solomon vs. Israeli Police", Barak presiding. The Hebrew version of the judgment is here. Solomon was a known troublemaker who had petitioned the court on multiple occasions. Barak's alleged comments are not in the judgement as far as I can see. This is not necessary a contradiction since the printed source "P.D. 49(5)" might be a transcript of the court proceedings rather than the judgement that was published later. Zerotalk 04:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Something interesting I notice in other Supreme Court decisions is that the court spends a lot of time discussing how to understand the 1924 Palestine Order in Council. They clearly consider it to be still legally relevant to interpretation of the "status quo". So it is not entirely true that the old status quo was overthrown in 1967. Zerotalk 01:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zero0000: As usual, superb job.
@Nishidani: My issue was mainly with Pluto's blind removal of material. My edit Summery (WP:BRD See talk) clearly indicated it should be discussed so why would you remove it again w/o discussion? I think I would also like to leave Barak quote in since though nishidani's summary is good, this is an important subject which effects directly millions and undurectly billions. If this stays out, much more should. And for the love of (nonexisting) god, answer the question you were asked and don't hide behind the piece of good edit. Why repeat the story about Goren for the second time? Why remove sourced material? Why re-revert BOLD edit w/o discussion?Settleman (talk) 06:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
The Kings Order in Council is indeed a legally binding document in Israel till this day, taking into account the paragraphs that were specifically declared void. When the state of Israel was founded, it started out with all of the English law, to provide continuity. These have been replaced gradually and amended to by Israeli laws. Debresser (talk) 06:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

What I did can certainly be improved. There is no doubt about this. It is nearly impossible to write properly in a pov-ed text. The starting structure influences the final result; even more when it is not in your mother tongue.
But the issues were already discussed here above. Re-discussing without bringing any new information to keep pov pushing is just Civil pov pushing
  • the story about some women who shout Allah Akhbar at visitors is of course wp:undue in comparison with other incidents (attempts to burn al-Aqsa, to blow this or incidents that lead to intifada). Zero agreed. Nobody commented.
  • the attemps to blow Al-Aqsa is of course an attempt to change the status quo as the interdiction given to Jews under Jordan rule to come and visit was one. You only complained about the synagogue story. Well, it gives context but is not linked to Status quo indeed so I removed this.
  • the information according to which a "Legal judgement" would have given the right to Jews to breach the status quo, true or not, is wp:undue in comparison with all the statements in favor of its respect. [We just here the unfamous strategy of making false symetry of Regavim and consorts].
By the way, if you want to develop the status quo issue on the Temple Mount, just gather all information and give fairly all points of views and a global picture so that reader can understand what all this is about and all the points of view on the issues. [But you have to remove whether your settler's hat -if you are bad faith- or your settler's sunglasses -if you are good faith-. In both cases anyway, you should not edit contentious articles dealing with topics you are involved IRL.] Pluto2012 (talk) 07:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The story about Goren is already in the article (as you know since you use the same reference). How many times do you think a story should be mentioned? Does the source even relate it to the status quo? If not, it is OR. If it does, choose on which part of the article it should be.
  • It isn't a few women, it is 100s of volunteers which drew a lot of coverage in Israel and abroad. If you think it is unnotable, put an AfD on the main article.
  • I didn't understand what Regavim has to do with any of it. This court decision is still relevant today and is more important than long quotes of some interviews with settlers, shepherds or some reporters.
I didn't know there was a Status quo before 1967 and Gonen didn't mention it either (she says dayan started it). Zero's finding add some more light on it. But my initial edit was very close to the source. Using the undue card is easy and cheap. I would delete half of the criticism on Regavim if I would to play that game or condense the info about the expulsions in Susya which is poorly constructed. Someone is confusing undue with dontlikeit. Settleman (talk) 07:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I completely disagree with Pluto regarding the screaming women. Their activity is notable in itself(also because of the fact that it is sponsored by terrorist organizations), and is being undertaken with the specific goal to change the status quo, either by escalating the situation, or by deterring Jews from going up the Temple Mount with their harassment. Debresser (talk) 08:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Settleman. It was remarked sometime back, that this article exceeds the recommended size.I noted also that there was much reduplication, and that we would have to boil down and consolidate, perhaps three sections into one. Since then, it has gone up 10%. Then edit-warring began over an addition involving an extensive quote and paraphrase of one minor judgement (Gonen represents it as an opinion), which you wish to showcase. It is WP:Undue to quote in extenso an opinion that has no legal weight. Your original edit with its POV sideness ('Baseless incitements against Israel' = Palestinian concerns, etc.etc.) As Zero's brilliant detective work shows this is far more complex. What we need throughout this article is better research, and more synthesis.Nishidani (talk) 09:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I have as yet no opinion either way about Danilo or the screaming women (note that Palestinians are always 'screaming' 'rioting', 'throwing stones' here, whereas Jewish demands or encroachments are contextualized as pleas for the restitution of a 'right') except to note that these additions, if accepted by consensus, have to be pared down ('Hamas operatives' etc. is pure crap). And Debresser, reacting every time you see 'Hamas' etc., with 'terrorist organizations' is not helpful. Hamas gains backing from numerous moderate people because Fatah is so riddled with corruption (as is the whole colonial enterprise of settler and yeshiva funding) and poor local leadership that many Palestinians opt for an alternative. I know middle class Christians who vote Hamas, despite doctrinal reservations, because their local candidate has no record for taking bribes, unlike the Fatah /PA candidates. Given that this is an unresolvable conflict, where the assertion of a right means trampling on someone else's, we have no option other than stringently describing the facts, and keeping opinions to a minimum.Nishidani (talk) 09:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't claim to do perfect job on NPoV but at least I try. As I broad my interest from Susya I find it amazing how UNDUE many articles are. Your edit on HCJ is great and I tend to keep it though I think the carefully crafted (neutral) words of HCJ is far more important than a full quote of lets say Albeck or Shulman. I just don't understand why you have removed so much after it was protested as BOLD. Settleman (talk) 09:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
@Nishidani
They are screaming, that is a fact. Very loudly. That is also what reliable sources say;
These ladies and girls, sometimes including children, were indeed funded by two organizations that were officially labeled as terrorist organizations by Israel long before these ladies started their activities, so that is also fact;
If you were referring above to the quote from the Israeli High Court case, I think that is very relevant, because it shows the point of view of the highest judicial court in Israel, and a few lines are not undue attention to such a widely important ruling;
If this article is too long, that does not mean that relevant and important information should be left out or removed. At most, forks can be created. For example, that indiscriminate list of incidents that partly happened and partly didn't we are discussing above, should not be in this article, but could be on an "Incidents" article. Debresser (talk) 10:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Just as an outside voice: this. We don't remove sourced topical material (WP:NOTPAPER). If you can't establish that the source is unreliable, then you fork and link at most. — LlywelynII 03:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Tunnels

The article needs more on them, possibly in a separate section. — LlywelynII 03:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

"Roman religion"

isn't a thing. You could say "ancient Roman religion" and it's still not very good since you'd need to go into whether it's actually the Roman ancient Roman religion or some Greek or local or Hellenized local religious practice sanctioned by Rome and considered equivalent. The COMMON ENGLISH name of the whole complex is "Roman" or (better for the Hellenized east) "Greco-Roman paganism". Personally, given how few practitioners are left to be offended by the term's former negative connotations, I don't see a reason to avoid using it in favor of a phrase that could equally mean Catholicism. — LlywelynII 03:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Herodian "walls" vs. "gates""; Roman temple

@Debresser:, pls. think before editing. Knee-jerk reflexes (Arminden edits? kill them!) are ridiculous. In the lead there is no need for secondary info.

The Romans MIGHT have used the Mount for a temple, but there is ONLY ONE CONTESTED SOURCE and no archaeological or even pilgrim source for that, on the contrary: statues are mentioned, a temple is not. Also, IF there was such a temple, it had no impact. So we don't know if there was one, and it had no impact -- why insist on mentioning this ghost in the lead of an article that has so much beef, a focal point throughout the ages for its JEWISH, CHRISTIAN and MUSLIM significance?

Herodian walls: did you read the sentence? It is nonsensical as long as it says "walls". "Cutting through" means cutting through bedrock - no such thing from Herod as far as we know -, or at least cutting thr. the artificial extensions of Herod & predecessors - sure there are retaining walls hidden from view, but what's the point? Especially in the lead! Whereas gates, yes, they are essential.

Four gates: clearly a mistake. Eleven as of now. Even Herod had many more. Arminden (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)Arminden

I have no such reflexes. But you should re-read WP:BRD, I think.
Walls have gates in them. As such, I think the sentence is just fine, but to placate you I changed it to "walls and gates".
Why do you say the Enc. Brit. is contested? It is a reliable source, so we can have this in the lead.
If the number of gates is wrong, please feel fee to fix that, but don't insist on having it your way on all points, when your changes are being contested. Debresser (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
@Debresser:, sorry, I got carried away. It's terribly frustrating to see objectively good and highly useful edits being reverted.
Fact is, the T Mt is central to 3 religions, huge importance, while the Romans just took a short hike - maybe! Again, the only source about a Roman temple is strongly contested, only statues are (almost) accepted, check ANY good book on the topic. Mentioning the Romans is like saying, Napoleon was at Austerlitz, and so was I last summer.
Same issue (huge difference in relevance) concerning the "Herodian walls cutting thr. the Mount": I didn't advocate gates instead of walls, I'd have it all removed, but didn't want to upset anyone, and voila... The Herodian "box" is huge, the Temple itself was too, but what underground walls are we talking about? I honestly don't know what the sentence is all about. Substructures, like Solomon's stables? Then it's "substructures", "inner retaining walls" built to hold in position the "fill", like a "honeycomb" if you will; these would be the terms. That makes sense.
The link I saw didn't take me to the Britannica. Btw, now they're also like WP, public-edited. I fully trust the printed version, the online one - with reservations.
Gates: just count, or read anywhere. Tribes, Remission, Darkness, Bani Ghanim, Inspector, Iron, Cotton Merchants, Ablution, Tranquility/Inhabitation, Chain, Moors. 11. If Herod was meant, there were also more than 4 - I can count: Warren, Wilson, Barclay, Robinson, 2x Huldah, on eastern wall the one symmetrical to Robinson's and maybe more - 7 already from the top of my head. And prob. one around the site of the Golden Gate. First Temple: nobody knows, and the Talmud seemingly mentions 5, 1 unused (just read an article yesterday), so maybe that's what was meant, but in a context referring to TODAY's Haram, so it's plain BS if that's what was meant.
So if 11 gates, all very well documented, are "reduced" to 4 (!), I call this BS, too. Mixing together poorly documented and hardly relevant facts with major ones - the same. If one needs to argue over such stuff, then WP becomes an idiotic Sisyphus job and, what's most important, useles for the user. Can't say it often enough, IT'S ABOUT THE USEFULNESS TO THE USER, NOT ABOUT THE EDITORS[' egos, mine included]. Arminden (talk) 10:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)Arminden
It's okay. I didn't know Enc. Brit. is publicly edited. Not good. In any case, let's see if other editors have anything to say about the subjects under discussion. Debresser (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
If there was a temple, it is worth mentioning if it was only in operation for a day. It does need solid sourcing, though. — LlywelynII 08:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Agree, regarding worth mentioning. It is sourced. Debresser (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Alt names

A page like this, I understand people may have strong feelings and there might be some earlier consensus buried in the archives. So, with all due respect:

We WP:USE ENGLISH names—and only English names—in the running text. This is among the most famous locations in the world and it is simply not referred to as "Noble Sanctuary", "Har HaBayit", or "Har HaMoriya" in English. There is established formatting for foreign names and, if you want to use them in the running text, you need to push it down into a #Name section. (I think that's a good idea anyway, and the guidelines recommend it for anything with more than 3 alt names, which this certainly has. — LlywelynII 03:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, transliterated Arabic has capital letters (and should use them here) and the English name is usually simply "the Haram": we can (and should) provide the other names in the glosses on the Arabic. — LlywelynII 03:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the suggestion to make a separate names section is a good one. Debresser (talk) 12:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
If it happens, another thing that should be addressed (or mentioned and linked to) is a discussion of why it is sometimes written al-Sharif, sometimes ash-Sharif, and sometimes al-Šarif. I think the last one is an over-precious alt romanization but (outside of the #Name section addressing the variants) we should stick with the ALA-LC romanization of Modern Standard Arabic for the rest of the body. I'm not sure what that is, precisely, but right now the lead and the infobox disagree with each other. — LlywelynII 02:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The question of how to transliterate the definite article occurs with most names that use it. I don't think it is appropriate to discuss it in this article. We should be consistent though. Zerotalk 10:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Zero0000 on the subject of alliteration taking place with the definite article, that this is not the place to go into it at length. A mention at most of both possibilities. Debresser (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Archeological evidence of existence of temple

The article discusses the religious presumption of the existence of the first and second temples on the Temple Mount as a given and a considerable amount of space is dedicated to discussing the numerous archeological digs which have taken place in order to try to locate some evidence of the existence of the temples on the Mount, however, the article does not state that so far no compelling evidence has been located to prove that the Temple Mount is the actual location of the destroyed temples, assuming that they ever actually existed, since we are talking about something that has disappeared more than 2000 years ago. There is ample independent reporting of the lack of concrete evidence of the existence of remains of the temple on the Temple Mount, see for example http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/world/middleeast/historical-certainty-proves-elusive-at-jerusalems-holiest-place.html?_r=0 and http://www.haaretz.com/life/archaeology/.premium-1.627324

This is an issue of central importance to understanding the history and status of the Temple Mount, particularly in light of the special role it plays in the Israeli/Palestinian dispute and presumably a wikipedia article on this topic should make this issue to clear to readers who would otherwise assume from reading the article that the existence of the biblical temple on the Temple Mount is a historic certainty despite the absence of concrete evidence to support this.

The NYT article was misleading, and has since been corrected. There is a massive quantity of evidence, including remaining structures (e.g., the retaining walls including the Western Wall itself), contemporary documentation (e.g., Josephus, the Christian scriptures), continuous identification via Jewish and Christian and Islamic sources, and so forth. It is literally impossible that the Temple was built anywhere other than Temple Mount, although there is a good deal of debate as to *exactly where* it was within the site - i.e., where the Dome of the Rock is now, or fifty feet to one side, or the other, or whatever.
There has never been substantial archaeological study of the site. It's very possible that there are no identifiable remains of the First Temple, because Herod reportedly cut off the top of the Mount and used it as infill for his newly-constructed retaining walls. None the less, it's a good bet that the First Temple was on the same site, because why wouldn't it have been? Why would the returning exiles choose a different spot? I suppose it's an arguable point, but you need a good alternative in order to have an argument. Joe in Australia (talk) 00:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2015

"please change Temple Mount to AL-aksa mosque because its disrespectful to the feelings of one billion muslims in the whole world, and tha Temple Mount is just a myth in the heads of zionests " 93.212.114.1 (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

In addition, if the Temple Mount is a Zionist myth, then we need an article to write about that too. Not to mention, that you may find the myth to be a myth as well. All of this should be written somewhere, and that is what this article is for. Debresser (talk) 08:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

New information

I don't have time to pull the original sources and don't have the skill to properly add this to the article, but this should be added. Add the following evidence. There have been other archaeological discoveries as well from the digging done at the al-Aksa site.[1][2]

Salsany (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

To editor: Sorry, when I used clandestine I was referring to the original work done to build the new exits. The dumping of the debris was done clandestinely. There have been several articles concerning this, I grabbed the first reputable article I could find via a quick google search.

Salsany (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Source for elevation?

I'm seeking a reliable source for the elevation of Temple Mount. I'm trying to verify the precision of the 740m figure. —hike395 (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The Cambridge History of Judaism: The early Roman period, Volume 3[3]
Thanks. I keep seeing "about" 740m in various non-technical tertiary sources. Not sure whether this comes from sources copying each other. It would be nice to verify with a primary or secondary source. —hike395 (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
A topographic map, confirming the 740 figure, can be found here. The "about" is because the elevation is not uniform on the whole of the Temple Mount. Debresser (talk) 23:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Have you looked at the text of the article, under "Location and dimensions", right before footnote 18? That source is available for preview on Google Books. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I looked at Lundquist, 2007, where there is a reference to another source which measures imperial units (2420 feet), which made me suspect that the 740 meter value was rounded. Debresser's pointer to the rough topo map is helpful -- it looks like 740m is approximately correct and supported by multiple sources, but is not accurate to 1 meter. Thanks for the help, everyone! —hike395 (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
As mentioned, the surface is far from flat. I have multiple reliable maps that can be cited. The minimum elevation of the platform is about 731m at the Golden Gate (not counting a sudden dip to 728m right at the gate). The maximum is 742.8m at the NW corner of the rectangular-ish platform which the Dome of the Rock sits on. Not counting that platform, the maximum is a tiny bit over 740m. Tell me what you would like and I'll source it. Beware of sources of unknown origin like the contour map here — it is not a map of the present situation but someone's theory on how the mountain would have looked originally. Zerotalk 04:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Constantine and "Official Religion"

Under "Late Roman Period": "Emperor Constantine I decreed Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire..."

While it is only tangentially mentioned in this article, it is simply false. Constantine only legalized (that is, decriminalized) Christianity. Because of the article's status, I am unable to make that change. Someone please fix this. --205.234.58.228 (talk) 05:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

only? Well, actually he legislated extensively to lower taxes on Christian priests, and wrote into the legal code many measures that reflected Christian priorities, such as the manumission of slaves, the abolition of crucifixion, rendering it illegal, the inheritance tax laws which punished those unable to procreate, and the institution of Sunday as a prescribed holiday for all etc.etc. He redirected Roman practices towards Christianity. You have a point, though, and the articled should be tweaked. He is generally credited with instituting the Christianization of the Roman world, something like that. I'll look it up.Nishidani (talk) 09:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks deeply suspect. Discuss

I haven't removed this, but it looks like WP:SYNTH and a skewing of very contradictory reports from that period.

Hadrian had intended the construction of the new city as a gift to the Jews, but since he had constructed a giant statue of himself in front of the Temple of Jupiter and the Temple of Jupiter had a huge statue of Jupiter inside of it, there were on the Temple Mount now two enormous graven images, which Jews considered idolatrous. It was also customary in Roman rites to sacrifice a pig in land purification ceremonies.[1] In addition to this, Hadrian issued a decree prohibiting the practice of circumcision. These three factors, the graven images, the sacrifice of pigs before the altar, and the prohibition of circumcision, are thought to have constituted for non-Hellenized Jews a new abomination of desolation, and thus Bar Kochba launched the Third Jewish Revolt.[citation needed]

  1. ^ Brian J. Incigneri,The Gospel to the Romans:the setting and rhetoric of Mark's gospel, BRILL 2003 p.192.
  • Antiochus IV is said to have desecrated the temple with pig's blood. That's in 16Os BCE
  • A report re Titus's conquest of the city in 70CE also mentions legionnaires sacrificing a pig in Jerusalem.
  • I can't find a report of this re Hadrian.
  • On circumcision as a triggering cause, that is a controversy, not a fact, since the sources re this are problematic, and it is even possible that the circumcision laws were imposed after the outbreak of the revolt and not therefore one of the constituent causes. Menachem Mor, The Second jewish Revolt: The Bar Kochba Revolt, 132-136, BRILL 2016 p.17
  • I've put a source in for pig slaughter, but only to correct the impression made by the earlier writing that this was somehow a calculated defiling of the site (as it reportedly was for Antiochus IV), rather than a ritual practice to purify land captured.
Unless this passage can be properly rewritten, according to recent scholarship, on the causes, it should be removed.Nishidani (talk) 13:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

(2)The article has been deeply affected by WP:RECENTISM, further more, in the sense that the modern religious struggle since 1967 has generated a huge amount of myths about how central the Temple itself is to defining Judaism. Jacob Neusner, as usual thinking with erudite detachment, wrote of the general population from the Herodian period onwards, not, as is the vice in many of these articles, as that populations feelings are imagined by a priestly tradition, as follows:

But long before 70 the Temple had been rejected by some Jewish groups. Its sanctity, as we shall see, had been arrogated by others and for large numbers of ordinary Jews outside of Palestine as well as substantial numbers within, the Temple was a remote and, if holy, an unimportant place. For them, piety was fully expressed through synagogue worship. In a very real sense, therefore, for the Christian Jews, who were indifferent to the Temple cult, for the Jews at Qumran, who rejected the Temple, for the Jews of Leontopolis, in Egypt, who had their own Temple, but especially for the masses of diasporan Jews who never saw the Temple to begin with, but served God through synagogue worship alone, the year 70 cannot be said to have marked an important change'. (Jacob Neusner, Early Rabbinic Judaism: Historical Studies in Religion, Literature and Art, Brill Archive, 1975 p.35); Menachem Mor, The Second jewish Revolt: The Bar Kochba Revolt, 132-136, BRILL 2016 p.27.

What the article is doing is asserting a tacit pan-Jewish identitarian claim on the basis of the modern pressures on the Mount, that has, itself difficulties, with its historical roots. See also User:Zero0000's evidence at Talk:Temple Mount entry restrictions.Nishidani (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 18:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hacking

Today, User:Garchy changed "Crusaders hacked open an entrance to the cave from the south" to "Crusaders opened an entrance to the cave from the south". His stated reason was "hacked implies a POV".[4] I reverted that edit with the stated reason " 'hacking' is what you do with an ax. No POV.".[5] User:Garchy then posted on my talkpage and repeated that in his opinion "the word 'hack' ... is a verb being used in a negative connotation towards the Crusaders".[6] I still disagree with that claim, and see no negative connotation in the usage of the word "hack" in the way it is used in the sentence above. He also said on my talkpage that the "change to 'opened' did not lose any important factual information to this article". I actually disagree with that too: if we use just "opened", we don't know how it was opened, but if we say "hack open" we know how it was done. Please your opinions. Debresser (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Debresser here. There is no pov using or negative connotation in stating that "crusaders hacked open an entrance" and I also agree with him that stating "crusaders opened an entrance" is less precise. By the way, it was war time... Pluto2012 (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm okay if consensus says that "opened" is not the way to go, but I still disagree that "hacked open" is the term to go with - I could not find any citation or reference that shows an axe was used, or that the entrance was "hacked" (as a matter of fact this entire section, "Dome of the Rock Platform" is entirely unreferenced). The Well of Souls article simply states that there is "a cut passage thought to date to Crusader times". My objection is not simply POV related, but that it is unreferenced and does not match other Wiki pages on the topic. Is there any clear citation that implies this was "hacked"? Otherwise this entire section should be stripped down ("hacked" or "opened" regardless) until citations can be found. Thanks, Garchy (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Sure! I haven't checked but I considered that there was a source stating that axes were used... Debresser ? Pluto2012 (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
The Well of Souls article says "a cut passage thought to date to Crusader times", also without source. Debresser (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
The same appears in this article, where it adds "They made many radical physical changes to the site at this time, including cutting away much of the rock to make staircases". Debresser (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
This article says "They [the crusaders] were cutting away much of the rock to make staircases and paving the Stone over with marble slabs. They enlarged the main entrance of the cave and probably are also responsible for creating the shaft ascending from the center of the chamber." So they use the word "cutting". Debresser (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from a quick read around, it isn't even certain that the passage is due to the Crusaders. I don't understand the comment about wartime since there is no military value in this passage. More specifically to this discussion, I disagree with both Debresser and Pluto about the word "hack". The word "hack" implies a particular crudity and lack of care in the creation of the passage. That is the meaning of the word "hack" in English! Writing "hacked open" rather that "opened" or "cut open" is not just reporting a fact but stating a negative opinion about it. On the basis of what source? On the contrary, the passage is more likely to have been created for religious reasons (to allow easier access for pilgrims, for example) and in that case its construction would have been anything but crude. Zerotalk 02:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok for me then. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 January 2017

In the seventh paragraph, just before note 23, the line ' . . . to avoid disturbing the Christian quarters of jerusalem.' should be changed to ' . . . to avoid disturbing the Christian quarters of Jerusalem.' Jerusalem is a proper noun and, as such, should be capitalized. J1776 (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on 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:

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) 05:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Haram esh-Sharif or Haram al-Sharif?

According to the page, the Temple Mount is called (transliterated) Haram esh-Sharif in Arabic. But there's no redirect from that name, while there is a redirect from Haram al-Sharif, and that matches the text al-Ḥaram al-Šarīf that follows in the article. Given the sensitivity of the matter, I don't want to change unilaterally, but I will if nobody objects within 7 days. Groogle (talk) 02:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

It's the same. Read Arabic definite article for some explanation. I'll add a redirect from Haram esh-Sharif. Zerotalk 02:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
The "al" it alliterated with the "sh" sound of the word following it. So these are the same. Thanks to Zero for the reply and the creation of the redirect. Debresser (talk) 10:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
There is a point on which I disagree.
The Temple Mount and the Haram al-Sharif are not the same place / Holy Place / area.
The Temple Mount refers to an area (a Mount) where there was a Temple in the Past. Nothing currenlty existing there is sacralized. It is only the Area that is sacred and it is so because of what was there in the Past or because of what still exists from this time.
The Haram al-Sharif is an area that is sacred because of the different mosquees that stand there. But the place is not sacred or Holy just by itself. Even if the esplanade is sacred but it is because it is between the Mosquees.
Stating the Temple Mount is named Haram al-Sharif by the Muslims is false.
We could add that there are clear and known differencies. The Westnern Wall is not part of the Haram al-Sharif but it is clearly on the Temple Mount.
Both these Holy places should not be mixed. Pluto2012 (talk) 12:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Interesting point. But they do roughly coincide. Perhaps we should say that. Debresser (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I do insist. How could buildings coincide with a place ? Pluto2012 (talk) 04:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Geographically, I mean. But I get your point. Debresser (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 July 2017

Add the text below the dashed line to section 8, Recent Events. The addition consists of easily verifiable facts of the event and is written so that it can be easily added to as the impact of the attacks and the resulting protests unfold. This is an important event and needs some coverage in wikipedia.

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

On July 14th, 2017, three men from the Israeli-Arab city of Umm al-Fahm opened fire on two Israeli Druze policemen at the Lions' Gate.[1] Gun attacks are unusual at the Temple Mount in recent decades.[2]

Following the attack, the site was shut down and reopened on Sunday, July 21st with metal detector equipped checkpoints, spurring calls for protests by Muslim leaders associated with the site.[3] OriEri (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Ariel, Omri. "Temple Mount terrorists named, identified as 3 Israeli Arabs from Umm al-Fahm". Jerusalem Online. Retrieved 19 July 2017.
  2. ^ Unattributed. "Israeli police killed in attack near Jerusalem holy site". BBC. Retrieved 19 July 2017.
  3. ^ Shaham, Udi. "Muslim authority protests Temple Mount security measures, blocks entrance". Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 19 July 2017.
Just a minor grammatical point. Awkward tense conflict in the sentence "Gun attacks are unusual at the Temple Mount in recent decades" (verb 'are' is present tense; phrase "in recent decades" is past). I suggest replacing 'are' with 'have been'. Combirom2 (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 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:

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) 05:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 September 2017

On July 14, 2017 the Jordanian Waqf effectively lost control of the Temple Mount for the first time since 1967. Since then it has remained in the hands of Israeli police. This came in the wake of the tragic shooting of two Israeli police officers by Palestinian terrorists on the previous Friday. Israel installed metal detectors at the entrances and announced that they will remain in place indefinitely. Lacroil (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done. 1. Not a specific request for editing in a particular way; 2. Old news. A quick search shows that the metal detectors were removed 11 days later. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thousands of years

"that has been venerated as a holy site for thousands of years by Jews, Christians, and Muslims."

This is plainly wrong, as Islam is not thousands of years old, it is around one a half thousand. (It is the year 1439 AH.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijri_year

It is true that the site is regarded in retrospect as a holy site to Muslims as they regard themselves as a continuation of sorts of the Jewish tradition. But as there were no Muslims thousands of years ago, there were none to regard the site as holy.

Please correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.30.115.181 (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Besides, it's obvious that nobody has ever venerated the site for more than 100, 120 years tops. No good reason provided for changing the article. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 02:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
It has been venerated by Jews for thousands of years. Second Temple era practices (2000-2500 years ago) rebarding this are well documented - in period history as well as modern archaeolgy e.g. Temple Warning inscription.Icewhiz (talk) 05:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

- you both miss the point i was making. see below:

The statement "venerated as a holy site for thousands of years ... and Muslims." Muslims didn't exist more than 1500 years ago. The sentence should read: " that has been venerated as a holy site for thousands of years by Jews, and in the last two thousand by Christians and Muslims." Edit by Chris D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.30.115.181 (talk) 06:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Please change the sentence.

It depends on your parsing of "and" - if you apply a Boolean mask - you'd be correct. However in common speech "and" does not require the previous statement to be wholly true for each sub-group specified (i.e. - this would be parsed as "that has been venerated as a holy site for thousands" (which is correct, and probably pre-dates Judaism) and separately as a list of those who have venerated in the past few thousands years (which does not require that each one (or even any - you could have (not here with these 3, possibly with pre-Israelite) a "handoff" situation) meet the few thousands).Icewhiz (talk) 06:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

While I appreciate you can argue grammar here, the phrase can be read as if all three had thousands of years. This makes it unclear, possibly deliberately to mix the religions rather than establish the history of veneration. I would say this could be a deliberate attempt to equate the three, rather than point out the latter came from the former (which isn't obvious to all).

"that has been venerated as a holy site for thousands of years by Jews, Christians, and Muslims."

If there was a comma after years, I could agree with you. For example:

that has been venerated as a holy site for thousands of years, by Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

However, as there is no comma, the veneration is done for thousands of years by the three groups mentioned immediately after.

It misrepresents reality.

Reality would be:

that has been venerated as a holy site for thousands of years by Jews, and since the first century and 7th century by Christians and Muslims respectively.

Can someone at least add the comma after years? Thanks - Chris D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.30.115.181 (talk) 01:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Christians venerated the site since circa the 1st century. Cleansing of the Temple and other Jesus related stuff. Muslims since sometime after the conquest of Jerusalem in the 7th. Jewish veneration is actually tricky to pin down (but is thousands of years - at least 2500 as a lower bound (Babylonian exile and second temple), possible 3500). But I don't think we need to go into exact chronology of each in this sentence.Icewhiz (talk) 07:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Just call it "centuries", instead of thousands. Snappy, accurate and conveys the general idea. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the sentence can stay as it is. After all, it is true that the site has been kept holy for thousands of years, just not by all of them at the same time. And that is pretty obvious. This is a case over being overly precise. Debresser (talk) 09:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Overly precise? Isn't the point of an encyclopaedia to be true? The sentence is plainly meant to be misleading by equating the three religions as somehow equal in length of time and therefore claim to 'ownership' of the site. This is clearly untrue, as the second two only venerate the site due to its value to the first one. How is it obvious if the sentence makes it look like they all have equal claim? Centuries is a good compromise. I like it. -Chris D

If none of you are brave enough to write a better sentence, please add a comma after "years". - Chris D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.69.144.159 (talk) 02:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe that simple comma is well justified and would correct and clarify the statement better than a wording change. Shall we add it? Hertz1888 (talk) 02:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
The comma only makes sense if we add ", among others" or a similar phrase to the end of the sentence. As currently punctuated, the sentence lists the groups that venerate the Temple Mount. With a comma, it would list examples of groups that venerate it. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 14:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I am comfortable with adding the comma and ", among others". Is there a general consensus to proceed? Hertz1888 (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
For "among others", you'd need to know of at least one more religion that venerates the Temple Mount. Mandaeism vilifies Jerusalem. There probably is some religion that venerates - but you'd need to be able to show an example.Icewhiz (talk) 15:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't recall from the bible whether the Temple Mount was considered sacred before the Israelites conquered Canaan. It is probably considered sacred by Bahá'ís today, but I don't know for sure. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 15:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I believe that the Jebusites' are implied to have worshipped there according to the bible, however that would be a RS issue (in particular since the Israelites, in modern scholarship, are seen as an organic development (in the highlands) and not as an invading force). I think we should avoid "among others" - even if we do manage to find a minor veneration, as it would seem to imply some sort of equivalence.Icewhiz (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I also think a comma would help. Debresser (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
You don't need 'among others' to make sense. As currently punctuated it states the veneration was done for thousands of years by each group, but they are still examples of groups. Nowhere does it imply exclusivity. - Chris D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.69.144.159 (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Instead of pandering to any group just be honest and accurate.

Why would Wikipedia pander to those who reject honesty and accuracy? Pperrin uk (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

If Wikipedia wants to misinform and not be honest and accurate then rather than seek to hide this with weasel wording and punctuation it would be best to leave it as it is so anyone with half a brain can see that it is a fake article. Pperrin uk (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Please don't exaggerate. his is not misinformation. it is technically correct, just that it is hard to make up an easyflowing sentence to say this more accurately, and I for one think it is not necessary to go into details in such a general statement. Debresser (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
It is not technically correct. The veneration was not done by the stated subjects for the time specified. 1439 years is not "thousands". - Chris D (It is the year 1439 AH, See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_calendar). It is impossible to venerate something before you existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.69.144.159 (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

It is impossible to venerate something before you existed. With respect, it is impossible. --chris d — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.69.144.159 (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

It is technically correct. For example, if I say "John and Paul bought merchandise worth thousands of dollars", that may still mean that John bought for $1,500 and Paul for $5,500. That is one of the effects of using "and", that we stop regarding the individual and start looking at the sumtotal. Debresser (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay, you may be right on the technicality. But your example isn't equivalent in meaning.
In your example, the merchandise's worth is accumulative not concurrent, and the use of "and" here can mean the total applies to either the two combined or each individual. The addition of either "together" or "each" at the end of the sentence would clarify which meaning you wanted to convey. So it is an unclear sentence.
A correct equivalent would be "John and Paul lived for thousands of years", that may still mean that John lived for 1,500 years and Paul for 5,500". Clearly you don't usually add John's years to Paul. So John didn't live for thousands of years. Only one and a half thousand.
If the basic role of a sentence is convey a meaning, surely the introductory sentence (and your example) both fail that basic role as they can be read in different ways.
As I understand it, the use of a 'serial comma' after the "and" here means the series is a list. And the list is three groups that have been doing the venerating, either for the time specified or as a part of a subset of that time. But rather than accumulating time (you could write billions of years, as if we added each person I'm sure we could get there), it is a single, albeit vague, time period. Thousands of years.
In conclusion, I see your point and concede the technicality. However the role of a sentence could be to convey meaning in a simple way. If we wish to convey that the three Abrahamic religions have somewhat equal claim to, and time of, the veneration of the site, then that is the meaning this sentence conveys.
Thanks for the debate, I'm out. Regards Chris D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.196.175.129 (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Please add the comma after years? Thank you.
"is a hill located in the Old City of Jerusalem that has been venerated as a holy site for thousands of years, by Jews, Christians, and Muslims.
CD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.196.175.129 (talk) 03:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

[7]. Debresser (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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:

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) 21:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

3rd Temple - Herod's Temple

Herod's Temple was the 3rd Temple. It was not just an insignificant alteration to the 2nd Temple - Zerubbabel's Temple. The Romans ransacked and destroyed* Herod's Temple in 70 AD - 74 years after Herod's death in 4 BC.

Well, that is an interesting statement, but not clear what it is based upon, since sources seem to disagree with it. Debresser (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

New external link?

Hi, I don't know if this is the proper procedure to do this, but I'd like to add one external link that I think is quite interesting. It's a complete compendium kinda thing regarding the sites on Temple Mount, please guide how/if it can be added? regards

http://madainproject.com/temple_mount

Moughera (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

After a quick Google search, I wasn't able to find any info on the Madain Project or the Center for Study of Islamic History, which it appears to be affiliated with. Are you sure the project is reliable? If it is, I wouldn't be opposed to adding the link to the article. It looks like it could be a useful resource. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

It is a reliable source as the content at Madain Project it self has source citations where needed, the project is relatively new and is still being communicated. It is a useful resource as you pointed out, authoritative content. Moughera (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

What citations are you talking about? I see a few links to the sources of images, but no citations for any of the text. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 08:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Text itself has citations were it is presenting a point of view or making a statement, but more often so the text is merely an explanation of the image. The text accompanying a particular image is not "presenting any idea" it's merely explaining the image. Also if you could recommend a strategy, please do so. Thanks. Moughera (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion re third holiest site in Islam

See Talk:Al-Aqsa_Mosque#Third_holiest_site_in_Islam. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

According to the Bible only?

It says that "According to the Bible, the Jewish Temples stood on the Temple Mount". Why not simply write "The Jewish Temples stoon on the Temple Mount", if this claim is supported by sufficient amount of historical sources and archilogical evidence (which presumably is the case). If so then there is no reason to only use the Bible as support for this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.195.155.109 (talk) 12:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not so simple. While there are some sources, external to the bible, supporting the existence of Solomon's Temple - there aren't good ones regarding its precise location in Jerusalem. The Second Temple is believed to have been built over the site of the first (and this is almost certainly correct - but...) and does have archaeological as well as documentary evidence outside of the Bible (e.g. Josephus). So while you can make the stmt for the second (ignoring the rather modern Temple denial) - the first is more tricky. Icewhiz (talk) 12:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 January 2019

In the fifth paragraph, change "mantiaining" to "maintaining". Maven721 (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for pointing out the misspelling. I've corrected it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 December 2018

"According to the Bible, the Jewish Temples stood on the Temple Mount.[4]"

Should read, "According to the Jewish Tradition, the Jewish Temples stood on the Temple Mount."

This current statement is incorrect and the supporting reference does not make any such statement.

In this article, https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070212113227.htm, a professor from Hebrew University has an alternative theory on the location (as do many other archeologists and theological scholars). What is important, though, is the professor's statement "which is in a spot that differs from prevailing opinion." And that is the crux of the problem with the current statement. The Temple Mount location is an opinion, not a fact. There is no Biblical reference pointing to the Temple Mount.

The location of the temples is a controversial topic and cannot be resolved on this page. It is not my intent to support one location over another. Rather, just to establish the location is not in the Bible as currently stated.

This article from Jewish faithful is attempting to prove the Temple Mount is the correct location.

https://www.templemountfaithful.org/articles/the-real-location-of-the-first-second-and-third-holy-temple-is-on-the-temple-mount-in-jerusalem.php

Please look at the fourth paragraph and note the writer is unable to provide Torah sourcing. Rather, he confirms the Jewish belief that the location is known based on Jewish tradition.

"For thousands of years the Jewish people have passed along from father to son and from generation to generation the known fact that the Holy Temple Mount is the only location of the First, the Second, and the soon to be built Third Holy Temple."

Lastly, I submit this NY Times article that makes the case that the location of the temple is unknown with no textual or archaeological support available.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/world/middleeast/historical-certainty-proves-elusive-at-jerusalems-holiest-place.html?_r=0

“This is a very politically loaded subject,” said Matthew J. Adams, Dorot director of the W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem. “It’s also an academically complex question.”

Mr. Adams said, “We just don’t have enough primary source data, textual or archaeological, to say where it was with any confidence.” Israeltravelguide (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

There may be differing opinions whether the Temple stood a few meters to the left or the right, so to speak, but it definitely stood on the Temple Mount. I mean, we can still see the walls that surrounded it during the latter days of its existence. Any opinion that would claim differently is simply fringe. Debresser (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Debresser, you are wrong. The scholarly debate around this has been mainstream for 100 years. There is no way to be certain that the visible structures bear any connection to Solomon's Temple, nor is there any hard evidence that Solomon's Temple was more than a figment of religious imagination. The only real evidence connecting the structure to the Biblical stories is the interpretation that Robinson's Arch seemed similar to what was written in Josephus. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Umm, no. The location (on the mount - there are disagreements on where exactly on the top of the mount) of the second temple is not in any doubt from a scholarly point of view - including archaeological evidence. That the first temple sat on the site of the second - is a biblical claim. The existence of the first temple is also established - the association with Solomon (as opposed to much later Judean kings) is indeed doubted.Icewhiz (talk) 21:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Wendy Pullan; Maximilian Sternberg; Lefkos Kyriacou (20 November 2013). The Struggle for Jerusalem's Holy Places. Routledge. p. 9. ISBN 978-1-317-97556-4. The sources for the first temple are solely biblical, and no substantial archaeological remains have been verified. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Onceinawhile (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
I think this discussion misses the point. The question is whether "According to the Bible" is correct. Does the Bible state that the first temple was on the Temple Mount or not? We can all agree that it was there according to majority Jewish tradition. Zerotalk 08:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Sounds like a valid point indeed. In addition, I maintain my first point as well. Debresser (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
The bible does contain "הר בית ה" (temple mount) in relation to the first temple.Icewhiz (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that phrase occurs only in Isaiah 2.2 : "In the days to come, The Mount of the LORD’s House Shall stand firm above the mountains And tower above the hills; And all the nations Shall gaze on it with joy." (Jewish Publication Society translation) It fails to answer my question for multiple reasons. (1) It only refers to the temple on a mountain, not which mountain; (2) The topography does not match the Temple Mount, as many others have noticed. A better answer would be a biblical statement that the second temple was built on the same hill as the first temple. Zerotalk 00:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
My search also came up with "ע֥וֹד הַיּ֖וֹם בְּנֹ֣ב לַעֲמֹ֑ד יְנֹפֵ֤ף יָדוֹ֙ הַ֣ר בַּית־בַּת־צִיּ֔וֹן גִּבְעַ֖ת יְרוּשָׁלִָֽם:" (Isiah 10.32) and "וְהָיָ֣ה׀ בְּאַחֲרִ֣ית הַיָּמִ֗ים יִ֠הְיֶה הַ֣ר בֵּית־יְהוָ֤ה נָכוֹן֙ בְּרֹ֣אשׁ הֶהָרִ֔ים וְנִשָּׂ֥א ה֖וּא מִגְּבָע֑וֹת וְנָהֲר֥וּ עָלָ֖יו עַמִּֽים:" (Micah 4.1). I agree the question is not one of terminology (temple mount - הר בית ה) - as the terminology was used in the bible but whether the biblical temple mount is the same as the modern day temple mount - a question of biblical association. And yes - Ezra–Nehemiah I think states the second was built on the first (not sure where, there is the line is Ezra3 on how the old men who saw the first temple cried at seeing the second). The scientific association of the second temple (or more specifically, Herod's renovated temple) to the temple mount is fairly clear cut - for the first temple - there are some recent finds (past 5 years) - but not much.Icewhiz (talk) 08:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I have added a section on this topic based on Eliav. I couldn’t find anything on the question of the Second Temple being built on the same site as the first. I have opened a discussion at Talk:Second Temple on that topic. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:41, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
In regards to the terminology - obviously while the temple stood - it is not surprising one referred to the temple and not the mount (I'll also note that prior to the building of the retaining walls by Herod - the mount itself was less of a feature). It might be worthwhile mentioning that in the Torah - the place is referred to as "המקום אשר יבחר ה" (the place god will choose - future voice as the text is, supposedly, referring to a future event) and also somewhat as "הר המוריה". Icewhiz (talk) 11:59, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Jack Frost (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 March 2019

I'll like to make a few corrections to the early Muslim period part under History concerning Al-Aqsa and temple shops called Chanuyot/hanuyot.

The article should read Al-Aqsa was built on Chanuyots as the article of Chanuyot itself states they were destroyed by Romans which makes a weird contradiction.

The only source mentioning the relation of the two is CAMPSCI's illustration which states al-Aqsa was built on remain of another building (Chanuyot is the topic of the source).

https://web.archive.org/web/20121021222606/http://www.campsci.com/museum/room18.htm - The illustration, the seocnd source or the drawing is from this illustration.

"Josephus, the Jewish War: Newly Translated with Extensive Commentary and Archaeological Background Illustrations" page 4 by Ge'alyahu Ḳornfeld, historians Benjamin Mazar, Paul L. Maier mentions porticos of "hanuyots" being under Aqsa.

I hope there is no problem with the book not being completely available but the only source mentioning it says Al Aqsa is on remains of Chanuyots. Another book mentions remains. The destruction and damage to Temple Mount under Roomans is well-known and mentioned in this article like that of Chanuyot.

The current language makes it seem like it's the exact building with any new brick being added by the Umayyad caliph al-Walid. IRGCfan (talk) 01:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: This may be correct, I haven't yet researched it, but:
(1) you should raise this at Talk:Al-Aqsa Mosque before raising here, as that is the more specific article. Changes should be first made at Al-Aqsa_Mosque#Architecture; and
(2) we need much better sources for what may be a controversial topic. There are many high quality sources on the architectural heritage of the Al Aqsa mosque, so I suggest you start reading there.
Onceinawhile (talk) 09:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
See User_talk:Onceinawhile#Al_Aqsa_and_Chanuyot
I hadn’t understood that this was already in the article with a clearly unreliable source. I will remove it.
Onceinawhile (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. IRGCfan (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

[8]  Done Onceinawhile (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Temple_Mount/Archive_3&oldid=1075141222"