Talk:Temple Mount/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 March 2019

This is concerning the building of Al-Aqsa about which I would like to make suggestions to add. I have checked some books. The mosque is often attributed to al-Walid I but there are differing opinions. I would also like some extra details to be added regarding other activity under Umayyads

Amikam Elad states that Mutahhar bin Tahir al-Maqdisi writing in mid-10th century claimed that it was the Umayyad ruler Muawiyah I had the al-Aqsa mosque. Jacob Lassner disagrees stating that Maqdisi never named the mosque built by Muawiyah. Myriam Rosen-Ayalon cites medieval scholars to state that Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan constructed the great Al-Aqsa mosque in place of the first one.

Said Ibn Batriq states that Abd al-Malik expanded the zone of the mosque in 685 to include the Foundation Stone. Per Al-Muqadassi, he also had the outer walls of the Haram built. He also ascribed envy towards the magnificence of the Church of Holy Sepulchre's dome of the Anastasis.

Carved wooden panels used to decorate the ceiling beams were recovered from al-Aqsa and were likely taken from a Byzantine Church as seen from the Greek carvings on them. These panels were later redecorated in the eighth century which Robert Hamilton and K. A. C. Creswell dated to the reign of al-Mahdi.

Georges Marçais and Henri Stern opposed this opinion. Stern referred to the second al-Aqsa mosque as the creation of the Ummayads, likely Al-Walid I. The papyri found at Aphrodito state that Coptic craftsmen were employed by Al-Walid in Jerusalem for a building. Both Stern and Rina Talgam noted the similarity of the mosque's wood carvings to that of Khirbat al-Mafjar palace, which Tina claims is similar to Coptic art. She thus asserts that the Copts mentioned in the Aphrodito papyri were employed to build the mosque.

The supposed connection of Temple Mount with Muhammad's night journey didn't exist during the early Muslim caliph and only came into being later, probably after Walid's death according to Heribert Busse in The Holy Land in History and Thought page 242. The first mosque was built was solely for pragmatic reasons. Due to it being the location of the Second Temple, it gained more importance for the Muslims which led to building the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa.

If anyone has time, please consider checking this and change the wording as you see fit. IRGCfan (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Not all the content is seemingly supported by the sources provided. MrClog (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Third temple

The lede states: “Jewish tradition maintains it is here that a third and final Temple will also be built.[citation needed]”. Can anyone confirm:

• Specifically which Jewish writings / traditions
• Do they explicitly state the location
• Do they say it will be final

Thanks. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Without pulling a citation for this - the "final temple" is coupled to the Messiah in Judaism. AFAIK if a third temple were to be constructed by someone other than the messiah - then the "finality" is out of the equation (though of course in any prayer, one would pray for a third temple that wouldn't be destroyed). Third Temple (messy in its own way - the hewiki seems better written/sourced) might be useful in finding a sourcing. Aside from location (and well - the messiah making everything AOK again - temple, resurrection, etc.) - details (through Julian (emperor)'s project in 362 to various other notions) - vary. Icewhiz (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I just read the Messiah in Judaism and the Third Temple articles.

Both of them seem to quote from books of the bible – i.e. preceding the destruction of the second temple in 70CE. In fact most are from before the building of the second temple, so any prediction of rebuilding would have related to a second temple, not a third?

I assume the tradition must by definition relate to the Talmud / Mishnah?

Onceinawhile (talk) 19:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Onceinawhile (talk) 19:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Umm... Well, the Torah blueprints are of course relevant (as they are general temple instructions). Then you have Book of Ezekiel (written after #1 was burnt) with visions of the rebuilt Temple... Since #2 was rather small to begin with and even with Herodian expansions (rather large, though Herod and Judiasm is complex...) doesn't come close to Ezekiel's prophecy (with dimensions and all) - then Ezekiel is still in play and live (of course with the provisio that not all prophecy comes along....)..... I think you are expecting some single PRIMARY source here - but there really isn't one (aside from the basic Torah, which is the underlying basis). The idea of a temple is fairly central to Judiasm (even though post-2nd temple Judiasm moved away from central temple worship) - and analysis of temple practice - past and future - runs through many Jewish texts - and they don't all agree with one another - and modern Jews don't agree (e.g. contrast non-Orthodox views that the Temple is obsolete, Orthodox Jews who won't go on the Temple mount and advocate waiting for the messiah, and temple reconstruction activists - who often use the Rambam). As an analogy - you have many sand castles of text built upon earlier substrata - and AFAIK there is no single unified view accepted by all. Icewhiz (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

AFAIK - there is no contesting of the location (which is the mount, which is accepted as "the place God will choose" in the Torah).Icewhiz (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but

• Ezekiel's prophetic visions are believed to describe the Third Temple, as the physical structure and procedures he describes there do not match what is found in the Torah.
• Maimonides, in the Mishneh Torah (Sefer Shoftim, Hilchos Melachim 11) says the Messiah will initiate the construction of the Third Temple by the Jewish people. In his Sefer Hamitzvot he lists building the Temple as one of the 613 commandments, as does Sefer ha-Chinuch.
• Rashi and Tosafot on Sukkah 41a say the Third Temple will descend from heaven fully built.

I'm not aware of any dispute regarding the future building/rebuilding of a Third Temple in terms of the location (the Temple Mount in Jerusalem), or that it will be the final one, as it will be during the Messianic Age. The main dispute appears to be regarding whether people or God will build it. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Or both. Debresser (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The current mainstream Orthodox view is during the Messianic Age, however there is a minority view - e.g. Avigdor Nebenzahl here that advocates not waiting (with various views - from kiruv geula (hastening the coming) to non-Messianic). Icewhiz (talk) 05:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I found what looks like a good source on this:

• Inbari, Motti (1 February 2012). Jewish Fundamentalism and the Temple Mount: Who Will Build the Third Temple?. SUNY Press. ISBN 978-1-4384-2641-9.

Onceinawhile (talk) 12:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2019

Please add following photo in the article: File:Quds,jerusalem.jpeg, a photo of the noble sanctuary Simchu0000 (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

 Question: to which section do you think File:Quds,jerusalem.jpeg would be best suited? NiciVampireHeart 11:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it would be best suited to Islam section as it was revered to noble sanctuary according to Islam.Md iet (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks I also agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simchu0000 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Please let me know if you want the caption adjusted. NiciVampireHeart 11:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Quran 17:1 under "Islam" section in the article makes no sense

How could Muhammad have seen the al aqsa mosque if he died in 632 AD and the building has started getting created in 692?

You cant visit a non-existing building. Muslims also invaded Jerusalem six years AFTER his death in 638 AD.

Another hole in islamic dogma.

46.93.242.99 (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Religion isn't about logic. But perhaps it makes sense to add some critical commentaries to the text of the article. Debresser (talk) 11:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The problems with this old "argument" are two-fold. First, to expand on Debresser's first sentence, the story is about a miraculous journey from Mecca to Jerusalem in a single night riding a magical beast that could reach the horizon with each step, so adding a bit more to the story doesn't make it any more contrary to logic. Second, anon doesn't seem to know that "al-Aqsa" refers to whole haram compound, not just to the building at the southern end. Zero^talk 11:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The IP editor might or might not know that, but I do. And it makes no difference. If there were no Muslims, then there was no Al-Aqsa and no Haram compound. Debresser (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Who says there were no Muslims? If you mean no Muslims in Jerusalem, then so what? Zero^talk 14:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

As I said: if there were no Muslims in Jerusalem, then there was no Haram compound. Debresser (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

You never heard of retroactive sanctification? It is ubiquitous in most religious, including both Islam and Judaism. Besides that, you ignore the background of the Islamic view of the compound which derives from the reverence awarded to Solomon and his temple. And even besides that your logic is broken since religions have assigned sancity even to heavenly bodies (should we say that the Moon can't be sacred to the XYZ religion because no members of the XYZ religion ever went there?). So you are wrong for multiple reasons. Zero^talk 03:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, the al aqsa mosque has been built decades after Muhammad died, Muslims invaded Jersualem after his death, both the ground and the mosque have been built way after the islamic prophet died, Jerusalem has not being mentioned by name a single time in the entire Quran. The fact remains: Muhammad could never have seen the al aqsa mosque, its impossible. And Muslims interpret this debunked "night journey" literally and not in a metaphorical way. Otherwise they would behave differently and accept the fact that Jerusalem belongs to the Jews. Imagine Christians would invade Mecca and claim parts of the Kaaba as their property with a desire to get the entire stone. How would you feel about that?

62.226.89.93 (talk) 04:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

"The ground" : apparently you need to learn a bit more about the subject. The rest is answered already and this is not a forum anyway. Zero^talk 06:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Zero What you mention is all good and well, but since the article doesn't mention any of that, it is lacking. There must be some mention of the fact that the Haram compound didn't exist yet at the time of the nightly journey. I see that there are plenty of sources that mention this, just that I don't know which of them are reliable and which are simply blogs. What about [1] or [2]? 10:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

It existed for a couple of millennia. Herod extended it. What are you talking about? Yes, I know this ridiculous argument can be found all over the web, but we should adopt higher standards. Are you seriously suggesting that we should add an argument that a miracle didn't happen? Are we going to add an astronomical argument that the sun could not have stood still, etc? Zero^talk 12:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely! Since the religion considers this a fact, it is our obligation to make clear that such is only the point of view of the religion. Just like is done in all articles related to Judaism. Debresser (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, the al-aqsa mosque mentioned in Surah 17:1 did not exist during the life time of Muhammad. Either the Quran contains a massive error, another mosque is meant or the Quran has been written much later than islamic dogma claims. The alleged islamic prophet could not have seen this mosque during his nightly journey, it simply did not exist at his time and it would be laughable to assume that he would bless the holy mosque in Mecca(which already existed) and some place in Jerusalem the Quran has never mentioned in which not even a mosque exists.

62.226.89.93 (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

It existed miraculously. Prove otherwise. (This discussion started off silly and got even sillier.) Zero^talk 06:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Zero, since you are insisting on stonewalling this perfectly logical argument, please let me know whether you consider the two sources I provided above reliable in this context, and I will make some change to the article. If not, please provide more reliable sources for this information. Although this information is so trivial, that I am not sure we even need a source for it. Debresser (talk) 12:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

You ask me whether two blogs are reliable sources? And you have been here how long? Zero^talk 00:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn't think one of them is a blog, as a matter of fact. WP:AGF. Debresser (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Muslim Hope is a Christian polemic blog by "Steven M. Morrison, PhD.". Answering Islam is a Christian polemic blog by an anonymous guy (but I know who it is as I met him many years ago). Both sites existed since before the word "blog" was invented, but I see no reason to classify them otherwise. Anyway their unreliability is obvious. Zero^talk 14:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I see. Would you like to suggest another, more reliable, source? Debresser (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Reliable for what? For a childish "your miracles are impossible" argument? The known facts and traditions are already cited. Zero^talk 07:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I consider that absolutely necessary, not childish in any way. I guess that means you do not want to recommend a source? Debresser (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Go to Book of Joshua and add scientific evidence that the sun could not possibly have stood still, then go to Elijah and add proof that Elijah would get 4th degree burns if he rode in a chariot of fire so that couldn't possibly have happened. But don't stop there, you can have so much fun at Miracles of Gautama Buddha. Don't forget that the surface tension of water is far too low for Jesus to have walked on it, and how can water possibly be changed into wine if it doesn't have any carbon atoms? Prove you are serious about this rubbish before asking me to be complicit in it. Zero^talk 14:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

But at least there was water in the Sea of Galilee to walk on. In your words, the story of the Night Journey is like walking on water before the lake existed. I don't need to explain that walking on water is not possible, but it would make sense to explain that there was no lake. Debresser (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

You mean, like there was a chariot of fire for Elijah to ride in? Zero^talk 11:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, could you summarize what is your suggested addition to the article? You seem eager to undermine the miraculous account, but the discussion seems to be getting off-topic. Dimadick (talk) 09:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Your comment includes the usual insult/lack of neutrality, but I'll try to explain again. I think we should add a sentence stating something along the lines of "although at the time there was no Islamic/Muslim presence in Jerusalem". Debresser (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Eleven Gates?

The article mentions 11 gates, 10 reserved for Muslims. Yet the article linked to it states there are 12 gates. Why the inconsistency? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josprien (talk • contribs) 21:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Venerated by Islam for thousands of years???

"for thousands of years has been venerated as a holy site in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam alike."

Islam is less than 2000 years old... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:861:3480:8BB0:F005:29F6:A40A:E844 (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Grammatical correction under 'Christianity' subsection

"and it became a desolate local rubbish dump," should be changed to read "It became a desolate local rubbish dump," — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyson170 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Done. CapitalSasha ~ talk 19:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Removal of the last three sentences in article.

Due to the nature of this article, I am transparently noting the changes I had made: /* Israeli period */ Removed three sentences at the end that appear to be sourced but when I researched the sources, they either did not exist or never said what was claimed. I actually paid to read "Arafat's Gift" from the NYT, the quoted line is not mentioned nor is the context provided.

The sources provided do not list the claims made, so I have removed them. The second intifada very clearly started in September 2000, after Ariel Sharon made a highly provocative visit to the Temple Mount. All sources at the time noted this, and future research/articles into the event would list this as well.

The sentences appeared tacked on as if to justify the actions of Israelis as opposed to objective displaying of the facts. Once the sources turned out not to have the claimed information, I removed the offending lines.Kirkoconnell (talk) 10:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 June 2021

Change: The Temple Mount (Hebrew: הַר הַבַּיִת, 'Har HaBáyit'; "Mount of the House [of God, i.e. the Temple in Jerusalem]"), known to Muslims as the Haram esh-Sharif (Arabic: الحرم الشريف, 'al-Ḥaram al-Šarīf', "the Noble Sanctuary", or الحرم القدسي الشريف, 'al-Ḥaram al-Qudsī al-Šarīf', "the Noble Sanctuary of Jerusalem") and the Al Aqsa Compound,[2] is a hill in the Old City of Jerusalem that for thousands of years has been venerated as a holy site in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam alike.

To This (delete "and the Al Aqsa Compound, [2]" the compound is Al Haram Al Sharif see 1925 source pg 4):

The Temple Mount (Hebrew: הַר הַבַּיִת, 'Har HaBáyit'; "Mount of the House [of God, i.e. the Temple in Jerusalem]"), known to Muslims as the Haram esh-Sharif (Arabic: الحرم الشريف, 'al-Ḥaram al-Šarīf', "the Noble Sanctuary", or الحرم القدسي الشريف, 'al-Ḥaram al-Qudsī al-Šarīf', "the Noble Sanctuary of Jerusalem") is a hill in the Old City of Jerusalem that for thousands of years has been venerated as a holy site in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam alike.

Advocate4Truth (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

References

1925 brief guide

The link to the 1925 edition of A brief guide to al-Haram al-Sharif (currently citation 64) is broken. It should be replaced by one at archive.org #1, #2 or #3 and/or that at bible places.com. Mcljlm (talk) 04:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

References

actual location?

is there serious academic debate about the actual location of the Temple, or have I just been lucky in following youtube videos? by 'actual location' I mean the idea that it was actually 0.6 km south of what is today called the Temple Mount. --142.163.195.253 (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

There are plenty of academic sources about the Temple Mount and where the Temple of Solomon actually stood in relation to the Temple Mount. Almost all of the academic sources place the Temple on the Temple Mount, some placing it where the Dome of the Rock now stands, while others placing it directly to its south or southwest. The YouTube videos that you mention about placing the edifice outside the Temple Mount are nothing but fringe views, not taken seriously by scholars and historical geographers.Davidbena (talk) 03:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Add to description

The description does not mention that this is the holiest site in Judaism. Just like in the Al-Aqsa Mosque it says that it is the third holiest site in Islam. Please change this. Jake pres (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Check the third paragraph. Zero^talk 21:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 April 2022

Location of typo error: Section: Religious Significance; Sub-section: Islam; 3rd picture to the right of the text. In the caption to the picture, change "The Dome on the Rock" to "The Dome of the Rock". The word "on" should be "of". Goman1 (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 April 2022

The name is incorrect in English ,Temple Mount is the occupational invaders given name which have been put by the European settlers came to Falasteen short time ago, it should be written as ( AlHaram AlMaqdesi) which has been named by The GOD himself . 2001:16A2:E755:4E00:30F6:13E2:3C1C:5024 (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Fictional characters do not name locations. Dimadick (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Naming

Following recent edits to this entry and those for the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, I felt compelled to re-check what are the common names of the site in the academic literature. Based on my research, I found that:

Temple Mount: Among all the names for the site, the most common is "Temple Mount". It is not only a religious name used by Jews (and Christians), as the article on the Al-Aqsa Mosque previously stated - it also happens to be the most widely used name of the site in most academic literature. A quick search provides about 594,000 entries on Google Scholar.

Noble Sanctuary / al-Haram (al/el)-Sharif: this is the second most popular term for the site in academic literature; usually presented as the common Islamic name for the Temple Mount. On Google Scholar, noble+sanctuary provides about 141,000 results, and haram+sharif provides 13,200 results. The majority of articles I saw distinguish between the "Noble Sanctuary" as a term for the Temple Mount, and "Al-Aqsa Mosque" for the mosque situated as its southern end.

Al-Aqsa (Mosque) Compound: The term "Al-Aqsa Compound" yields 5,810 results, while "Al-Aqsa Mosque Compound" provides 3,270 results

Al-Aqsa Mosque: There are 17,000 results for this term, but most of them refer to the particular structure and not the entire compound.

To conclude, in English-language publications, "Al-Aqsa Mosque" is rarely used for the entire Temple Mount, and when the term al-Aqsa is used for the entire Mount, it is usually joined by the term "Compound", as "Al-Aqsa Compound". Therefore, we should follow WP:COMMONNAME and use the correct names as common in English. Tombah (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Its clear that the first one is WP:COMMONNAME and second one is alternative one.The other names could be mentioned in the body of the articles but we need sources that don't mention them in passing but explain its significance per WP:DUE Shrike (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

The above is not correct:

• Ngrams for Temple Mount vs Aqsa are neck-and-neck.
• The results above for Temple Mount were not within quotation marks, so the words temple and mount were being searched for separately. The correct figure in google scholar for "Temple Mount" is 21,300.
• A more comparable test:
  • Searching for "Temple Mount" Israel gives 18,600 in Google Scholar

• • Searching for "Aqsa" Israel gives 23,900 in Google Scholar

Onceinawhile (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Its clear that the first one is WP:COMMONNAME...Ummmm. Selfstudier (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

While trying to prove a point, you are missing the whole point. Al-Aqsa usually refers to the structure, as stated above. Also, many of these entries might refer to many many other meanings, say for example terror organizations (such as the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades), the Second Intifada (also known as the Al-Aqsa Intifada), etc. To sum up, in the English language, almost nobody uses the term Al-Aqsa Mosque for the entire Temple Mount. Tombah (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

If one looks through the Google book results for Aqsa (which drive the Ngram results), most of the sources are for other uses, such as Aqsa as a personal name (“Aqsa Maze Solving Princess”), research papers by people with the name Aqsa, various groups, the intifada, etc. The same holds true on Google Scholar and JSTOR. Searching for “Aqsa” and Israel on Google scholar, for example, 9/10 of the first page of results are for the Intifada. Drsmoo (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The use of the term Aqsa in the phrase Asqa Intifada refers specifically to the topic of this article, so those hits count.

On GoogleBooks, the first page which comes up when I search shows all the results pointing to the topic of this article. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Nope, only sources that refer directly to the area in discussion by that name count. Drsmoo (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

They do so refer.Selfstudier (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I think a more pertinent question is whether the current article title fundamentally violates WP:NPOV (obviously a core content policy above and beyond WP:COMMONNAME concerns).

Temple Mount is a Judeo-Christian/Western term, while Haram al-Sharif/Al-Aqsa is a Muslim/Arabic term. Neither is even close to neutral, impartial or without bias.

And yet a neutral alternative have been available for some time in the form of Jerusalem’s Sacred Esplanade:

• See: Grabar, Oleg 1929-2011, and Binyamin Zeʾev 1938- Ḳedar. Where Heaven and Earth Meet: Jerusalem's Sacred Esplanade. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2009.

...or the subsequent lecture on the subject by the author, Benjamin Z. Kedar, Emeritus Professor of History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Vice-President of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, in which he notes: ”The author intends … to deal with a single space—the space which, if we wish to use a strictly neutral term, may be called ‘Jerusalem’s sacred esplanade’.”

• See also: Podziba, Susan L, The Need for and Conduct of a Conflict Assessment of the Sacred Esplanade of Jerusalem (August 31, 2014).
• Alternatively, it has been termed Jerusalem’s Holy Esplanade, see: The Status of the Status Quo at Jerusalem’s Holy Esplanade by the The International Crisis Group

...and as Michael Dumper. Professor of Middle East politics at the University of Exeter, notes in the foreword: ”I have a preliminary comment on the term “Holy Esplanade” used by the authors: After rejecting this term initially, I have come round to thinking that it may be one of the better alternatives available when looking for a neutral term to refer to al-Haram al-Sharif and Har Ha-Bayit.”

• See also: Schejtman, Mario. "Meretz Jerusalem Views about the Future of the City." Palestine - Israel Journal of Politics, Economics, and Culture, vol. 21, no. 4, 2016, pp. 28-31. ProQuest,.

Iskandar323 (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Nice notes, Isk, a sig would be good, too. The UN seem quite fond of Holy Esplanade, they have been using it for a while. Selfstudier (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the term "Temple Mount" poses any POV problems. The term has moved far beyond being just a religious title used by Jews and Christians. In fact, this is the only logical choice based on prevalence and historical analysis.

Prevalence: It is the most commonly used term for the site in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources. There are countless articles by leading scholars of all disciplines, as well as Britannica, the Smithsonian, and other noteworthy sources, who use it to refer to the site throughout its history. Therefore, it scores well in terms of frequency of use, thereby being more discoverable.

Historical analysis: It best reflects the long history of the site. The terms "Al-Aqsa Compound" and the seemingly more neutral "Sacred Espalande" seem to be anachronistic to describe the actions of Herod/Titus/Hadrian. We should remember that according to modern archaeology, the platform we see today was built by Herod the Great for the expansion of the Second Temple. Due to this, the term is also applicable to its history well after the Temple itself was destroyed by the Romans after the siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE. This is way the term "Temple Mount" is used in many reliable sources to describe the site in Byzantine, Crusader, and even Islamic times, when it was also known in the Arabic name "Bayt al-Maqdis", which translates into "The Holy Temple". I also noticed that many sources that refer to the site during the Ottoman period use the name "Temple Mount", which is followed by "Known among Muslims as al-Haram al-Sharif". Tombah (talk) 12:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The 2009 term conceptualised by a Professor Emeritus to preface a collaboration by 21 Jewish, Muslim and Christian scholars is anachronistic? No. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

"Al-Aqsa Mosque" is rarely used for the entire Temple Mount, but the lead says the contrary and gives it as an aka, so which is it?

I assume that part of the problem here is the lack of a page for the Sanctuary itself, presumably based in the WP rule that there may not be two names for the same space. Still, if this technicality results in NPOV breach, it needs to be remedied either by creation of the page regardless of the technicality or by renaming Temple Mount to something neutral.

Selfstudier (talk) 09:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

In English, in the (actually rare) cases when the term "Al-Aqsa" is applied to the entire Temple Mount, it is always supplemented by the word "Compound", as in "Al-Aqsa Compound" or "Al-Aqsa Mosque Compound". Almost never "Al-Aqsa Mosque", a term usually reserved in the English lanaguage for the grey-domed mosque, built to commemorate the Quranic Night Journey, and situated on the southern part of the Temple Mount. Tombah (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Al-Aqsa Mosque says the same thing. "It is located on the Temple Mount in the Old City of Jerusalem, known in its entirety to Muslims as the Al-Aqsa Mosque..." Selfstudier (talk) 11:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

It says so because it was added yesterday to the article. Tombah (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe the term "Temple Mount" poses any problems from a POV perspective, and I'll shortly explain why. Tombah (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

In any case, there should be a "Name" section in the article because there are "three or more" WP:OTHERNAMES. Selfstudier (talk) 10:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that a "Name" section is missing - it should be added and include descriptions, origins and explanations for each term. All should appear in descending order according to how often each name is used. Tombah (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The practice of referring to the entire compound as Al-Aqsa is common and ancient—from the early centuries of Islam. Whether or not it appears in the first sentence, it should be mentioned. Zero^talk 13:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

It is the default in Arabic to refer to it simply as "Al-Aqsa" - meaning "the highest" - almost a term of deference more than a name per se. The confusion arises in English with the various appellations of "mosque", "compound" or "mosque compound" to Al-Aqsa to try to formalize it into a clearly categorizable name, which it is not and never was in the original vernacular. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tombah: wrote above: many of these entries might refer to many many other meanings, say for example terror organizations (such as the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades), the Second Intifada (also known as the Al-Aqsa Intifada). Tombah, both the "al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades" and the "Al-Aqsa Intifada" take their name from the subject of this article - i.e. the whole complex. Look at the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades' logo - it is the Dome of the Rock. And Sharon's visit which sparked the Al-Aqsa Intifada was to the complex, not the chapel/mosque at the southern end. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Esplanade

Searching for Jerusalem esplanade brings up a huge number of sources. It seems that it is becoming the common term in neutral media.

Our French article Esplanade des Mosquées is worth a read.

Also our article about a notable book about the site written by 21 Jewish, Muslim and Christian scholars: Where Heaven and Earth Meet: Jerusalem's Sacred Esplanade.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

As @Selfstudier also noted earlier in the thread, the UN adoption of the term 'Holy Esplanade' (which I hadn't cottoned on to) is also not without significance. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Other wikis cannot force us to do a thing, that is quite persuasive, however. It seems that you can have two pages for the same space, at least on French wiki.Selfstudier (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

A merger attempt was made in the talk, so it is not for want of attempted unification. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Al Aqsa Mosque

What the most used names in English are, how many Google results each one has, etc., is, per Wikipedia's policies, relevant to the title of the article - but it is absolutely irrelevant to the section about what Muslims call it. The article, as it is, is giving false information and has been manipulated: the source given in the lead has a long text showing that Muslims call the entire esplanade "Al-Aqsa Mosque" - yet, the well sourced name of "Al-Aqsa Mosque" has been unduly removed from the introduction. As the source given in the lead (not by me, it has been there for years) clearly states that the Temple Mount is known in its entirety to Muslims as "Al-Aqsa Mosque", this obviously needs to be in the introduction. Dan Palraz (talk) 13:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. Zero^talk 13:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Seconded.Nishidani (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Please show me where exactly the source cited mentions "Al-Aqsa Mosque" being an English term for the entire compound, because I can't seem to find it. If the term is kept for Arabic usage only, it should not appear as a synonym, but under a new section, which we should call "naming". I am yet to see a single English-speaking, academic source that use the term for the entire site. Tombah (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

There are many. Have you read citation 1 in this article - there are many quoted sources within that citation. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can only find one and it looks like there aren't many. Aside from one source that quotes Mahdi Abdul Hadi, all of the sources use the term "Al-Aqsa Mosque Compound" or "Al-Aqsa Compound". Tombah (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

…or “Al Aqsa” or “Masjid Al Aqsa”. All these terms refer to the phrase in the Quran which literally translates to “Al-Aqsa Mosque”.

Anyway, if you want more, how about the BBC here [3] which says "Whole site also considered by Muslims as Al Aqsa Mosque". Onceinawhile (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I am familiar with the phrase in the Quran, thanks. Again, the term "Al-Aqsa Mosque" is not used in English for the entire Temple Mount, but just for the mosque on its southern hall. When used for the entire Mount, it is always the "Al-Aqsa Mosque Compound" or "Al-Aqsa Compound". The BBC link doesn't change the picture, as it states that: "[the Temple Mount] is known to Muslims as Haram al-Sharif and is the location of the al-Aqsa Mosque," which actually support the above - in English, the term Al-Aqsa Mosque is used for the praying hall only. Tombah (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The BBC explicitly states: "Whole site also considered by Muslims as Al Aqsa Mosque". Onceinawhile (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Here is India Times: Hussain, Zoya (2022-04-21). "Explained:: Why Jerusalem's Al-Aqsa Mosque Is At The Heart Israel And Palestine Conflict". India Times. …the Al-Aqsa Mosque site in disputed East Jerusalem. Al-Qibli Mosque and the Dome of the Rock are located on a 14-hectare (35-acre) site... Onceinawhile (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

And the UNESCO World Heritage Committee here [4]: "…the historic Gates and windows of the Qibli Mosque inside Al-Aqsa Mosque/ Al-Haram Al-Sharif, which is a Muslim holy site of worship and an integral part of a World Heritage Site". Onceinawhile (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The BBC have used this image in the past but without the starred comment at the bottom. It would be interesting to know the detail of their decision to add it (apart from it being correct). Selfstudier (talk) 11:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tombah: I have opened a specific discussion at Talk:Al-Aqsa Mosque#Disambiguate? Onceinawhile (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

If (OIC/Prince Sultan ibn Salman) is thought reliable then their listing for Al-Aqsa says "Al-Aqsa Mosque is located in the southeast corner of the Old City of Jerusalem, covering one-sixth of its area. Al-Aqsa Mosque, also referred to as Al-Haram Ash-Sharif (the Noble Sanctuary), comprises the entire area within the compound walls (a total area of 144,000 m2)" Selfstudier (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

And Mujir al-Din (a 15th century Islamic scholar from Jerusalem) wrote (see page 5): "Verily, ‘Al-Aqsa’ is a name for the whole mosque which is surrounded by the wall, the length and width of which are mentioned here, for the building that exists in the southern part of the Mosque, and the other ones such as the Dome of the Rock and the corridors and other [buildings] are novel"

Onceinawhile (talk) 02:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Here is Guy Le Strange in the late 19th century [5]: “THE AKSÀ MOSQUE. The great mosque of Jerusalem, Al Masjid al Aksà, the "Further Mosque," derives its name from the traditional Night Journey of Muhammad, to which allusion is made in the words of the Kuran (xvii. I)... the term "Mosque" being here taken to denote the whole area of the Noble Sanctuary, and not the Main-building of the Aksà only, which, in the Prophet's days, did not exist.”

Onceinawhile (talk) 07:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Palmer, E. H. (1871). "History of the Haram Es Sherif: Compiled from the Arabic Historians". Palestine Exploration Quarterly. 3 (3): 122–132. doi:10.1179/peq.1871.012. ISSN 0031-0328. EXCURSUS ON THE NAME MASJID EL AKSA. In order to understand the native accounts of the sacred area at Jerusalem, it is essentially necessary to keep in mind the proper application of the various names by which it is spoken of. When the Masjid el Aksa is mentioned, that name is usually supposed to refer to the well-known mosque on the south side of the Haram, but such is not really the case. The latter building is called El Jámʻi el Aksa, or simply El Aksa, and the substructures are called El Aksa el Kadímeh (the ancient Aksa), while the title El Masjid el Aksa is applied to the whole sanctuary. The word Jámi is exactly equivalent in sense to the Greek συναγωγή, and is applied to the church or building in which the worshippers congregate. Masjid, on the other hand, is a much more general term; it is derived from the verb sejada "to adore," and is applied to any spot, the sacred character of which would especially incite the visitor to an act of devotion. Our word mosque is a corruption of masjid, but it is usually misapplied, as the building is never so designated, although the whole area on which it stands may be so spoken of. The Cubbet es Sakhrah, El Aksa, Jam'i el Magharibeh, &c., are each called a Jami, but the entire Haram is a masjid. This will explain how it is that 'Omar, after visiting the churches of the Anastasis, Sion, &c., was taken to the "Masjid" of Jerusalem, and will account for the statement of Ibn el 'Asa'kir and others, that the Masjid el Aksa measured over 600 cubits in length-that is, the length of the whole Haram area. The name Masjid el Aksa is borrowed from the passage in the Coran (xvii. 1), when allusion is made to the pretended ascent of Mohammed into heaven from ·the temple of Jerusalem; "Praise be unto Him who transported His servant by night from El Masjid el Haram (i.e., 'the Sacred place of Adoration' at Mecca) to El Masjid el Aksa (i.e., 'the Remote place of Adoration' at Jerusalem), the precincts of which we have blessed," &c. The title El Aksa, "the Remote," according to the Mohammedan doctors, is applied to the temple of Jerusalem "either because of its distance from Mecca, or because it is in the centre of the earth."

Onceinawhile (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

From the foundational book on the geography of the region Biblical Researches in Palestine: "The Jámi'a el-Aksa is the mosk alone; the Mesjid el-Aksa is the mosk with all the sacred enclosure and precincts, including the Sükhrah. Thus the words Mesjid and Jāmi'a differ in usage somewhat like the Greek ίερόν and ναός."

Onceinawhile (talk) 07:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

From our articles:

• The southern building is a Congregational mosque (Jamia, literally Congregation or Friday), also known as a “Friday Mosque”
• The whole area is a Mosque (Masjid, literally a “place of Prayer”)

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

It's well-attested, and the single objection merely reflects a misunderstanding of the widespread use of see Synecdoche in popular toponymy, like calling West Jerusalem Jerusalem, when references are made to the capital of Israel. Not worth wasting ink over.Nishidani (talk) 08:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Probably explains why the Brits kept calling it, incorrectly, the Mosque of Omar.Selfstudier (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Al Aqsa Mosque"

Is there a clear primary topic for the term "Al Aqsa Mosque"? Per the sources above, it seems to have two primary meanings, one where “mosque” is a translation of “jamia” (so, the southern building) and one where “mosque” is a translation of “masjid” (the whole Temple Mount / Haram area).

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I remain of the view that the most sensible way to deal with all this is either a renaming of this article to something neutral + a Naming section OR a new page for the sanctuary + a Naming section. It seems anachronistic that we have here a title referring to things (Temple or Temples with a history no-one can agree about) when there are actual existing things at this location with a long history that is largely undisputed. Selfstudier (talk) 10:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you. But that is a different topic than the one in this particular subthread, which relates to the attempted removal of the words “Al Aqsa Mosque” from the lede of this article, which highlighted the need to disambiguate the name Al Aqsa Mosque, in exactly the same way as we disambiguate Al Aqsa. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree it's a different topic on the face of it, but I see it as more of a symptom myself. The removal (and the redirect) is a classic example of POV editing which imo should be dealt with forthrightly. Selfstudier (talk) 11:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree with @Selfstudier, the current article title is fairly extreme example of Judeo-Christian/Western POV. Obviously this site is referred to as Al-Aqsa or Haram al-Sharif in the entire Middle East and beyond across the Muslim world. I see two potential solutions: 1) to outline, separately, the topographical feature and its origins, under the temple mount terminology; then with a separate article on the current built-up complex and religious compound under the Haram al-Sharif terminology, or: 2) to refer to the subject as a single whole under neutral terminology, which leans us towards the neutral terminology adopted by the UN and increasingly first-rate international media outlets such as Reuters and the Guardian, i.e.: a variation on the theme of holy/sacred esplanade. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

POV tag

Since a perfectly reasonable edit by Onceinawhile was reverted and my restoration of it was also reverted, per the discussions on this page and until the neutrality issue is dealt with, I added a POV tag to the article. There have already been some suggestions on how to deal with this so let's carry on with those discussions and see where we get to. Selfstudier (talk) 11:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to Eladkarmel. This editor has 392 non-automated edits so far – I know this has been raised before, but do automated edits count under the ARBPIA 500/30 rule? Onceinawhile (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I saw that, not really surprised tbh. Selfstudier (talk) 13:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Wow, the truth is I didn't know there was a difference between the types of edits. I wonder if it's relevant for this discussion.Eladkarmel (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Not saying you are doing so but gaming the system has frequently been a problem, editors can get their edit count reset to zero because of it.Selfstudier (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

"gaming the system"??? What are you talking about?? I do not know what automatic actions I did. But I think it's about adding categories. I demand that you not blame me for nothing.Eladkarmel (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I wrote "Not saying you are doing so...". Selfstudier (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Both Tombah and Eladkarmel mentioned "WP:COMMONNAME" as their rationale for their reverts. This is part of the Article Title policy, so does not make sense as an explanation for the reverts. "Temple Mount" is equally common to "Aqsa" as discussed above, and adding Haram in there would mean there is no clear commonname.

The edit made was a clear attempt to find a neutral way of describing this. Can Tombah and Eladkarmel explain whether they think the current version is more neutral than the reverted version, and if so, why? Onceinawhile (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

One should justify their changes, not make changes and then ask others to do work. Tombah already responded in the article name section.Drsmoo (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

More useful comments are welcome WP:AVOIDYOU. Selfstudier (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

That was helpful guidance, and as such is useful the post above is, ironically, a personal attack. Drsmoo (talk) 13:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

That's a matter of opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, it’s already discussed/being discussed in the name section. Drsmoo (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

And please don't change comments once responded to, it makes for confusion. Selfstudier (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The tag requires a discussion in talk, I am simply clarifying here why the tag has been added, regardless of where the discussions are and as a possible rfcbefore should it come to that.Selfstudier (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tombah and Eladkarmel: please could you both explain your reverts from earlier today? As mentioned above, your edit comments referred to a policy which is not applicable. If you can explain exactly what you were objecting to, I am sure we can refactor the text to address any concerns. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

POV tag has been removed while discussion is still current on the talk page.Selfstudier (talk) 09:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Adding this POV tag was justified by the fact that "Temple Mount" is unneutral. If it is true, then why has this article been titled this way for twenty years now? Has it become an unneutral term since last month? last year? Maybe last five years? This argument doesn't make sense to me. Consensus is needed before you can change this long accepted term. Which also happens to be WP:COMMONNAME and the only term that best reflects the archeology and history of the site. Tombah (talk) 11:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit summary when adding the tag "Adding neutrality tag per talk discussions" and above at at start of this discussion "Since a perfectly reasonable edit by Onceinawhile was reverted and my restoration of it was also reverted, per the discussions on this page and until the neutrality issue is dealt with, I added a POV tag to the article. There have already been some suggestions on how to deal with this so let's carry on with those discussions and see where we get to."

So the assertion adding this POV tag was justified by the fact that "Temple Mount" is unneutral. is false and the tag removal tendentious because discussions were and still are in progress. Selfstudier (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Tombah: You seem to be skipping over the last 1,300 less temple-y years of the space ... and not least, of course, the present-day reality of the site. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

"...known to Jews as the Temple Mount"

Does anyone object to the phrase "...known to Jews as the Temple Mount" - i.e. explicitly stating that the name Temple Mount is the Jewish name, as opposed to incorrectly implying through silence that it is a neutral name?

This seems to be standard practice amongst major media outlets:

• "200 Palestinians hurt in Al-Aqsa clashes with Israeli police, medics say". CBS News. 2021-05-08. The Al-Aqsa mosque compound is the third holiest site in Islam. It is also the holiest site for Jews, who refer to it as the Temple Mount because it was the location of the biblical temples.
• "The Middle East: a glossary of terms". The Guardian. 2001-05-15. Temple Mount: The Israeli name for the site of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, the most holy place in Judaism. Only the Western or Wailing Wall remains, almost literally overshadowed by the mosque complex which Arabs call the Haram al-Sharif.
• Heneghan, Tom (2012-06-19). "A Palestinian plan to attract Muslims back to Al-Aqsa". Reuters. Jews call the raised ground at the eastern edge of Jerusalem's Old City the Temple Mount, while Muslims know it as the Noble Sanctuary. Both claim sovereignty over it.
• "Palestinians protest additional al-Aqsa mosque security measures". Financial Times. 2017-07-17. The fatal attacks took place near the Holy Esplanade, a site known to Jews as Temple Mount and to Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary.

Onceinawhile (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Just another symptom of the NPOV problem here along with the gratuitous "Mount of the House [of God, i.e. the Temple in Jerusalem]" Selfstudier (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

This happens to be the origin of the name. The complex as appears to day was built to house the Second Temple, and has since become the most prevalent and widespread term for the site in contemporary scholarship in English and in many other languages. The usage of "Sacred Espalande" and other fashionable terms remains fringe, at most. I see no problem in explaining the original meaning of the term. Tombah (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Etymology can go in the body, there is a translation, fine, no need for extraneous additional wikilinks in the first line of the lead. Temple Mount is not the Temple of Jerusalem today whatever it might have been once. Selfstudier (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

It is known to Jews as Har Habayit Drsmoo (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

And what has the wikilinked Temple to do with the price of bread? Just trying to prove POV wise in the first sentence of this article that there was a Temple there. Insecurity much? Selfstudier (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The Jewish name for the site is Har Habayit. The English name for the site is the Temple Mount. Drsmoo (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Non-responsive...the stray wikilink, this one, Temple in Jerusalem. Selfstudier (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I think you mean the Hebrew name. Following Judaism and speaking Hebrew are in fact slightly separate things, and have been for several millenia. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes that is the Hebrew name. Most Jews don’t use English as their primary language. Hasidism, for example, don’t primarily call it the Temple Mount (unless they happen to be speaking English). Drsmoo (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Around 80% of all Jews live in either Israel or the United States. In Israel, 85% of people speak English as a first or second language. In the US, English is spoken c.100% amongst Jews. So at least 75% of the world’s Jews speak English.

The important point though is that we have multiple reliable sources stating that it is known to Jews as Temple Mount. Are there any sources which dispute this?

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Most Jews don't speak English as their primary language. In fact, only 2% of Israelis speak English as their native language https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4335235,00.html. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2021-03-05/ty-article/.premium/israelis-poor-command-of-english-is-a-growing-problem-for-high-tech/0000017f-ebd0-dc91-a17f-ffddf5580000 (‘English is taught from second grade, but people can’t conduct a conversation’). You may be able to get by in English, the same way you could in Belgium, but that is not what people go around speaking. While most American Jews speak English, the majority of Hasidic Jews speak Yiddish as their primary language. https://www.jewishlanguages.org/stats#:~:text=In%20fact%2C%20of%20all%20longstanding,and%20the%20most%20postvernacular%20engagement https://www.jpost.com/american-politics/new-york-to-reform-yeshiva-system-since-grads-can-barely-speak-english-614085. The Temple Mount is the common name in English, and amongst Jews when speaking in English, but it is not the "Jewish name" for the site:

"I use the term "Temple Mount" to refer to the site known to Jews as "Har Habayit" and to Muslims as "al Haram al Sharif" because this is the most common designation of the site in English" - Hassner, R. E. (2010). War on Sacred Grounds. United States: Cornell University Press.

"The holy site where the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque are located is called har Ha-Bayit in Hebrew (whence the common English term, "the Temple Mount"), and al-Haram al-Sharif in Arabic." - Klein, M. (2001). Jerusalem: The Contested City. Israel: NYU Press.

"Ibn Khaldun descibes how the Jews returning from Babylon encountered difficulties posed by the location Samaritans: ... The use in this context of the word "House" (al-Bayt), appearing alone, is interesting. It can be interpreted in two ways: the Israelites' return from exile to their original home, or a contraction of the name of the Temple (Bayt al-Maqdis), which corresponds with the modern Jewish practice of referring to the Temple Mount in Hebrew as Har HaBayit (Mount of the House), rather than Har Beit HaMikdash (Mount of the "House of the Holy" - that is, Mount of the Temple, or Temple Mount)." - Dimant, D., Reiter, Y. (2020). Islam, Jews and the Temple Mount: The Rock of Our/Their Existence. United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis.

"specifically the Temple Mount complex known to Jews as Har Habayit and to Muslims as the Haram 'al-Sharif" - The Oxford Handbook of Public Heritage Theory and Practice. (2018). United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

"The Muslim fear, however, was that Jewish access to the Wall would lead to a Third Temple on the Islamic Haram, the Jewish Har-haBayit" - Sebag Montefiore, S. (2011). Jerusalem: The Biography. United Kingdom: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.

"Muhammad's night journey took him to the Temple Mount (in Arabic, Haram al-Sharif) in Al Quds (now part of the Old City). From the Temple Mount (itself already a holy place for Jews called Har Habayit), he ascended to heaven." - Shlay, A. B., Rosen, G. (2015). Jerusalem: The Spatial Politics of a Divided Metropolis. Germany: Polity Press.

Drsmoo (talk) 02:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: could you please provide a source for your claim that “In Israel, 85% of people speak English as a first or second language. In the US, English is spoken c.100% amongst Jews.”Drsmoo (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: it comes from List of countries by English-speaking population. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Which states that only 100,000, or 1.37% have English as a first language. As I said “Most Jews don’t use English as their primary language.” Drsmoo (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Hence why the sentence said "first or second language." ... what exactly is the problem here? Iskandar323 (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

There isn't one. Selfstudier (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The sentence was “Most Jews don’t use English as their primary language.” Onceinawhile claimed this was incorrect, but the source provided confirmed it. Second language is irrelevant to primary language. Drsmoo (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Primary language is your terminology and is irrelevant to this discussion, which is about names in English, and what those 85 per cent of the population use as the English terminology when conveying information in English to English-cognizant, but not necessarily Jewish, audiences. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll give you a hint. It isn't 'Har Habayit', because it is highly unlikely that a non-Jewish English speaker will know that. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

This is in fact a no-brainer, all the sources around use this formulation for reasons of neutrality and so should we. Selfstudier (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

In recent years, some media outlets have begun to use the term "Jerusalem Holy Site" and more rarely, "the Sacred Esplanade," but the site contains, beneath its modern appearance, thousands of years of history from various periods. This is why the most common, prominent and widespread term used in academic literature is "Temple Mount". This term best reflects the history of the complex, including the original reason for its construction. It sounds just ridiciolus speaking about Iron Age findings, Roman construction projects and Byzantine attitudes towards the Sacred Esplanade. And also, since the early decades of Islam - once the sacredness of Jerusalem in Islam was agreed upon, which was not always the case - the Temple Mount became also known as Bayt al-Maqdis - a calque from Hebrew "Bet HaMiqdash" - the Temple, so the term "Temple Mount" even had and still has connotations in Islamic thought (however, some contemporary scholars sometimes refuse to admit it - for obvious reasons). Anyway, as I mentioned above, the "Temple Mount" remains WP:COMMONNAME for the site in the academic literature to this day, and sometimes followed by "Known to Muslims as Haram al-Sharif", and we should follow this standard. Tombah (talk) 05:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

A policy about article titles is not relevant in this specific discussion thread. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Right, we may yet get to that though. Just for the record, the assertion that Temple Mount is commonname is not accepted by myself for the moment.

Thousands of years of history are just that and it includes the most recent thousand less we forget, It sounds just ridiculous speaking about Iron Age findings, Roman construction projects and Byzantine attitudes towards the Sacred Esplanade is easily dealt with, not even a valid objection and as far as it goes, just as applicable to "Temple Mount" to my ears.Selfstudier (talk) 09:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

This nitpicking, Drsmoo et al., is puerile. We are dealing with the English wiki, and the English term is 'Temple Mount'. Even the sources that say, when speaking Hebrew among themselves (which outside Israel is not normative), Jews use the term 'Har Habayit' is meaningless to that end, rather like saying that since the majority of Italians refer to Florence as Firenze, we should change the entry to the Enwiki article on that city. Many of those sources don't stand examination, Menachem Klein uses as his default narrative term 'Temple Mount' 41 times. Nishidani (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Because that is, as he notes, the common English term. 13:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsmoo (talk • contribs)

I would really like the title to be Temple Mount / Haram al-Sharif and all the discussions about names and whatnot relegated to a Naming or Etymology section but I guess WP won't like that "/". In which case there ought to be a page Haram al-Sharif. Selfstudier (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Is there any precedent for a dualistic title? I haven't ever observed one. A separate Haram al-Sharif article is an obvious alternative, given the variance in scope Iskandar323 (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Har haBayit

Har haBayit is a distinct name, not a translation of the English name, Temple Mount. Temple Mount is not a direct translation of Har haBayit, and the currently posted “literal translation” is inaccurate. The english name, Temple Mount is a description of the space, and is in some senses an elaboration from Har haBayit (which literally translates to Mount of the House, with Bayit being a shortened version of Beit Hamikdash (House of the Holy)(the Temple). An actual translation of Temple Mount would be Har Beit Hamikdash, and sources discuss this discrepancy and attest to Jews referring to the site as Har haBayit as distinct from Temple Mount.

"a contraction of the name of the Temple (Bayt al-Maqdis), which corresponds with the modern Jewish practice of referring to the Temple Mount in Hebrew as Har HaBayit (Mount of the House), rather than Har Beit HaMikdash (Mount of the "House of the Holy" - that is, Mount of the Temple, or Temple Mount)." - Dimant, D., Reiter, Y. (2020). Islam, Jews and the Temple Mount: The Rock of Our/Their Existence. United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis.

"I use the term "Temple Mount" to refer to the site known to Jews as "Har Habayit" and to Muslims as "al Haram al Sharif" because this is the most common designation of the site in English" - Hassner, R. E. (2010). War on Sacred Grounds. United States: Cornell University Press.

"specifically the Temple Mount complex known to Jews as Har Habayit and to Muslims as the Haram 'al-Sharif" - The Oxford Handbook of Public Heritage Theory and Practice. (2018). United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

Drsmoo (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Can you show if Har haBayit is commonly used in English (and not Hebrew) sources? You may check it via Google Books Ngram, Google search, Googles News search, etc. We have multiple names in bold in the lede already, apparently all common in English sources. Khestwol (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

It is, historically far more than Sacred Esplanade, which has only been used recently, while holy esplanade is not tracked. Currently it is similar in use to Sacred Esplanade. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Har+habayit%2C+sacred+esplanade&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&case_insensitive=on&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t4%3B%2CHar%20habayit%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3BHar%20Habayit%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BHar%20HaBayit%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bhar%20habayit%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BHar%20haBayit%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Csacred%20esplanade%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3BSacred%20Esplanade%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bsacred%20esplanade%3B%2Cc0 Drsmoo (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

In that case, we should list it after the more common terms, and just before Jerusalem's sacred esplanade (i.e. second-last position). Khestwol (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Jerusalem + esplanade = 839,000 hits; Jerusalem + Har Habayit = 11,200 hits - go figure, the clearly not very English term is used very rarely, if at all. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

For a bolded alt name, if memory serves I think the requirement is 10% of all relevant sources, I will look it up later and check that is the case.Selfstudier (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

All I can find atm is "significant alternative names" but I can't find a def for significant, have I imagined 10%? In which case, we have to demonstrate "significant". Selfstudier (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, so if you or anyone else can demonstrate the most common names in English sources (not Arabic or Hebrew sources), we can use only those names in the lede and infobox, removing the uncommon names. Khestwol (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's the way to go, other names that are not "significant" can perhaps go in a naming section or some such. Selfstudier (talk) 08:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Mount Moriah

Another synonymous term worth checking is Mount Moriah (influenced by the biblical Moriah). This term has been used to relate to the site for thousands of years now, and even found its way into a Jordanian Ministry of Tourism's guide to refer to the site during the 1960s. Tombah (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Mount Moriah is second only to Temple Mount in english usage. Drsmoo (talk) 12:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

It's an identification so bible studies, no doubt, endless discussions about the bible and lists of biblical place names, blah blah, nothing to see there. Who calls it that?Selfstudier (talk) 13:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Obviously the bible and bible studies are incredibly relevant to this article. Drsmoo (talk) 13:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I would say that religious and nationalist narratives are relevant but not important to this article. You didn't say who calls it Mount Moriah? Selfstudier (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

How is Mount Moriah a "nationalist narrative"? Or even a religious narrative? Or any narrative at all. That is literally the name of the mountain. Drsmoo (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I responded to Obviously the bible and bible studies are incredibly relevant to this article. Selfstudier (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Mount "Moriah" is not even confirmed to be the same as the temple mount - it remains a matter of deep uncertainty, scholarly debate, biblical fantasy and basically faith. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Height 743 section Jerusalem map, scale 10,000 scale, 1st edition, Survey of Palestine, Jaffa, August 1925, Ordnance Survey Offices, Southhampton, 1926

Is the Quranic Al-Aqsa Mosque confirmed to be the same as the Temple Mount? This tradition originated decades after Muhammad's death. Muhammad never visited Jerusalem, nor was there a mosque on the Temple Mount during his lifetime. As you correctly said, this is all a matter of tradition, and faith. This is a holy site, and as far as holy sites go, traditions and faiths are important. Jewish traditions have linked the Temple Mount - Mount Moriah - in Jerusalem with the biblical "land of Moriah" since the Iron Age. The term "Mount Moriah" was used by British and Jordanian authorities when they ruled Jerusalem. (adding an image)Tombah (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

The question is about terminology. The image attached incidentally does not use "Mount Moriah", but just "Moriah", which is even more contested as a piece of terminology. To some, moriah is the name of a mountain, to others a land. "Mount Moriah" is meanwhile only the temple mount according to certain traditions, not unambiguously. Samaritans notably have an entirely different scriptural interpretation, as do some scholars, who have even gone as far as to posit that other, remote hills, such as Givat HaMoreh (you can probably see why from the name), are in fact the "Moriah" of scripture. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Status quo

Just a note to self to fix up this section.Selfstudier (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Made a start on this, to clarify, the "status quo" here is not that described in Status Quo (Jerusalem and Bethlehem) but a literal use of the words to describe the pre-existing situation under Muslim and during/after the Mandate, British and Jordanian control and changes that were made to that situation post 67.Selfstudier (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 June 2022

"no archaeological evidence has been found to verify the remains of the first temple" several beams which are 3000 years old were found on the mountain during axavations and are curently loccated in the mountain on the north side of the gate of mercy. Chazir (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 June 2022 (2)

(Moroccans' Gate/Gate of the Moors) also named gate of hallel in memory of [ [Hallel Ariel] ] (BY JEWS USING THIS GATE) Chazir (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Temple Mount

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Temple Mount's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "stategov":

• From UNESCO: "The United States Withdraws From UNESCO". U.S. Department of State. Archived from the original on 8 April 2019. Retrieved 12 October 2017.
• From Occupied Palestine Resolution: "The United States Withdraws From UNESCO". U.S. Department of State. Archived from the original on 2019-04-08. Retrieved 12 October 2017.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Done. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

That was my fault, sorry, I have more to add in that section and I forgot about that ref (: Selfstudier (talk) 11:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)