This is an archive of past discussions about Temple Mount. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I believe it's pretty clear. This image tries to force a POV, as it includes terms that did not reach consensus. Tombah (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Which terms, exactly? Btw, your recent "clarification" edit has resulted in the following sentence "The term has also been adopted as a term..." Selfstudier (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, which terms did not reach "consensus". Just saying something absolute like that is not productively engaging in discussion. And repeatedly reverting without good faith discussion is edit-warring. nableezy - 16:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree. So please stop doing it. You guys added the same image three times. On the first time, I removed it. You added it again. Then Khestwol removed it. And you added it again. Double standards? not here, please. Try convincing others and gaining consensus instead of edit-warring agendas in. Forcing it through photos is disruptive. Tombah (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I posted here asking for why it was removed, and you declined to answer for two days. Trying to act like that is forcing anything is absurd. As far "sacred esplanade", thats in the lead of the article as an alternate name. So what name in this image is non-neutral exactly? Pretending like I am not engaging in discussion, when Im the first one to ask why this was being removed (without restoring it I might add) is likewise absurd. nableezy - 16:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
It wasn't that I "declined to answer", I just happened to miss this. And regarding the "Sacred Esplanade" - that is *exactly* the problem. This term appears as an alternate term in the article, where the main term is "Temple Mount". The image seems to take it completely in the opposite direction. And again, the usage of "Al-Aqsa Mosque" for the entire Temple Mount is *not* common in English. I will not repeat the entire discussion. Tombah (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
You were pinged, and edited elsewhere, and were apparently keeping enough of an eye to immediately revert in the article, but sure, whatever you say. There have been several sources above that say that "al-aqsa mosque" is used for the whole compound, including for example the BBC saying "The compound is known to Muslims as Haram al-Sharif (Noble Sanctuary) and is also considered, in its entirety, as al-Aqsa Mosque. It is the third holiest site in Islam." Not liking what the sources say is not the an acceptable response to that. nableezy - 17:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree with tombah this image is pov without any sourcing regarding the usage of each name and even then consensus is needed to include it --Shrike (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
every single name is reliably sourced. You cant just make things up as arguments, every single name is sourced. nableezy - 17:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
The only POV going on here is the attempted imposition of "temple mount" as the default and presumptive supreme term wherever a mention of the disputed space appears. That temple mount is currently the article title on this page does not give anyone cart blanche to eviscerate the Wiki-wide principle of neutrality. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
We should all be reminded that the term "Temple Mount" has been used as the main term for the site in Wikipedia ever since this page was created (almost) 20 years ago, on July 2002. If the term "Temple Mount" is so biased as you claim it is, how come it has been used here for so long? For me, the answers are clear. I already described them in detail on an earlier thread. Want to change that? Use the accepted tools and platforms. I'm ready to debate this again and again, for how long it is needed. But edit-warring your opinions and adding images to complement them is a violation of our policies. Tombah (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and you have still not provided a single policy or guideline-based objection to said image. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
The image is not neutral. It has Arabic names but not Hebrew names. It used "sacred esplande" as main term while this is obscure term nof used by most. Just searching for esplanade is not good because it is mostly used by other objects. The image also pushes the extreme viewpoint that the entire mountain is one mosque. It is lacking all the alternative Hebrew names of the place and objects in it. --Seggallion (talk) 08:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
If there are missing names, it is probably because they do not appear frequently in use in English sources, and this is English Wikipedia. Which names? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
The whole image has no correlation to any name usage popularity whatsoever. Was that the original idea of the image? I never heard of Har haBayit until all this stuff came up and when I do see it, it is presented as a Hebrew translation of Temple Mount, Mount Moriah is probably just a product of all the bible studies stuff out there. Selfstudier (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
What is the original idea of the image, then, if not to reflect common usage? That you think Har haBayit is a Hebrew translation of the English Temple Mount is... interesting. The site has been referred to as Har haBayit for literally thousands of years. Drsmoo (talk) 13:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Finding Jerusalem Galor 2017 "The best view overlooking the Temple Mount (in Hebrew, Har Ha-Bayit), or the Haram al-Sharif (Noble Sanctuary)" is the way sources see it or when using it (not that often) they just put Har Ha-Bayit in brackets next to Temple Mount. Even one of the sources you bought earlier says "is called har Ha-Bayit in Hebrew (whence the common English term, "the Temple Mount").Selfstudier (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Those sources don't describe it as a "Hebrew translation of Temple Mount", which it's not. However, there is a question whether or not Temple Mount is an English translation of Har haBayit, in which case, there are sources that indicate that it's not, and comment on the discrepancies between the meanings behind the phrases. Drsmoo (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree sacred/holy esplanade is recent vintage so that's not going to show up in historical counts but when you look who is using it, I don't think we should be discounting that, particularly since a primary intent behind the usage is an attempt at neutrality. Selfstudier (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Shortly before the 19 April closed consultations, "some Council members apparently discussed the possibility of issuing press elements calling for de-escalation in Jerusalem. However, divisions among Council members prevented agreement on the proposed text. It seems that the main point of contention was whether and how to mention the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount site. Some apparently wanted to refer solely to “Haram al-Sharif”, while others insisted on the need to also mention “Temple Mount”. It seems that other proposals included using terms such as “holy esplanade” or “holy sites”, as well as referencing a 2015 press statement which expressed concern at tensions in Jerusalem, “especially surrounding the Haram al-Sharif compound”. Ultimately, the difference of views was unbridgeable and the initiative was abandoned."
Here is the US explaining why it voted no on 3 resolutions passed by UNGA. The US says "I want to highlight one specific issue of serious concern, which is the reference to the holy sites in the Jerusalem text. The text only references "Haram al-Sharif," rather than "Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount," which is agreed terminology that recognizes the shared and diverse history of the holy site.(my emphasis). What can one say? Anyone know when/where "Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount," became agreed terminology? Can't seem to find anything on that.Selfstudier (talk) 09:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
The 2021 Jerusalem resolution says "Recalling the Security Council press statement on Jerusalem of 17 September 2015, in which the Council called, inter alia, for the exercise of restraint, refraining from provocative actions and rhetoric and upholding unchanged the historic status quo at the Haram al-Sharif – in word and in practice, as well as for full respect for international law, including international human rights law and international humanitarian law, as may be applicable in Jerusalem,..
It does also say "Reaffirming also the importance and holiness of the City of Jerusalem for the three monotheistic religions,"- Selfstudier (talk) 09:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
It seems that the UNGA is unwilling/unable to move away from prior practice with UNESCO following suit. The Jerusalem resolution, introduced again in 2021, after complaints about the terminology, nevertheless maintained the same terminology. Judging by the frontierpost source, it seems as if this is an ongoing unresolved argument. At the UNSC the 17 September 2015 seems to have been the last time the current UNGA/UNESCO terminology was used. It would be good to find more sources on this, if they exist. Selfstudier (talk) 11:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
The conflict in names
Financial Times: Israeli security forces and Palestinians clash at al-Aqsa mosque compound “The scale of violence this year is smaller [compared with the lead-up to last year’s Gaza war], but the problem is that over the past week the focal point has been the religious element of the conflict, al-Aqsa versus the Temple Mount, Ramadan versus Passover, which is very dangerous,” said Ibrahim Dalalsha, director of the Horizon Center, a Ramallah think-tank.
So this source states that "Al Aqsa" vs the "Temple Mount" is a core religious element to the conflict. It is very uncomfortable in this context to see our article using a title favoring one side's belief. WP:POVNAME states that this is acceptable only if ...the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language sources, which is clearly not the case here as Aqsa and Temple Mount have almost equal usage. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
The "director" (read: only employee) of a private think-tank in Ramallah is not a wiki reliable source and we certainly shouldn't make decisions based on his opinions. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
I think he did. Also the second half of his post, where he points to Ngrams, is (inadvertent) nonsense. The vast majority of Ngrams results for "Aqsa" do not refer to this site, as easily shown by a search in books. Any more specific version shows "Temple Mount" is dramatically more common. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
If one examines pretty much any reputable newsorg article, you will find variations of phrase ..known to Jews as ...known to Muslims as...
Ditto any respectable book. Given that background, looking at an Ngram, this one, say one has to ask the question, in what sources are so many TM's apparently sitting on their own? Selfstudier (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
There probably aren't that many TMs sitting on their own, or at least not more than al-Aqsas. What happens is, like this page, books list both once and then use Temple Mount for the rest of the book/article. Ngram counts every mention. GordonGlottal (talk) 00:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
A straightforward google search gives 2.03 million ("Temple Mount") 1.91 million ("al-Aqsa mosque") which is more as one would expect, I don't know why the book results are so skewed but I will try to find out. Selfstudier (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
When one makes claims about things that are usual in reliable sources, one tends to provide some examples of said sources in support. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Well for example the Telegraph style guide is "Temple Mount - needs occasional Muslim translation." BBC style is "Temple Mount -- ie both words capped. Note that the area in Jerusalem that translates from Hebrew as the Temple Mount should also be described, though not necessarily in the first four paragraphs, as known to Muslims as the Haram al-Sharif". US news orgs tend not to publish their style guides, but WaPo uses only first mention here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/jerusalem-alaqsa-templemount-haramalsharif/2021/05/10/17f29614-b161-11eb-bc96-fdf55de43bef_story.html NYT uses only second mention here: www.
www.nytimes.com/2021/08/24/world/middleeast/israel-temple-mount-prayer.amp.html CNN uses only first here www.cnn.com/2021/07/20/middleeast/prayer-rights-jerusalem-holy-site-intl-cmd/index.html GordonGlottal (talk) 11:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Like WaPo, the BBC has, for a long time, used Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif [1][2], explaining the dual POV terminology as and when it arises. Full Telegraph style guide note: Temple Mount: needs occasional Muslim translation, "Temple Mount, known to Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary (Al Haram al Sharif)".Iskandar323 (talk) 12:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
A source with many usages of TM is still only one source, GG is right, I examined several and there are single sources with very high counts. Then that is not an accurate reflection of "the sources". I am still of a mind to make an NPOV argument here, regards the name, no hurry though. Selfstudier (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Not sure why this has a new topic heading, it's just a continuation of the above headings, not seeing any new information. In English, Al-Aqsa Mosque is commonly used for the building, so not analogous to Temple Mount. Temple Mount is the common name. Google Trends are also useful as they show what people are searching for. There is no wiikipolicy reason why an article for Haram al-Sharif can't be created though. Drsmoo (talk) 13:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
CE vs AD (Era Style)
This is a Wiki page about two of the major religions of the world and using an Atheist expression like CE instead of AD seems very inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjlesc0707 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
I assumed that the first sentence was part of your post, now I see from the history that it was an unsigned and undated post by someone else. No harm done any way :) Selfstudier (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Why did that happen Selfstudier? I've noticed that even if I forget the tildes my name and the timestamp appear anyway.
about two of the major religions, but neither of which consider "the Lord" in "year of the Lord" as "the Lord"? Also Common Era was devised by a Christian monk English and German Christians, not atheists. nableezy - 20:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
@Tombah: please provide a supporting quotation from the EoI for the following: In the earliest days of Islam, the Quranic Al-Aqsa Mosque was understood as a reference to a site in the heavens... Post-Rashidun Islamic scholars understood the story of Muhammad's ascension from al-Aqsa Mosque—'"the farthest place of prayer" (al-Masjid al-'Aqṣā) as relating to the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. There was an significant group of Muslims, such as al-Tabari, who disagreed with this identification and preferred the original meaning of the term as referring to heaven. The weighting of these viewpoints is different to what I have read in other sources. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. These are good sources and quotations. The EoI (I have now found it online here) doesn’t quite say what you have written above, and is focused on only the second part of the night journey. However, together with the other sources I don’t think what you have written is wrong. I will see what I can find. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
"Recent naming controversies are related to"
@Tombah: your edit "Recent naming controversies are related to…" appears tendentious, because you only mention one side's attempt to belittle the other's attachment to the site, despite the fact that the author [Reiter] later in the same citation explicitly describes this exact dynamic happening in both directions. We also have Abdallah Marouf Omar stating that “As shown before, Israel tried first to play with the definition of al-Aqsa as being only the Qibli Mosque building. This would give Israel an excuse to request a share in administrating the whole compound, claiming that not all of it is al-Aqsa Mosque”. We also have later in the same paragraph a statement that "the term Temple Mount can potentially imply support for Israeli control of the site." We need a balanced paragraph setting out all these claims, explaining the political undertone to the whole naming section. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree, we should find a way to include criticism from both sides. Maybe a dedicated section would do, explaining both sides of the equation. Tombah (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I am sorry if I did not make my self clear in the other discussion, but I am not in favor of *removing* the hatnote from this article. We can *modify* it though, if there is consensus. Khestwol (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't see what we need it for. There is no hatnote at the other article. The current hatnote could be read as implying that "Al-Aqsa Mosque compound" and "Haram al-Sharif" sometimes refer to the congregational mosque. Srnec (talk) 23:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
*David subsequently*
"David subsequently" what?
I would rewrite that as, "David subsequently prepared" ...
A lot of the material currently commenting on the permissibility of Jewish access to the site from a Rabbinic perspective currently rests on the authority of Hakirah, which appears to be a pesudo-journal with no journal site listings or clear peer review method. Talk of advertisers makes me think: magazine. It has a page, Ḥakirah (journal), with an ISSN that hints at Youngstown State University as the publisher, but I can't find any reference to that establishment actually having a university press, and the World Cat listings seems to be ambivalent about whether its a journal or magazine. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
The staff of Hakirah are mainly volunteers and the core members are those on the Editorial Board: Asher Benzion Buchman, Sheldon Epstein, David Guttmann, the late Shlomo Sprecher, and Heshey Zelcer. Two of the board members have semikhah but none are rabbis by profession. R. Asher Benzion Buchman is the Editor-in-Chief.[3]
none of whom are notable. Orthodox thought has a vast number of scholars, none figure here. It is not 'peer-reviewed' in the general acceptance of that term.Nishidani (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Its not an academic journal, it is a religious one. It could be possibly reliable for Jewish scholars say XYZ about such and such dispute. But for us? No, thats silly. nableezy - 20:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I searched the journal's web pages in vain for signs that it is either an "academic journal" or "peer-reviewed". Nada. If the journal itself doesn't make such claims, neither should we. I think it can be used for the opinion of authors who are themselves acknowledged experts, otherwise not. Zerotalk04:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
To try to progress this, I have listed below the current table of contents of this article, with a strawman view as to which sections would fit neatly into which article, and which would need significant duplication. My strawman is in blue. Views of other editors, perhaps overlaid in a different color, would be helpful.
I think I might support this but process-wise it should happen through an official RFC with notices on all the relevant pages, like any major change to a highly contentious article with many engaged editors. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
1 Terminology
1.1 Temple Mount TM
1.2 Other Hebrew terms TM
1.3 Al-Aqsa Mosque MAA
1.4 Haram al-Sharif MAA
1.5 Jerusalem's sacred esplanade Both
2 Location and dimensions Both
3 Heritage site Both
4 Religious significance
4.1 Judaism both (overview)
4.1.1 The Temple TM
4.1.2 In prophecy TM
4.1.3 Binding of Isaac TM
4.1.4 Creation of the world TM
4.1.5 Third Temple TM
4.2 Christianity both (overview)
4.3 Islam both (overview)
4.3.1 In early Islam MAA
4.3.2 Isra and Mi'raj MAA
4.3.3 First qibla MAA
4.3.4 Religious status MAA
5 History both (overview)
5.1 Israelite period TM
5.2 Persian, Hellenistic and Hasmonean periods TM
5.3 Herodian and early Roman periods TM
5.4 Middle Roman period both
5.5 Late Roman period both
5.6 Byzantine period both
5.7 Sassanid period both
5.8 Early Muslim period MAA
5.9 Crusader and Ayyubid period MAA
5.10 Mamluk period MAA
5.11 Ottoman period MAA
5.12 British Mandatory period both
5.13 Jordanian period both
5.14 Israeli period both
6 Status quo both
6.1 Under Muslim control both
6.2 British Mandate both
6.3 Jordanian control both
6.4 Under Israeli control both
7 Management and access both
8 Jewish attitudes towards entering the site both
8.1 Jewish religious law concerning entry to the site both
8.2 Opinions of contemporary rabbis concerning entry to the site both
I support this, because it is currently a disservice to readers that they have nowhere to go to simply read about the architecture and history of the mosque as a structure, in its entirety, without having to trawl an article front-loaded with twice the volume of material not directly related to to its construction and design. As you note, certain elements would invariably be duplicated across both articles, as the history of the usage at the overall site in inextricably intertwined, but I think it's doable. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I have several times mentioned that I would support an article, (The) Haram al-Sharif, duplication notwithstanding (because that is what I see in the majority of newspaper reports and books I come across, known to Jews as ...known to Muslims as...). I think however, that it would be better to resolve the ambiguity question before proceeding. Selfstudier (talk) 12:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
So we have some people saying we should solve the ambiguity first, others we should split the content first ... another RFC? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Nableezy did previously suggest an RFC re the ambiguity (in the move review), Idk whether they still think its a good idea but the recent comments at Al-Aqsa indicate that there is a group of editors who believe there is no or little ambiguity and I suspect that this might get in the way of the proposal here unless it is resolved.
Of course, creating an article anyway and then defending it is another way of proceeding. I would just prefer that the ambiguity question was not left hanging. Selfstudier (talk) 12:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
To clarify, I did not have in mind any kind of split. I had in mind an article on the term masjid al-aqsa, its origin in the Quran, its meaning, how it came to be applied to a place in Jerusalem and its broader and narrower meanings. In other words, an article in lieu of a dab page for the underlying Arabic term so that readers have one stop to visit to sort it out. I would oppose a separate article on the Haram al-Sharif, although a history of the haram terminology and its relation to the masjid would fit into the broad-concept article I am envisioning. I first floated this idea at Talk:Masjid al-Aqsa. Srnec (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
The compound as a key site in Islamic history is obviously notable enough for an article. The problem is the severe overlap with Temple Mount and the consequences of that. Unfortunately, I believe that one of the consequences of a split will be to provide an excuse to bury the Islamic history now present in Temple Mount. The Temple Mount article will soon show just the Jewish aspects for time periods when the Islamic aspects were paramount. A split will not enhance the visibility of the Islamic aspects, but reduce it, since it will always be the case that "Temple Mount" is the most common search term. That problem will be made worse if the article on the Islamic compound is given a name like Masjid al-Aqsa which has little name-recognition among the general public. Overall, I don't think a separate article is a good idea unless it is restricted to an aspect that will not drain text from the Temple Mount article. Srnec's proposals are worth considering. Zerotalk05:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
As an aside, "Masjid al-Aqsa" has the same ambiguity as does "al-Aqsa Mosque", though probably not with similar proportions. From at least the middle of the 19th century to the end of the British period, Masjid al-Aqsa was the primary name for the building in English sources including British maps. I still see it used that way. Zerotalk05:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't believe creating an article for the Islamic site would cause a problem as Wikipedia:Content forking#Related articles "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork." In other words, I don't see a reason why content should be removed from this article. Instead that article might go more in depth on Islamic aspects. There are many notable aspects of this site that have distinct articles, ie Temple in Jerusalem, so it struck me as odd that there wasn't one strictly for the Islamic aspect. Drsmoo (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@Drsmoo: in this scenario, how would you propose defining the scope of the Temple Mount article?
1841 British map There is very little confusion indeed between the transliterated titles in serious scholarly sources and the British didn't always have the problem either. Pictured right: the 1841 map had it all accounted for correctly. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
What definition of "correctly" is that? Here is the far more influential map from the 1860s Ordnance Survey of Jerusalem, and here is a typical map from the Survey of Palestine (1936, still the same in 1947). Both use "Masjid el-Aqsa" as a label on the building only. I'd be interested if you can find any map from the Survey of Palestine which is different (though documents often called the building Al-Aqsa Mosque). You can also see name #152 on the 1936 name list compiled by the mandate administration with advice from the various communities. You will find on page 31 a response from the Muslim Supreme Council that the correct name for #152 is Masjid al-Aqsa and for the whole compound #113 Haram esh-Sharif. The only conclusion is that "Masjid al-Aqsa" is ambiguous. The fact that it also fails COMMONNAME emphasises that it isn't a good article title. Zerotalk07:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@Zero0000: my interpretation of this is that the mistake in the 1865 ordnance survey was the catalyst for Palmer's 1871 "Excursus on the name Masjid El Aksa", in which he set things straight. As a result, the PEF's 1884 map [3] removed the term Masjid. Unfortunately the ordnance survey was so influential that the mistake crept into some (many?) later maps which copied it without consulting sources like Palmer.
In the same vein, I believe that the modern English-language application of "Al Aqsa Mosque" to just the southern building was a product of Frederick Catherwood's 1835 map, which labeled it "Mosque El Aksa" (I can't find the usage anywhere else before this date). Edward Robinson commented on and corrected the record in 1838, but kept some of it in shorthand. The Royal Engineers in 1841 corrected it too. After which, writers stopped thinking much about it. Of course Catherwood's name for the whole compound was mistaken too - he called the whole complex "Mosque of Omar". That name was later used frequently to refer to the Dome of the Rock, which scholars today refute as well.
As to the 1936 name list, that was not a blank canvas request - the British wrote the English names, and the Muslim Supreme Council would have had a junior translator write the Arabic verbatim without much further thought. Another relevant source is the 1930 Shaw Commission,[4] where the language of the Muslim Supreme Council "Western Wall of the Mosque of Al-Aqsa" can only refer to the compound.
My conclusion on "Masjid al-Aqsa" is:
Usage in historical Arabic sources (as reported by Western scholars) is 100% about the compound
100% of detailed English-language scholarly assessments of the term conclude it relates to the compound
Modern Arabic usage is 100% about the compound
The modern Arabic name for the compound of "Masjid Al Aqsa" now far outweighs the modern Arabic use of "Haram al-Sharif". "Haram al-Sharif" is still quoted by scholars as the "Arabic name for the compound", but this is a legacy of 19th / early 20th century scholarship
Perhaps emanating from the incorrect 1865 Ordnance Survey map, 19th and 20th century English-language usage of Masjid Al Aqsa was sometimes confused and inconsistent
21st century usage is a more consistently relating to the compound, as more and more scholars have published fulsome explanations of the terminology
Your explanation of the 1936 list paints the Muslim Supreme Council as morons who didn't know the name of one of their most important buildings. The rest of this is not worth responding to. Oh, I just noticed that the article "Aqsa Mosque" in the Encyclopedia of the Quran (2005) is about the building. You should write to them to explain their error. Zerotalk08:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
The Encyclopedia of the Quran entry (full text here) is an abysmal one that falls down at the very first hurdle - anachronously referring to the sacred precinct as the al-Haram al-Sharif from the time of Muhammad, even though that title was only bestowed on the space at a much later date. This is basically a textbook example of why we sometimes use tertiary sources to establish notability and basic facts, but when it gets to the finer detail, we pull up the secondary sources by subject-matter experts, who stand apart from the often inexpert sub-editors typically drafted to put together encylopedias. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
There was no mosque on al-Haram al-Sharif before Muhammad’s death - what is this then? Lazy explanation is what it is. Like saying, the Aya Sofia was a cathedral before the Ottoman conquest of Istanbul. Sure, why bother using the right terminology for the right periods? Let's have an anachronism free-for-all! Though incidentally, the encyclopedia as a whole appears to be divided on the use of the term masjid: The use of the term “al-Haram al-Sharif ” to identify the area of the former Jewish Temple Mount in Jerusalem, as well as the identification of the tomb of Abraham in Hebron as a haram, has no explicit qur’anic authority and only came into general use in the Mamluk and Ottoman periods. Prior to that period, the term “al-Masjid al-Aqsa” was used to refer both to the entire Haram area as well as to the roofed structure in the south edge of the Haram. All in all, overall, the terminology and its definitions are somewhat all over the place. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:00, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Using a common name for the site isn't lazy. Most news media say "known to Muslims as Haram al-Sharif", so it is not surprising that an encyclopedia that is aiming to be understandable would use the well-known terms. Drsmoo (talk) 13:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
@Iskandar323: (Edit conflict.) It is perfectly normal and commonplace to refer to a place using a modern name for it. The text does not imply that the name "al-Haram al-Sharif" existed before Mohammed's death, only that the place did. You failed to prove your point, sorry. Zerotalk13:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
So when an archaeology journal writes of "neolithic finds in Palestine", you will take them to task for implying that the name Palestine was in use in the neolithic. Zerotalk15:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
It's not ideal. "Neolithic remains found in Palestine" would be better structurally, but I'd still only expect even that in a news headline. Proper papers use abstract geography like "Southern Levantine Coast" [5]. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I know that you can write an argument against anything that doesn't match your beliefs. We can all do that. Now I'll mention the travelogue of Evliya Çelebi who used al-Aqsa Mosque (Turkish al-Masjidu-l-Aqṣa) as a name of the building in the mid-18th century. Repeatedly. Zerotalk11:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
The question that one might pose to any source using Al-Masjid al-Aqsa to refer to the prayer hall is: are they unaware of the term Jami' al-Aqsa (19th-century common knowledge), and, if so, how deep might we understand their reading to be? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Zero is almost certainly referring to Stephan Hanna Stephan's translation, serialized in QDAP (consolidated version here). Stephan only once gives the underlying Ottoman Turkish, in the chapter title (p58 of the pdf). That entire page is describing the compound. On the next page Stephan transitions to describing the Jami’, also using English “mosque”, but without telling us what Turkish word Evliya used. Unfortunately this doesn’t give us any certainty of the terminology actually used – we would need a secondary source for that (or the underlying original Turkish version). Onceinawhile (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Incidentally, I don't deny that the most common meaning of "Masjid al-Aqsa" in the scholarly literature today is the whole compound, despite exceptions. If we were forced to choose a primary topic for that name, I would vote for the whole compound. However, the fact that most people have no idea what the Arabic word "Masjid" means is a good argument against using it as the main article title. A redirect would catch those few who specifically look for it. Zerotalk07:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
The problem is the severe overlap with Temple Mount and the consequences of that. A similar case that springs to mind is the History of Israel / History of Palestine articles. If we can manage that I think we can manage this case as well. Selfstudier (talk) 08:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
And yet, on a very rudimentary level, the infobox typology says it all - this article currently hosts an "infobox mountain" template owing to the current fixation on the physical space rather than the structure that occupies it - for which the correct infobox would be "infobox religious building" complete with details such as dome quantities and heights, minaret quantities and heights, etc. The minarets, incidentally, are a good example of the issues with the jami' prayer hall/masjid mosque proper confusion. Minarets are a part of a mosque, and yet, all of Al-Aqsa's minarets sit on the far margins of the esplanade facing the city, not by the jami'. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
It is a complete waste of time to keep reporting sources that apply the name to the whole compound. Nobody here is denying it is used that way. The problem is flat-out denial that the name is used in any other way, which is simply false. The Supreme Muslim Council agreed to it as the name of the building, no reason to doubt the evidence. But let's check "A Brief Guide to Al-Haram al-Sharif" published by the Supreme Muslim Council in 1925.
The words al-Haram al-Sharif, which can perhaps best be rendered by "The August Sanctuary", denote the whole of the sacred enclosure which it is the object of this Guide to describe.
The two principal edifices are the Dome of the Rock, on a raised platform in the middle, and the mosque of al-Aqsa, against the south wall. (And then follow multiple references to the building as the mosque of al-Aqsa. The Arabic word Masjid does not appear in this document.)
The Department of Antiquities called the building the al-Aqsa Mosque (and nothing else as far as I am aware). Its director Hamilton who wrote a book on his excavation there called it that. A famous 18th 17th century Muslim traveller who described it over several pages, called it that. A good fraction of the scholarly references one finds at Scholar use it for the building. The Palestine Ministry of Tourism and Antiquites (undated "Guide to Palestine") seems to be confused. On one page "visitors can visit the magnificent Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque, two of Islam’s holiest and the most beautiful shrines" and on another "Al-Aqsa Mosque (Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa). Also known as the al-Haram ash-Sharif" immediately followed by "the mosque itself" when referring to the building. Now the venerable Encyclopedia of Islam also tackles, from two different expert authors (New edition, vol 6, 1991):
The words [al-Masdjid al-Aksa] were commonly used in early Islamic times for Jerusalem, and during many centuries, more specifically for the Haram al-Sharif... The most common use of the words is for the large building located on the south side of the Haram platform... (p700ff)
The name al-Masdjid al-Aksa was used throughout the early period for the whole Haram area in Jerusalem, later partly for it and partly for the building in its southern part.(p651)
The first of those was written by Oleg Grabar, an acknowledged expert who Iskandar323 cited earlier. Grabar is supported by another expert Michael Burgoyne (Mamluk Jerusalem, 1989):
Tradition also claimed that Jerusalem was the starting-point for Muhammad’s visit to Heaven, his ‘ascension’ (Mi raj). Originally the whole area of the Haram, the sacred precinct where formerly the Temple had stood, was referred to as the Masjid al-Aqsa, but this name came to identify in particular the mosque on the south edge of the Haram area. All these associations were gathered together in a series of works on the ‘Excellencies of Jerusalem’, which had its beginnings early in the eleventh century. (p58).
But let's also cite Yitzhak Reiter, who Onceinawhile likes to quote:
Within the wall of the Haram there are several holy buildings which were constructed mainly to commemorate religious events. The most significant of these are al-Aqsa Mosque, the Dome of the Rock, and al-Buraq. ("Between Divine and Human: The Complexity of Holy Places in Jerusalem", in Moshe Ma"oz and Sari Nusseibeh (eds.); Jerusalem: Points of Friction—and Beyond, pp. 99-153. (2000)
Another expert Amikam Elad (Medieval Jerusalem and Islamic Worship, Brill, 1999), notes that writers like Mujir used "al-Masjid al-Aqsa" for the whole compound but uses it himself for the building, and he also cites several traditions from the pre-crusader period which list al-Masjid al-Aqsa as just one of the holy places in the Haram. The geographer al-Makdisi wrote "Abd al-Malik wanted to build the Dome of the Rock and al-Masjid al-Aqsa to protect people from cold and heat", which makes no sense if the Dome of the Rock is inside the Masjid (A. El-Khatib, Jerusalem in the Quran, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 28 (2001) 25–53.) In conclusion, the name is ambiguous both historically and more recently, both in Islamic writing and other writing. Zerotalk15:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Zero, all good points. I do think you have the wrong end of the stick though. Noone has ever disputed the core of the points you make above throughout the two and a half month discussion. Both Iskandar and I began this discussion proposing Al Aqsa Mosque with brackets as the alternate name. It was two other editors who proposed Qibli.
@Zero0000: re Masjid / Jami, I am not sure if we are in disagreement. In fact, I can't figure out where we disagree on any of this. I was about to write a paragraph to respond to the above, and then I realized you had pretty much written what I was about to write all the way back in 2018.
Re the sources above which state in passing that "the words" were used for the southern building, I believe they were writing loosely - i.e. they meant "Al Aqsa" and "Mosque of Al Aqsa" was used for the southern building, not necessarily that "Masjid" was used for the southern building. Because of the firm mosque=masjid equation that we agree on, I think these authors felt within their rights to make that shortcut.
@Onceinawhile: You have repeatedly written of "right" and "wrong" sources in black and white terms. You need to stop doing that. Also, please stop inventing theories like the one about the junior clerk and the one about Catherwood that you have no evidence for. Wilson told us why he used the name he did on the building, and it wasn't because he copied someone else: "Haram-es-Sherif is the name now commonly applied to the sacred enclosure of the Moslems at Jerusalem, which, besides containing the buildings of the Dome of the Rock and Aksa, has always been supposed to include within its area the site of the Jewish Temple. Mejr-ed-din, as quoted by Williams, gives Mesjid-el-Aksa as the correct name of the enclosure, but this is now exclusively applied to the mosque proper." (Ordnance Survey of Jerusalem, p23) There's no reason to doubt that he was reporting what he was told at the time. (You might like to wonder why the new name Haram esh-Sharif came into use, around the 14th century if I recall, if there was already a fully-accepted name for the same thing.) Next, "masjid" is Arabic and "mosque" is by far the most common English translation of it. Tons of fully-roofed mosque buildings are called Masjid, so there is nothing inherently less ambiguous about it. The only difference in our case is that "al-Masjid al-Aqsa" is a special phrase because it is in the Quran. Zerotalk05:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
@Zero0000: re your first sentence (right / wrong) please could you link to a particularly egregious example or two? I have looked through and can’t find them. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
In the meantime, to address a few more of your other points:
My emerging view re Catherwood was explicitly stated as such, my view. If it is wrong, I would be delighted to learn more and enhance my view. It is not based on no evidence, but on the work I have done over the last few years on the cartographic history of the city. I can't find a single map using the Islamic terminology in any form prior to Catherwood, and I can't find a single literary source using Aksa only for the southern building prior to that time either. And Catherwood's subsequent influence is well documented. This is an argumentum ex silentio at the moment, but one I intend to keep an eye on - if it can be dated further back in time, then great.
Re the 1936 name list, do you have a secondary source explaining how it was compiled?
I hold detailed analyses of the terminology - such as those in Palmer and Le Strange - above sources which discuss it only in passing
Surely you agree that Palmer's 1871 paper was likely intended as a clarification / correction of Wilson's 1865 comment?
Re why Haram came into usage, Reiter says "the supporters of Jerusalem's importance (apparently after its liberation from Crusader control) succeeded in attributing... the status of haram that had been accorded to the sacred compound." I'm not sure where he got this Crusades connection from, but it makes for an elegant story, so would be interesting to go a level deeper.
On the "only difference" being that MAA is a Quranic term, that is the fundamental basis of this whole thing. All detailed scholarly assessments of the terminology say so. Islamic sources say that MAA was used in the Quran to refer to the Jewish holy area. In other words Quranic MAA = Temple Mount.
I still have to respond to your points in your earlier post. I have found a couple of good recent additions to our list of sources. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Also, Onceinawhile, you wrote of NJ Johnson "She doesn't seem to have published any other articles in her entire scholarly career" but if you search for "NJ Johnson" together with "Islamic" at Scholar you will find at least half a dozen archaeological reports. Since Johnson is presumably still alive, you should go back and strike your comment. Zerotalk07:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Zero, good spot. I believe that 100% of her subsequent papers refer to Tall Jawa. My earlier comment was made in a now-closed discussion so I cannot modify it. But if I could, I would not strike it but instead add the word "relevant" between the words "other articles". Onceinawhile (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Zero, just to state the obvious, and I agree with his It is a complete waste of time to keep reporting sources that apply the name to the whole compound. Nobody here is denying it is used that way. The problem is flat-out denial that the name is used in any other way, which is simply false. Which is honestly a bit disappointing, because I know at least some of the people arguing against him know Zero doesnt make arguments that are not well-founded, but they keep dismissing them anyway. I dont get why Onceinawhile seems so adamant in saying that the terms, both Masjid al-Aqsa and al-Aqsa Mosque, do not also, regularly, refer to the building itself. You keep trying to prove that it is wrong to do so, but that is, as it has always been on Wikipedia, an irrelevant argument. You arent getting any argument against the ambiguity. You just seem to be refusing to acknowledge that it is ambiguous, instead demanding that it can only mean the entire compound. nableezy - 13:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes. We shall be getting close to WP:Bludgeon if this argufying persists. The positions have been exhaustively laid out, and if few of us are persuaded, one drops it, even if convinced one is right. All of the longterm editors here have experienced that kind of frustration but that is the way wiki works, and one learns to desist and move on.Nishidani (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
(Since I already wrote this reply to Once, I'll post it, but I have already told him off-line that I will probably not continue this thread.) (1) The most relevant thing about NJ Johnson is that she had spent several years studying the history of the Dome of the Rock, also part of the al-Aqsa compound, so to pronounce her ignorant was a poor excuse to ignore what she wrote. And despite the claim she was not a student at the time. (2) As for right and wrong, it isn't those words in particular but your black and white words like "mistake" and "correct" that you apply to things in accordance with your beliefs. I have provided more than enough evidence that the "truth" is more nuanced than that. (3) Robinson refers to "earlier Arabian writers" for the footnote you quote and himself uses mosk el-Aksa a large number of times for the building. This attests to the contemporary usage. Guérin, who visited in 1852, tells much the same story in his book Jerusalem, though sometimes using the name Djami-el-Aksa. (4) Catherwood visited the mosque in person with local guides, and I don't see justification for believing he used a name different from what he was told. (5) Regarding the name list, the Arabic handwriting seems to be the same on page 31 and the summary list on page 74. If I'm correct it probably means, but doesn't prove, that both the English and Arabic spellings were given to the Supreme Muslim Council for checking. Given how zealously they defended their role as guardians of the Haram, this plus the publication of theirs that I quoted, is strong evidence that they were happy with the name used on official maps throughout the mandate period. It doesn't mean that they were unaware of the wider usage. An anecdote from Kupferschmidt, The Supreme Muslim Council, Brill 1987, p130, might illustrate the picture, though unfortunately it is about the other edifice: Ronald Storrs asked the then mufti Kamil al-Husayni in 1920 if "Dome of the Rock" was the correct designation. Al Husayni concurred, saying that the Quranic designation was Al Aqsa but there was no objection to "Dome of the Rock". Zerotalk15:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
9.2 on Tuvia Sagiv - needs citation link
Section 9.2 (Features: Gates) of the page states that "numerous alternative opinions exist, based on study and calculations, such as those of Tuvia Sagiv." There is no citation or link to Tuvia Sagiv's actual articles on the subject. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem's Dinur Center for Research in Jewish History page links to a collection of Tuvia Singer's "research papers" stored on the independent TempleMount.com website). If the page is going to reference Tuvia Sagiv, it should actually link to his work. StoneDante (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 April 2023
This edit request to Temple Mount has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Done — added this source to the article, and I was able to use this same source (and another page from that same project) to further improve references in that section. Thanks for the request! –Pedantical (talk) 03:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Religious Significance : Judaism : The Temple -- Missing Verb
I noticed a line under the subheading "The Temple" that is missing a verb:
David subsequently ___ the site for a future temple to replace the Tabernacle and house the Ark of the Covenant; God forbade him from building it, however, because he had "shed much blood".
Unsure of the correct verb to use here (perhaps "saved" or "designated", although I haven't found any source to cite definitively), plus I'm new to editing so I can't change it myself, but I just thought I'd point it out :) Atca Da (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Atca Da, I would be happy to help implement an edit. If you could think on this one again, and if you would be willing, submit an edit request for the page using the templated request method (attempt to edit the main page by hitting View Source, then click the button to Submit an Edit Request in the format of “replace X with Y”).
It says that the complex is called al-Aqsa Mosque -- when that in itself is a separate page. I feel that this should be linked in order to prevent confusion. Thank you! 你好... (talk/討論頁) 23:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Leiho7, did your request here get resolved? Let me know if I can help! :)
The claim that " the Ottoman authorities continued the policy of prohibiting non-Muslims from setting foot on the Temple Mount until the early 19th century, when non-Muslims were again permitted to visit the site" and "Jews were not allowed to visit for approximately one thousand years" has no good source and is contradicted by other sources. For example: "Jewish fortunes were reversed again following the conquest of Sultan Suleyman I in 1516 and the ascendence of the Ottoman Empire. Jews were prohibited from visiting the Temple Mount, but, in 1546, an earthquake devastated the region, damaging the Temple Mount and the surrounding area. Suleyman ordered the rubble of homes adjacent to the Western Wall to be cleared for a prayer site for the Jews. Suleyman issued a firman (decree) that Jews had the right to pray there for all times. This decree remained in force and was honored by his successors for more than 400 years" (https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-temple-mount)
And "Toward the end of the Mamluk period, there is evidence from the chief rabbi of Jerusalem, David ben Shlomo Ibn Zimra (1479-1573), who wrote that the city's Jews regularly went to the Temple Mount in order to view the entire temple ruins and pray there. He added that "we have not heard or seen anyone object to this." https://www.meforum.org/3556/temple-mount#_ftnref35
The real prohibition (aside from the fact that the site was mostly ruins for this time) was a religious edict by certain JEWISH authorities: "Rabbi Yosef Di'Trani, who visited Jerusalem during the 1590s, noted that there were locations on the southern and eastern sides of the Temple Mount where Jews could walk freely without any concern of entering a prohibited area, but he ruled that Jews should, nonetheless, avoid going there because they were not ritually clean. In the nineteenth century, students of the rabbinical giant, the Vilna Gaon, arrived in Jerusalem and became the prototype of today's ultra-Orthodox haredi community. The leader of this group, Rabbi Yisrael of Shklov (d. 1839), held that though there were areas on the Temple Mount that they were allowed to enter, Jews were, nevertheless, forbidden to ascend as the exact location of these permitted areas was in some doubt.[49] This ruling became the normative position of the Orthodox world for the next 150 years. Despite rabbinical decrees prohibiting access to the mountain and the death penalty threat for any Jew caught on the mountain, the deep-seated Jewish attachment to the Temple Mount remained strong. An unknown number of Jews ascended the mountain surreptitiously during these centuries. No records were kept of these visits because of their clandestine nature, but occasional references in Muslim court records and travelers' accounts give evidence of their occurrence" https://www.meforum.org/3556/temple-mount#_ftnref35
Reiter is not a bad source even if the publisher is a bit iffy. JVL is not reliable and meforum is not that great either, maybe check the sources used by those articles or if the writers can be considered experts with attribution. If you can identify good sources to add, of course we should do that. I remember some discussion about rabbinical prohibition earlier, maybe it is in the archives, it is also mentioned in the third para of the lead as being still current at least for some part of the community. Selfstudier (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
The first quotation is about the Western Wall, not the Temple Mount. So is the second one (see the longer description of Rabbi Zimra's writing in Meir Ben Dov, Mordecai Naor, and Zeev Aner, The Western Wall, p125). But anyway JVL is thoroughly unreliable and MEF/MEQ routinely publishes lies. What seems to be true (but can't be stated in this way without a source that does) is that the Jewish authorities were perfectly happy with the Islamic restrictions re the Temple Mount platform because it conformed to their own restrictions. Zerotalk00:12, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Did this thread get resolved or does this thread seem reasonable to keep pinned on the Talk Page for a while (i.e., should this topic be archived, or is there an edit request in store that I could assist with)?
I am not sure what the problem is. The very source that is cited for the Ottoman prohibition says: "But he goes further, stating that the visible walls surrounding the Temple Mount (eastern, southern, and western) are the walls of Har Habayis and that the Jews, due to their sins, are unable to enter inside those walls. He concludes that the current practice is for the Jews to pray outside the gates on the eastern side."
and
"Consequently, the Chazon Nachum extends this status to all men and prohibits them from entering any part of Har Habayis.16"
This prohibition continued even after 1967 according to page 49.
Even the claim that the Ottomans forbid entrance is pretty weak: "It is generally agreed that the Muslims prohibited non-Muslims from entering the Temple Mount from the time of Saladin’s victory over the Crusaders in 1189 until the early 19th century when the Turks began allowing non-Muslims to enter by paying a fee."
So unless someone wants to spend time in detailing all of the prohibitions, laying the closure on the Ottomans seems a bit odd.
Myself, I do not understand most of the varying restrictions that the source discusses due to their excessive use of jargon.Mcdruid (talk) 09:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 August 2023
This edit request to Temple Mount has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: This appears to be just one group with an internet presence. I don't think it's significant enough to warrant inclusion in an already long article about a site whose significance is easily established by more relevant sources. The Patheos article has potential WP:PROMO problems, and that looks like a potential problem for this edit too. R Prazeres (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
"Citation Nr. 177 has a typo:
In sentence: "The Temple was a rectangular-shaped structure, divided into three parts: the Ulam, the Hechal and the Gvir." the word "Gvir" must be changed into "Dvir". Thank you! Photojack50 (talk|contribs) 10:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
What is the "Temple Mount Administration"?
WTF is the "Minhelet Har HaBait" (ha-Bayit?) or "Temple Mount Administration" that pops up in the news? Yet another tentacle of the (3rd) Temple Institute, Western Wall Heritage Foundation, Elad... and so forth, i.a. the religious-fascist takeover Kraken? Arminden (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
There you go, Arminden, in reaction to your question, I have spent some time creating the article Temple Mount Administration. Unfortunately, one minute after I created it, even if all affirmations were duly sourced, the article has already been tagged as non-neutral, even though the moderator who did it did not say what is non-neutral in it, so that the issue could be fixed. Dan Palraz (talk) 12:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Extended confirmed protected edit request on 19 Oct 2023
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please make the following change to the article:
−
David subsequently the site for a future temple to replace the Tabernacle and house the Ark of the Covenant
+
David subsequently chose the site for a future temple to replace the Tabernacle and house the Ark of the Covenant
The Temple Mount... is a hill... The present site is a flat plaza surrounded by retaining walls... The plaza is dominated by two monumental structures... It stands where past Jewish temples... Among Muslims, the whole plaza is revered as "the Noble Sanctuary" or as the al-Aqsa Mosque, the second oldest mosque in Islam, and one of the three Sacred Mosques, the holiest sites in Islam... Since the Crusades launched by the Latin Church (11th–13th century), the Muslim community of Jerusalem has managed the site through the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf.
We all know this is a complex topic, but it feels odd given that our articles normally describe what things are before going on to describe what they were. Underneath the Notre-Dame de Paris is probably a Roman temple, but our article still describes it clearly as a cathedral in the first sentence.
Having said which, if this article is just about the hill and its history, then perhaps rather than changing the lede there should be a separate article on the mosque (compound). Note: per Al-Aqsa Mosque (disambiguation) our article Al-Aqsa Mosque describes the primary prayer building on the mosque compound, i.e. it is only part of the mosque. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
I have made a copy edit to address this, although I remain unconvinced. Whilst the lede is now more precise (the Haram / Al Aqsa describes the mosque compound, not the hill underneath), it hasn’t quite helped clarify what this article is really about. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you Iskandar. The difficult question now is where the line should be drawn in this article. Clearly much of the history section remains valid here, but some detail would be better at the other article. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
There wasn't actually much about the architecture here in the first place - that was sourced almost entirely from the other referenced pages. Most of the overlap is in the 7th-century+ history, but in fact, even there, I think I took more material from elsewhere. This page is extremely generalist, and many things were only ever barely outlined here in the first place - is there something else specifically that you would move from one to the other? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
I've definitely said this before as well. What's also uniquely odd about this page (as one about a religious site) is that it uses the infobox template for a mountain, not a religious building. It's pretty schizophrenic in general. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
That can be fixed, by replacing the infobox - be my guest. Now, even though I agree with all of your comments here, I think the new, changed edited lead is actually more problematic than the long-standing previous one, for the first sentence only gives the Jewish name and only its Hebrew translation, whereas, for such a sensitive topic, it is important that all names are presented in the same sentence. The way I see it, this article is clearly not about a mountain, but about the esplanade, which Jews call Temple Mount, Palestinians the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, the UN "the holy esplanade" - so I think we should go back to the previous, more inclusive first sentence, if you guys are okay with it. Dan Palraz (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Restoring the traditional first sentence, then, which described both names, not just one, at least until we can find a consensual solution to it. Dan Palraz (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
The fact it was done doesn't mean it was consensual or a good call. The Temple Mount as a whole *is* called the Holy Esplanade by the UN, and Al-Aqsa mosque compound by others, so these names must figure in the first sentence. The lead cannot have only the Hebrew name. Until a consensus is reached, the longstanding, until-then-consensual lead should be kept. Dan Palraz (talk) 20:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2023
This edit request to Temple Mount has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In 1217, Spanish Rabbi Judah al-Harizi found the sight of the Muslim structures on the mount profoundly disturbing. "What torment to see our holy courts converted into an alien temple!" he wrote.[117]
Please remove this from the article. It is inserting an irrelevant comment in an attempt to editorialize. The time frame being discussed in the directly prior and subsequent paragraphs
Is 200bce- 100ce. Quite far removed from 1217ce. Thank you for your consideration. 2603:7000:D00:59D9:F8A7:CD61:AC7C:8F5D (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
.jpg)
Already done (seemingly). It already appears to be linked - do you mean under 'See also'? Tollens (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Done — added this source to the article, and I was able to use this same source (and another page from that same project) to further improve references in that section. Thanks for the request! –Pedantical (talk) 03:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Not done: This appears to be just one group with an internet presence. I don't think it's significant enough to warrant inclusion in an already long article about a site whose significance is easily established by more relevant sources. The Patheos article has potential WP:PROMO problems, and that looks like a potential problem for this edit too. R Prazeres (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
