Misplaced Pages

Talk:Temple Mount: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:26, 21 April 2011 editGilabrand (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users72,084 edits top← Previous edit Revision as of 19:14, 20 May 2011 edit undoSteven J. Anderson (talk | contribs)19,983 edits →Era Style: new sectionNext edit →
Line 129: Line 129:


I think the Recent Events section should also include the ] (]) 20:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC) I think the Recent Events section should also include the ] (]) 20:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

== Era Style ==

There is currently an edit war taking place on this page over the era style to be used for dates in this article. It is the responsibility of the participants in this conflict to sort it out here on the talk page rather than edit war their changes into place. I request that all those involved come here to get this sorted as Misplaced Pages policies require. I should like to make the following points regarding this issue.

1. The relevant guideline can be found at ].<br>
2. This guideline '''does not say''' that the era style first used must prevail in all Misplaced Pages articles.<br>
3. The guideline '''does say''' (quoting) ''"Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors."''<br>
4. This article had been stable for years in the BCE/CE era style for years until was made by <span class="plainlinks">] (] &bull; ] &bull; &bull; )</span> at 17:18 on 10 May 2011.<br>
5. This edit by 71.245.92.36 was against the guideline since it changed from one style to another without substantial reason or consensus.<br>
6. Subsequent edits by various editors in favor of BCE/CE, including ]&nbsp;{{toolbar|separator=dot|] | ] }}, ]&nbsp;{{toolbar|separator=dot|] | ] }} and ]&nbsp;{{toolbar|separator=dot|] | ] }}, have been in accordance with the guideline as they restored long-standing consensus.<br>
7. Other subsequent edits by various editors in favor of BC/AD, including <span class="plainlinks">] (] &bull; ] &bull; &bull; )</span> and ]&nbsp;{{toolbar|separator=dot|] | ] }} have been against the guideline as they were in favor of the original breach of consensus.<br>
8. The reason the guideline reads the way it does is that several years ago there was a rancorous, disruptive, site-wide dispute regarding era style that was settled with this guideline as a cease-fire.<br>
9. Violations of the cease-fire of the sort initiated at this article by 71.245.92.36 are against the spirit and the letter of the guideline.<br>
10. This article should keep the BCE/CE era style until a consensus to change it, supported by a substantial reason for the change, is reached. --] (]) 19:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:14, 20 May 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Temple Mount article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months 

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Temple Mount article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconReligion: Interfaith
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIslam High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIsrael Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconJudaism Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPalestine High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconMiddle Ages: Crusades
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Crusades task force.

yehudah etzion

Someone please expand ...

yehudah etzion : rebel, settler, archterrorist of the Jewish underground, one of the leaders of the 1980s plot to blow up the Dome of the Rock ...

134.193.168.250 22:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Better placed at Dome of the Rock. Chesdovi (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Chrisitianity

I'm not sure what the significance of Temple mount is in Christianity. Since I'm neither a Christian, nor a specialist in Christianity, I don't feel entitled to make claims about the Christian faith. All I would like is for the Jewish, Christian and Islamic perspectives to be presented fairly, and in that order.

The reason the order is Judaism, Christianity and Islam is simply chronological. It is the only order everyone can agree on. Another suggested order, namely the order of "importance", will create edit conflicts since there will be disputing claims about which religion's claims are more important.Bless sins (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The Mount features in the New Testament, but Jesus preached in many locations all over Judea. The holy place in Jerusalem for Christians is the Sepulchre church. No Christian sect would do battle for the possession of the Mount as fiercely as they would for a foothold in that church. In the Byzantine period they dumped their garbage on the site. I do not think a mention is necessary in the introduction. Chesdovi (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it'd be appropriate to ask an editor who has experience on Christianity related articles to comment here?Bless sins (talk) 06:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed:

Jews point to the edict of Cyrus the Great (see chapters 1 and 6 of the book of Ezra in the Bible), (538 BCE), ruler of the Persian Empire, who gave permission and encouraged the exiled Jews of the time to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple. A few years later when the authorities in Jerusalem asked the Jews what right they had to build a Temple, they referred to the decree of Cyrus. Darius, who was then reigning, organised a search for this alleged decree. When it was found in the archives at Ecbatana ('Achmetha.' Ezra 6:2), Darius reaffirmed the decree and the work proceeded. This edict, fully reproduced in the Book of Ezra, demonstrates non-Jewish recognition of the Jewish rights to the site.

The entire statement is unsourced, and has been since February. The only reference seems to be to the Book of Ezra, which does not say what the above does. Please find reliable secondary sources.Bless sins (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

VANDALISM? WTF?

I added this:

The Mount has significance in Christianity due to the role the Temple played in the life of Jesus. Notably, shortly after his birth he was presented at the Temple, as per the Jewish custom, where Simeon recognised him as the Messiah. Later, as a child left behind on the journey back to Nazareth he was found at the Temple giving instruction to the Temple scholars. As an adult he famously cast out the money changers and animal traders from the Temple in an event, or events known as the cleansing of the Temple. At this time he declared "Is it not written: "'My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations'? But you have made it 'a den of robbers.'" (Mark 11:17). Finally he was condemned to death at Pilate's Palace at the northwest corner of the Temple Mount.

Why is this vandalism and immediately scrubbed???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.80.127 (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Location

This source show that the international community recognizes East Jerusalem as part of the Palestinian territories, not Israel: therefor that location map should be used.

EJ is also more informative then just "Jerusalem" so that should be used as its location description. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Such changes contradict compromise agreed upon two sections earlier ("Location of Temple Mount"). Hertz1888 (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
1. The map in the infobox is not discussed there, so you have not provided a reason to remove it. 2. "East Jerusalem" does not contradict "Jerusalem" its only more specific. Does anyone object to "East Jerusalem" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
1. Source given for the change is not "the international community", just a non-binding UNGA resolution. 2. Consensus (above) was for saying "simply 'Jerusalem'". Hertz1888 (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Source is a UN resolution where the extreme majority of the international community vote's in favor, calling EJ "Palestinian territory". Here is also a BBC source that says: "Within the international community the overwhelming view is that Article 49 is applicable to the occupation of the West Bank including East Jerusalem" so we can use either the PT or WB map, which one do you prefer? The dispute they are talking about above is not about "Jerusalem" or "East Jerusalem", see these diffs: its about the text after Jerusalem. Its a different kind of dispute. Me changing it to "East Jerusalem" does not contradict to only have the name of the city with no "PT" or "Israel" after. East Jerusalem is also Jerusalem. Unless someone specifically disagrees with this now then it should be okey. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, you removed the PT map and added the Israel map claiming: "per talk page discussion", could you please show me the talkpage discussion that say we should us a location map of Israel instead of the PT? You also said "and reality. Israel is the governing entity", the purpose of the map is not to show who occupies it, but where it is located, your "reality" as you put it, is not the reality of the entire world that says its part of the Palestinian Territories: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Temple Mount#Location of Temple Mount and this thread. As for reality, it is just that, reality. Reality is not something open to differences between international views and Israeli views. The reality is that Israel is the governing entity.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
In what you link to they are not discussing location maps, but the name of the location "Jerusalem, Israel" or "Jerusalem, Occupied Palestinian Territories", they then only had the name "Jerusalem" without anything after, see these diffs:, there is also one sock in that discussion supporting that's its in Israel. But I have showed source above showing why the PT map should be used, are you going to bring a source that say that the world view is that East Jerusalem is in Israel? I never said that Israel doesn't occupy it, but that has nothing to do with where it is located. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
The map does not show who has occupied it. That would be going too far. It shows who has annexed it. Just as there are maps showing the WB as part of Jordan since they annexed it. Annexation is more of a claim. Chesdovi (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Purpose of a map is to show where it is located. The lead of the article says "Controlled by Israel since 1967". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
True, it is controlled, but for accuracy, I propose changing to "annexaed by Israel". Chesdovi (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Annexation is not recognized by anyone, so then we would have to ad something about that, its to much for this article, peoples can click on Jerusalem and read. And we are discussing the map here, I have provided a source showing that the IC view is that its part of the PT. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Its a legal anomaly. How can EJ be recognosied as belonging to a party, but WJ is not? Chesdovi (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Your source is a Primary source and we cannot infer from the text of such resolutions what the IC holds. US has actually not voted in favour as such language implies J is part of the WB, let alone Palestinian territory. UN in 1979 and EU in 1999 said J is part to be part of the CS plan. Chesdovi (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes we can see what the IC view is, the only one voting against is Israel, US and a couple of client states. And just because someone votes against doesn't mean that they object to it. The vast majority of countries voted in favor. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
You refer to your source, and just b/c they vote "for" does not mean they agree with it. Many factors are at play in the voting system at the UN. (This is to counter your assertion that "just because someone votes against doesn't mean that they object to it" which I agree with.) Do you see now that UN resolution can not be used as a yardstick or final view held by the IC on this issue. What I am saying is that IC does not view EJ as part of the OPT. Lets take the EU who in March 1999 affirmed that the specific status of Jerusalem, (East and West), is a CS, a not PT. Chesdovi (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
You have misunderstood, there are many different points in a UNR, to vote in favor a country agrees with all of them, but if a country agrees with all of them except one, it votes against. Show me the source about the EU you are talking about. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I see, thank you for clarifying that. I also want to point out that UN resolutions are not indicitve of international law: For example, in paragraph 19 of the ICJ 2004 opinion regarding the Wall, it notes that in 1997 the Security Council rejected two one sided draft resolutions that sought to brand Israeli settlements as illegal. The ICJ then proceeds to quote a resolution subsequently passed by the General Assembly (not the Security Council). The Bench underscores in para. 19 that: “...the GA expressed it conviction that: ‘the repeated violation by Israel, the occupying Power, of International law’ and condemned the ‘illegal Israeli actions’ in occupied EJ and the rest of the OPT, in particular the construction of settlements in that territory.” One is led to believe that, because the automatic majority of Members of the UN concurred with bringing the subject of the so-called “illegal Israeli actions in occupied EJ and the rest of the OPT” to the Assembly and voted on it, this UN citation makes the document true and relevant from a legal standpoint. One is led to believe that repeating such sentiments makes the UN document admissible as the basis for establishing the legality or illegality of an action in the International court of law. Yet the General Assembly affirmations are not a directive or law. Such resolutions are not legally binding documents by any measure, as is stated in the UN Charter (Article 10). Past members of the bench have gone on record to emphasis that the UN Charter does not grant the General Assembly or the ICJ authority to enact or amend international law. pg 97-99. The question now is can the resolutions however be used to give an indication of the IC stance on any given subject. Who knows. All you have provided is the BBC to back this up. Chesdovi (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

That book is published by Myths and Facts. Are you serious? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

EU wants Jerusalem to belong to the UN

If Europe Affirms Support for a Corpus Separatum for Greater Jerusalem, it can not be said that the IC view East Jerusalem as being in Palestinian Territroy. Chesdovi (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Just because the EU supports an internationalization of Jerusalem doesn't mean that the IC view is that EJ is not part of PT today. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
The EU actually supports that Jerusalem eventually be split between Israel and Palestine, but they currently view the status of Jerusalem as CS, not the territory of either party. So is my understanding. The UN is also of this view. Now EJ could be described as being part of the West Bank (land previously under Jordanian control), but to say its Palestinian territory would be a clear contradiction to the UN's 1979 report which states that the city's current status is that of CS and just as Israel's presence in West Jerusalem is not recognised by the UN, East Jerusalem cannot be said to be recognised as Palestinian. The UN proposal for the internationalization of the city remains the formal position of the international community. The united states has not accepted the sovereignty of any state over any part of jerusalem. Chesdovi (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Your understanding is wrong. EU currently believes EJ is occupied. Read here And see here (the CIA world fact book map, showing the West Bank together with EJ and clearly marking it as being occupied territory.) You have been flooded with an overwhelming amount of evidence, have provided none of your own besides unsourced literature and candid letters , have branched this subject in to multiple topics ultimately discussing the same thing, making the debate all that more difficult. You are quite frankly being disruptive at this point. -asad (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Also, see this is an excerpt from the West Bank entry on the world factbook: "includes West Bank, Latrun Salient, and the northwest quarter of the Dead Sea, but excludes Mt. Scopus; East Jerusalem and Jerusalem No Man's Land are also included only as a means of depicting the entire area occupied by Israel in 1967" -asad (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I never denied EJ is occupied. EJ is indeed occupied by Israel, and so is West Jerusalem, according to the Arab League, the UN, US and EU. According to the IC, the whole city's status is undetermined and does not belong to either party. So whether East Jerusalem indeed forms part of Palestinian territory needs clarifying, and you can help by commenting here. It would further seem from the CIA that East Jerusalem is not viewed as part of the West Bank but is included in its area only to depict the area occupied by Israel, not that "East Jerusalem and Jerusalem No Man's Land" form an intrinsic part of the West Bank. They have a separate stauts to the rest of the west bank, albeit being viewed as being under occupation. Get it? Chesdovi (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
If you are referring to municipal boundaries, yes the U.S. and the world considers Jerusalem to be occupied but only considers the land east of the 49 armnistance line as occupied. Do you want to introduce the new idea that the entire world believes West Jerusalem to be occupied as well, because that is the first time I have heard about it. In the international legal context: Jerusalem = West Jerusalem; East Jerusalem = East Jerusalem.

As for your absolutely obvious wrong statement saying that East Jerusalem has a separate status. There is no proof or documentation of that whatsoever, I have absolutely no idea where you got that from. Once again, for the 118172389203 time, please provide evidence showing that that current occupation of East Jerusalem is legally separate from that of the West Bank. I won't hold my breath. -asad (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Acc. to the UN, the whole of Jerusalem has had a separate staus since 1947 when the CS was proposed, 1949 when it asked Jordan (and Israel?) that it be implemented, and in 1979 when the CS paln was reaffirmed. And as long as the UN and others hold that Jerusalem should be internationalised, it neither forms part of Israel or the Palestinian territories. I repeat, both EJ and the WB are both occupied, but EJ is currently not recognised as territory automatically belonging to a future Arab state, while the West Bank generally is. Therefore it would be wrong to use a map of the "Palestinian territories". Why I favour a map of Israel, is because that party currently controls the whole city whose status is undetemined. I would like to centralise this discussion over at EJ talk page. Chesdovi (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
181 was a General Assembly resolution, not a legally binding mandate. If 181 said anything about current Corpus Separatum, it is would have been a mere suggestion. UNSC 242, arguably the most of important of all the SC resolutions, made no separation of the territories other than that they were occupied. Though, UNSC resolution 476 did make clear that Jerusalem is occupied Arab territory. Calling it Arab or Palestinian territory is a question a matter of logic now. -asad (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi, in your latest posts you keep on repeating that the IC believe it should be internationalized, I already respond to this above: "Just because the EU supports an internationalization of Jerusalem doesn't mean that the IC view is that EJ is not part of PT today.", then you said "but they currently view the status of Jerusalem as CS, not the territory of either party.", do you have a source for that? I provided a worldview source before saying its regarded as part of the PT. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

As stated on another article's talk page: This article is not about international law. The minority view is even significant enough that those going against the general opinion are not a fringe. Therefore we need to go off of sources and not opinions. If sources say simply "Jerusalem" then that is good enough. Keep the nationalism stuff at the appropriate articles. Cptnono (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Worldview sources say EJ is PT, no worldview source has been presented saying EJ is Israel.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Did you just read the tail end of this? The sources SAY East Jerusalem Occupied Arab Territory, etc. -asad (talk) 13:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
More say simply "Jerusalem" though. Are we going to start cherry picking?Cptnono (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Temple Mount is in East Jerusalem, the worldview is that EJ is part of the PT, so how can we use a map of Israel instead of the PT? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Temple mount is in Jerusalem. The worldview is that it is in Jerusalem. There are other factors that make it complicated but "Jerusalem" is completely correct and is drama free. Similarly, not using any map would be drama free so just remove the map instead of starting an unrelated fight that is more complicated then details in the article allow. Infoboxes and images are supposed to assist readers. If the explanation takes more effort and creates any confusion for the reader then they are contradicting their purpose.Cptnono (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
No one has said its not in Jerusalem, but its in East Jerusalem, which is in the PT, therefore that map should be used instead of a country it is not located in. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
By the way, this comment applies to the multiple maps in the topic area that are being bickered over. Kill 'em all. Cptnono (talk) 09:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
And thinking about it more it makes me livid. The material used (incredibly important) is still tagged as needing a citation while there is bickering over what format the map is? This is why cannot have nice things like flags and maps since it just oozes POV lameness, fosters bickering between editors, and creates a disservice to the reader. The reader is not an idiot and knows where it is. If they don't know where it is we are not assisting them by fighting over where the map is centered and what is highlighted. Axe it and do it across the topic area. Problem solved.Cptnono (talk) 09:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Does the consensus process mean anything to you? You have completely overlooked all the arguments(be it for or against) and the sources and made an edit that you felt was best. I would rather have Israel listed as the local than to have no map as a result of your editorial decision. This is not how Misplaced Pages works. Stick to the debate, and try to find sources that prove your point. If you are not interested in that (which it appears that you aren't), you could contribute by citing those sources you were so upset about, but please stop taking the decision making into your own hands. -asad (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
No need to be so worried about it. You can always go revert. And good luck getting Israel listed as the location.Cptnono (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I reverted back to how it was and the discussion continues. Still waiting on the sources that show the Temple Mount not to be in the Palestinian Territories. -asad (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Here's my question. Under the original partition plan of 1947 (GA resolution 181), Jerusalem was to have been administered under UN sovereignty as an international city. While this plan was rejected by the Arabs, the Jews agreed to it. At the end of the 48 War, Jordan conquered Jerusalem and the West Bank, expelling the Jews from old city of Jerusalem, and not allowing access to the Holy Places. That is when the Jews said that they no longer accepted the internationalization of the city. In 1950, Jordan annexed the West Bank and East Jerusalem, giving the residents automatic Jordanian citizenship, and controlled it until the 1967 war when Israel conquered it and reunified the city. Just exactly how is it that it suddenly turned into "Palestinian territory?" 172.129.66.44 (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
We are talking about what the IC view is it is part of, not how they want it to be ruled in the future. The IC view today is that it is part of the PT.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
World Guides Travel gives the address as Jerusalem, Israel, just as it gives Luxor as being in Egypt. 172.129.66.44 (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
World Guides Travel has no authority to decide where the Temple mount is, they only represent themselves. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
There have been objections and putting in the PT map did not have consensus. Sorry. Israel is in plenty of sources. If you really cannot find any let me know and I will find them for you. No maop might also work better. Centralized discussion?Cptnono (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Cptnono, I asked repeatedly for a worldview source showing its in Israel, and not you or anyone else showed me it, there is therefor no objection based on arguments to have the PT map, only people saying "no". Why would we have no map when we have a worldview source saying its in the PT and we have no worldview source saying its in Israel? Why would we have a centralized discussion? There is no argument here not to use the PT map instead of a map of a country it is not located in. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Again, who cares bout worldview? There is a signifigant enough of a minority that it is not fringe. And again, why even use it in the infobox if it causes this much clarification? Why provide one POV (even a predominant one) when no POV would be better? Spell it out in the body and let the infobox not make a political statement. Infoboxes are supposed to be a quick and easy sidebar for readers. This is to complicated to spell out in the infobox and either map provides some concern depending on your view.Cptnono (talk) 04:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages rule npov, Due and undue weight cares about the worldview. Yes Israels view is fringe - Israels view against the entire world, Its not a political statement to have the PT map, its the view in accordance with the extreme vast majority, while right now with the Israeli map we are violating npov and following the extreme minority Israeli pov. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
You are misapplying FRINGE but we can open a centralized discussion if you want.Cptnono (talk) 05:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
How am I misapplying FRINGE? You keep on ignoring the arguments that the IC view that EJ is in the PT.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
You wouldn't deny that it is a FRINGE argument to argue that the color of a banana is actually red, not yellow. So why would you deny it is a fringe argument that these aren't occupied PT when the entire international community concedes that they are? I don't get it -asad (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

So if the whole world says the color of a banana is actually red, not yellow, does that mean it is true? In that case, saying a banana is yellow would be a fringe theory. Minority does not equal fringe by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bananaisnotred (talk • contribs) 16:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The entire world are not saying a banana is red, they are saying EJ is part of the PT. According to Misplaced Pages rule npov, Due and undue weight we must follow the worldview.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
In that case, you would rely on sources, wave spectowhatevergrams or whatever they would use. Here, we have sources, they are on the table. And it so happens that the overwhelming majority of all sources say it is OPT. -asad (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Cptnono, it doesn't look like your centralized discussion has brought a world view source saying EJ is Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Dr.Blofeld created this map: . I hope this is acceptable for everyone. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Recent Events

I think the Recent Events section should also include the Mount Antiquities Salvage Operation. Dorian in the skies (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Era Style

There is currently an edit war taking place on this page over the era style to be used for dates in this article. It is the responsibility of the participants in this conflict to sort it out here on the talk page rather than edit war their changes into place. I request that all those involved come here to get this sorted as Misplaced Pages policies require. I should like to make the following points regarding this issue.

1. The relevant guideline can be found at WP:ERA.
2. This guideline does not say that the era style first used must prevail in all Misplaced Pages articles.
3. The guideline does say (quoting) "Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors."
4. This article had been stable for years in the BCE/CE era style for years until this edit was made by 71.245.92.36 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) at 17:18 on 10 May 2011.
5. This edit by 71.245.92.36 was against the guideline since it changed from one style to another without substantial reason or consensus.
6. Subsequent edits by various editors in favor of BCE/CE, including ] (talk · contribs), ] (talk · contribs) and ] (talk · contribs), have been in accordance with the guideline as they restored long-standing consensus.
7. Other subsequent edits by various editors in favor of BC/AD, including 71.245.92.36 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) and ] (talk · contribs) have been against the guideline as they were in favor of the original breach of consensus.
8. The reason the guideline reads the way it does is that several years ago there was a rancorous, disruptive, site-wide dispute regarding era style that was settled with this guideline as a cease-fire.
9. Violations of the cease-fire of the sort initiated at this article by 71.245.92.36 are against the spirit and the letter of the guideline.
10. This article should keep the BCE/CE era style until a consensus to change it, supported by a substantial reason for the change, is reached. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Categories: