Revision as of 10:02, 13 September 2015 editNishidani (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users99,541 edits →Active Shabbat: Notre to Dovid← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 12:29, 21 October 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,299,652 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Temple Mount/Archive 5) (bot | ||
(749 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header |search=yes }} | {{Talk header |search=yes }} | ||
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1= | |||
{{WikiProject Religion |importance=Low |Interfaith=yes}} | |||
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=High}} | |||
{{WikiProject Israel|importance=Top}} | |||
{{WikiProject Judaism|importance=Top}} | |||
{{WikiProject Palestine|importance=High}} | |||
{{WikiProject Middle Ages|importance=Low|Crusades-task-force=yes}} | |||
{{WikiProject Mountains|importance=mid}} | |||
{{WikiProject Geography|importance=mid}} | |||
{{WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration}} | |||
{{WikiProject Anthropology|oral-tradition=yes}} | |||
}} | |||
{{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} | {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} | ||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} | |archiveheader = {{aan}} | ||
|maxarchivesize = 100K | |maxarchivesize = 100K | ||
|counter = |
|counter = 5 | ||
|minthreadsleft = 5 | |minthreadsleft = 5 | ||
|algo = old(90d) | |algo = old(90d) | ||
|archive = Talk:Temple Mount/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Talk:Temple Mount/Archive %(counter)d | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=3 |units=months }} | |||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
{{WikiProject Religion|class=B|importance=|Interfaith=yes|InterfaithImp=}} | |||
{{WikiProject Islam|class=B|importance=High}} | |||
{{WikiProject Israel|class=B|importance=Top}} | |||
{{WikiProject Judaism|class= B|importance=Top}} | |||
{{WikiProject Palestine|class=B|importance=High}} | |||
{{WikiProject Middle Ages|Crusades-task-force=yes|importance=|class=B}} | |||
}} | |||
__TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
== Better sourcing for introduction == | |||
{{Edit extended-protected|Temple Mount|answered=yes}} | |||
== ] to appear as POTD == | |||
For this section | |||
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that ] will be appearing as ] on July 17, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at ]. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the ]. Thanks! — ] (]) 00:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
"The Israeli government enforces a ban on prayer by non-Muslims as part of an arrangement usually referred to as the "status quo" " | |||
{{POTD/2015-07-17}} | |||
two of the sources linked are very heavily opinionated and biased articles. One of an account of prominent reactionary and the second is an opinion piece, both provide little insight into the policies and have little to do with the text written. (sources for reference) | |||
I'd suggest removing them, they would be more relevent in a chapter discussing issues of entry rather than referenced in the opening section. ] (]) 09:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Statu quo == | |||
:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:EEp --> The sources are not being cited for their opinions, but for the fact that the "status quo" is a thing that in fact exists. If you have other sources you think would be better, please suggest those. ] (]/]) 20:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
::@] I think the links from this wiki page make more sense ] or ], indeed to just link to one of those pages would ''probably'' make more sense here. ] (]) 16:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::@] Misplaced Pages is not itself a reliable source, so we still need to cite to something other than another Misplaced Pages article or the two sources that were cited back in January when I declined this request. ] (]/]) 16:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::@] that's fair, I got this source from one of those pages which seems a lot better than the previous ones | |||
::::https://ecf.org.il/media_items/1486 ] (]) 16:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::With an alt link to the Archive.org site for the original https://archive.org/details/cust-status-quo-holy-places/page/n5/mode/2up ] (]) 16:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::In regard to citations, there is a sentence that surprised me. It’s says “ For Sunni and Shia Muslims alike, it ranks as the third holiest site in Islam.” | |||
::::The reference offered is a link to a Misplaced Pages page about Sunni Islam. I would think this sentence should, for a high standard, follow the format you’re requiring here, and would offer a non-wikipedia reference for both Sunni and Shia beliefs. Do you agree? ] (]) 03:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 April 2024 == | |||
=== Background === | |||
{{edit extended-protected|Temple Mount|answered=yes}} | |||
This ''statu quo'' has been in application since 1757. This is not something that appeared in 1967. ] (]) 18:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
In the first paragraph where it reads | |||
:What is refered to as status quo nowadays is the status quo with the Israeli Government. ] (]) 21:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
"that has been venerated as a holy site in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam for thousands of years." | |||
::What is referred as the ''statuq quo'' is an agreement that was established and kept by the different rulers of Jesuralem regarding the management of the Holy Places of the city. It was disputed in the XIXe, during the British Mandate, not respected for Jews after '48 and re-established after '67. But this is not something new that Moshe Dayan introduced. | |||
::I don't know why schools in the settlements do not teach this that way. Maybe a way to attack Mapai or "Israeli war heroes" who would be anti-religious ? Or maybe it is linked with the fact that numerous Christian places are also concerned and that Christians are not welcome in this debate ? I don't know. | |||
::] (]) 07:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::In English it is ]. | |||
:::'''Please translate the quote from the book''' and if it will proof relevant to current status quo and unrest around the site, then it belong. Otherwise it is nothing but an interesting historical trivia fact which belong on ]. You put dubious tag on an excellent source that discuss the issue in length. ] (]) 07:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::I was wondering why there was no article on wp and why I didn't find references in English. | |||
::::In latine, there is no 's'. Sorry for this mistake. | |||
::::* ] | |||
::::* ] | |||
::::* , p.2 , p.54 (and the following), p.66 (Jews/Muslims and the Wall), p.102, ... | |||
::::] (]) 08:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
It is odd since Islam doesn't have thousands of years. | |||
: For the "status quo" during the mandate period, the most famous document is the . There is also a good summary . ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 10:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
I understand the wish to treat all religions the same way, but that is no reason to try to change facts. | |||
::Thank you. Great documents and very precise. | |||
:::The Status Quo applies to the following nine Holy Places in Palestine (all of which are in the Jerusalem area).'' | |||
:::1. The Basilica of the Holy Sepulchre and its dependencies, Jerusalem. | |||
:::2. The Deir al Sultan, Jerusalem. | |||
:::3. The Sanctuary of the Ascension, near Jerusalem. | |||
:::4. The Tomb of the Virgin, near Jerusalem. | |||
:::5. The Basilica of the Nativity, Bethlehem. | |||
:::6. The Grotto of the Milk, Bethlehem. | |||
:::7. The Field of the Shepherds, Bethlehem. | |||
:::8. The Wailing Wall, Jerusalem. | |||
:::9. Rachel's Tomb, near Bethlehem. | |||
:::A summary note on the way in which the Status Quo applies in each of the above nine cases is given in Section D below in the note on the Holy Place concerned. | |||
:::Apart from those nine Holy Places, all the remaining Holy Places in Palestine are not subject to the Status Quo because the authorities of one religion or of one community within a religion are in recognized or effective possession.* (*As for example the Cenacle which, though a Christian Holy Place, has been in Moslem hands since the middle of the 16th century. The position that Christians do not in effect enjoy the right to hold services there is uncontested.) | |||
::@]: | |||
::You have been following this article (Temple Mount) for years. Do you think the material of the ''status quo'' should be added to this article or rather moved to ]. How may words should be given to the topic of the ''Status quo'' in this article (Temple Mount) to comply with due:weight ? | |||
::] (]) 10:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
The easiest way to edit would be to remove "for thousands of years", but if we want to keep the message that it has been venerated for a long time we should make if factually correct, something like: | |||
::: The rules governing usage of the holy sites in and near Jerusalem have been called the "status quo" since the mid 19th century at least. Of course, some of the rules are older. In the late Ottoman and British periods this was the principle underlying all government policy towards these sites. So covering it is essential (some is already present in scattered places). It is also reasonable to discuss changes to the status quo since 1948. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
"that has been venerated as a holy site in Judaism and Christianity for thousands of years, and by Islam for hundreds of years." | |||
::::When people nowadays speak of change in the status quo, they don't mean the one from 200 years ago but the one from 1967 which as was decided with Dayan and it belongs on this article. but now it does not belong. Hmmmmm....... ] (]) 11:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::I didn't say it doesn't belong. I have asked for what should be the due:weight. | |||
:::::The idea of what people are talking about when they refer to the "status quo" is your opinion but not the one of WP:RS. This has a long history. ] (]) 11:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::Side note - just love the here. I guess you didn't take a look ]. | |||
::::::"At the issue of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Jordan took control of the Old City of Jerusalem and Jews were expelled and prohibited to visit their Holy Places in the city. Several synagogues were also destroyed" does not belong and the one from 1757 probably need a bit of expansion or be removed.] (]) 12:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::The 1929 riots are directly linked to the problems around the 'Statu quo' around the Western Wall which is part of the Temple Mount. Do you deny this ? | |||
:::::::The statu quo was not respected by Jordan after it took the city in 1948. If the issue are the synagogue, it can be removed but it illustrates the extent of the Jordanian policy. Do you deny one of those two facts ? | |||
:::::::] (]) 12:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
Since Christianity is just two thousand years old I think saying it more like this: | |||
This is confusing: "an agreement that became known as the ''status quo''". The expression was not introduced in 1967 but is a very old expression. On page 139 Gonen uses the same expression for earlier periods. It would be less confusing to say that in 1967 a new status quo was introduced. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
"that has been venerated as a holy site in Judaism for thousands of years, and by Christianity and Islam for hundreds of years." | |||
There are a lot of ways... but keeping Misplaced Pages factually incorrect shouldn't be one of them. ] (]) 12:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
contains a number of articles which talk about the phrase "status quo" and its history and meaning. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:{{done}}<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (]) 20:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
=== Wp:due weight === | |||
::How this paragraph currently stands still implies something fallacious. Probably best to remove the phrase “thousands of years” altogether if you’re not going to spell out the time periods. | |||
::In my view, to avoid misunderstandings and misrepresentations this page should at least give reference to the time lines and the claims for significance. It would ideally say something like “This site holds profound religious significance for the three Abrahamic religions. Originally a Jewish holy site dating back to at least 957 BCE; it has been an Islamic holy site since the 7th century, and a Christian holy site since the 12th century.” | |||
::To bring the page up to a high standard this paragraph would be expanded with a single sentence on each of the conflicts which resulted in a change of authority, and hyperlinks out to existing Misplaced Pages pages which describe those conflicts in detail. | |||
::A disproportionate number of the sources are narrative driven. Narrative driven sources can be important where appropriate but they can imply bias. If you’re unable to access historiography with a focus on evidence then be careful to be aware of your own bias. Aim for specificity over vagueness. ] (]) 03:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Apologies. I meant to xx out the dates and places. I’m not sure they are accurate, I meant to just suggest a format. I do think that Misplaced Pages users expect hyperlinks to more detailed pages about the conflicts and dates with such a hugely significant topic, so I believe it’s worth putting the effort in here if your aim is to improve Misplaced Pages. I do trust that Misplaced Pages’s process will iron out any duplicitous edits, although it may take some time to identify patterns of behaviour. ] (]) 03:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::My understanding of Misplaced Pages policy may not be adequate. I now read that Misplaced Pages links are not sufficient. I had expected that they were based on my usage of Misplaced Pages. Perhaps I misunderstand when they are acceptable. My concern is just with wanting the page to reach a high standard because I’m finding that the pages on this topic all have notifications of disputes and editing restrictions, and that they are often lack the clarity needed to use those pages as an encyclopaedic summary. I am not involved or invested in this conflict but have been trying to understand it because of the vast difference in news reports depending in who is reporting. I have noticed that some official pages lack balance ie some of the pages of museums and other repositories that I’d expect to be comprehensive are very one-sided. It makes studying this topic very difficult; but I think it’s worth mentioning so that editors are aware. I won’t disclose where I found the bias as that would be annecdote anyway. I mention this to suggest that anyone editing pages refrain from labelling anything as ‘propaganda’ (one person’s propaganda is another person’s primary or official source); and instead take care to look at multiple sources from both sides of the conflict. This will help ensure that there aren’t omission which are misleading; this is preferable to striving for some kind of ‘fairness’ that ends up producing false balance. ] (]) 04:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 April 2024 == | |||
If this really due weight ? | |||
:''Members of Murabitat, a group of women, cry 'Allah Akbar' at groups of visitors to remind them the Temple Mount is still in Muslim hands. The group's activities were declared illegal in September 2015 because "The activity is inflammatory and endangers tourists, visitors and worshippers at the site, leading to violence that could harm human life. The goal of Morabiton and Morabitat is to undermine Israeli authority on Temple Mount, alter reality and existing arrangements and restrict freedom of worship, and it is tied to the activity of hostile Islamist organizations and even directed by them."'' | |||
{{edit extended-protected|Temple Mount|answered=yes}} | |||
If so, I think we should mention in details that some Jewish extremists (settlers too but that doesn't prove anything and is just '''coincidence''', it will never be bolded enough) planned to destroy al-Aqsa Mosque in order to build the 3rd Temple, which would have started a Holy War (source ). | |||
The first paragraph under the section "Temple Mount" is very poorly punctuated and, in a few cases, phrased. Here is my suggestion for cleaning it up: | |||
ORIGINAL | |||
] (]) 09:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
The term Har haBayīt – commonly translated as "Temple Mount" in English – was first used in the books of Micah (4:1) and Jeremiah (26:18) – literally as "Mount of the House", a literary variation of the longer phrase "Mountain of the House of the Lord" – the abbreviation was not used again in the later books of the Hebrew Bible or in the New Testament. The term was used throughout the Second Temple period, however, the term Mount Zion – which today refers to the eastern hill of ancient Jerusalem – was more frequently used. Both terms are in use in the Book of Maccabees. The term Har haBayīt is used throughout the Mishnah and later Talmudic texts. | |||
SHOWING MARKUP | |||
:: This article is ''far'' larger than the recommended article size. It should be pruned, with minor items moving to other articles or disappearing. This Murabitat item is well below the line, in my view. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 09:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
The term Har haBayīt —– commonly translated as "Temple Mount" in English —– was first used in the books of Micah (4:1) and Jeremiah (26:18), – literally as "Mount of the House", a literary variation of the longer phrase "Mountain of the House of the Lord". – Tthe abbreviation was not used again in the later books of the Hebrew Bible or in the New Testament. The term was usedremained in use throughout the Second Temple period, however,although the term Mount Zion, – which today refers to the eastern hill of ancient Jerusalem, – was used more frequently used. | |||
CLEAN REVISED VERSION | |||
:::That's also my mind. ] (]) 10:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
The term Har haBayīt — commonly translated as "Temple Mount" in English — was first used in the books of Micah (4:1) and Jeremiah (26:18), literally as "Mount of the House", a literary variation of the longer phrase "Mountain of the House of the Lord". The abbreviation was not used again in the later books of the Hebrew Bible or in the New Testament. The term remained in use throughout the Second Temple period, although the term Mount Zion, which today refers to the eastern hill of ancient Jerusalem, was used more frequently. ] (]) 09:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::: The part about Murabitat is one line and it has been a lot on the news. Pluto just repeated material about 1929 and put irrelevant text about the Jewish quarter but what bother you is those women that even positive articles about them say they scream at all visitors. ] (]) 11:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
: {{done}} ] ] 22:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::Instead of attacking me, you can explain why the material that was added is not relevant. Stop ] or I will report you. | |||
:You seem better versed in both topic and procedure. Would you care to take a look at the lede? It currently reads with a an over extended sentence that ends “…is a hill in the Old City of Jerusalem that has been venerated as a holy site for thousands of years, including in Judaism, Christianity and Islam.” | |||
:::::I have explained my point concerning due:weight between wifes screaming at visitors and about the status quo, the fact that Jewish extremist tried to made al Aqsa explode. | |||
:For expediency I suggest: | |||
:::::Would you mind giving arguments to keep this ? ] (]) 12:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:”The Temple Mount (Hebrew: הַר הַבַּיִת, romanized: Har haBayīt, lit. 'Mount of the House '), also known as Haram al-Sharif (Arabic: الحرم الشريف, lit. 'The Noble Sanctuary'), al-Aqsa Mosque compound, or simply al-Aqsa (/æl ˈæksə/; المسجد الأقصى, al-Masjid al-Aqṣā, lit. 'The Furthest Mosque'). It is sometimes referred to in popular media as “Jerusalem's Holy Esplanade”, and is a hill in the Old City of Jerusalem that has been venerated as a holy site by all three Abrahamic religions; Judaism, Christianity and Islam.” | |||
::::::1929 is relevant but is already in the article (this when we ignore the problem with NPoV) but destruction of synagogues is irrelevant since they weren't on the mountain. ] (]) 12:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Thoughts? ] (]) 03:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
::I've shortened it. There is no need to quote in extenso the Israel government's justification for clamping down on one specific group of Palestinian protesters there. WP:Undue etc., aside from being written as if it were based on some valid unchallenged civil law, while contradicting much of the complex history concerning who can dictate terms there. Arrangements are normatively bilateral, given the status quo. ] (]) 12:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::{{u|Nishidani}} the sign at entrance is in the article and regardless doesn't belong where you put it. Please remove. ] (]) 12:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::Why doesn't it belong there?] (]) 14:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::: There is some confusion here between the government's position and the rabbinate's position. Note that there is already a long section in the article based on detailed sources about the religious aspect. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::The official rabbinical declaration which I added above of course is repeated elsewhere twice with two snaps. As has been mentioned, there is reduplication, poor thematic integration, and the whole should be boiled down: but until that is managed, in my view, attempts to isolate one position, as was done, and exclude the balancing (religious interdiction) are not acceptable. My addition is provisional. Perhaps we should be thinking now of how to coalesce the disiecta membra and pare it down, without thematic damage or loss of coherence. One small point that did catch my attention was the difference between Gonen's translation and the official sign actually visible on the wall.] (]) 15:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::The source you used doesn't even mention the status quo which makes the edit OR. After your insistence on clarifying Havakook is talking about Susya, I expect you to follow the same standards. ] (]) 16:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 September 2024 == | |||
== JCPA == | |||
Rename it to Al-Aqsa mosque | |||
The ] is not wp:rs from my point of view. What do you think ? ] (]) 12:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
] (]) 14:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
:You have an article about the author, ] and he gives his sources. ] (]) 12:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
::The author seems wp:rs and he seems to have studied the topic. No problem with this. | |||
::But the ] is not wp:rs from my point of view. What do you think ? | |||
::Settleman, is there a chance you succeed in reading a question and answering this ? ] (]) 12:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::Since you believe good journalists on Mondoweiss, +972 or whatever other blogs are RS, I don't see why this would raise your the question. Well sourced article. If you find it somewhere else as well, be my guest as moving the source. ] (]) 13:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::Please try and stay focused. This is not about ''beliefs'' and using analogies like that is pointless. I have argued, for example that, ''according to context'' some work in those magazines may be used, while arguing that generally one should not regard them as intrinsically RS. Pluto, as everyone knows, has very strict RS standards, and has often disagreed with me on sourcing material from magazines like the two you mention.] (]) 14:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::Here is what pluto has has to say about Mondoweiss ignoring the fact it was writen by a staff member. But this is beyond the point. If he agrees that Shragai as a source can be used, then why are we having this discussion. I hope we can move on. ] (]) 15:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Pluto's first diff simply says, (since two appeals to RSN have yielded outside opinion it can be used contextually and no blanket ban exists) if you have reliable mainstream sources critical of Mondoweiss, that have shown it consistently misleads, rumour-mongers, spreads innuendo, or alters the facts, bring them. Arutz Sheva does this (as in the Khdeir case, as in the Duma attack case etc.) Mondoweiss holds itself up to higher standards. | |||
:The second diff makes a distinction between where attribution is required for material from Mondoweiss, and is quite sensible. Generally however Pluto's editing avoids it, he prefers a more austere reading of RS: I'm the ugly mongrel who on rare occasions makes a case for its contextual utility.] (]) 16:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
::So much for strict RS standards is either OR or outright falsification. Who are we kidding here? ] (]) 20:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
== |
== Wrong language links mess == | ||
Why is "'''Temple Mount'''" article linked to the "'''المسجد الأقصى"''' (Al-Aqsa Mosque) article in Arabic? | |||
This rewrite significantly alters a highly nuanced source. | |||
<blockquote>In 1976, after several attempts were made by Jewish groups to pray on the Temple Mount, leading to riots, '''an official statement''' was made that prayers are not forbidden on Temple Mountain yet Israeli police prevented Jews from praying '''based on the High Court of Justice ruling''' which stated:</blockquote> | |||
<blockquote> The basic principle is that every Jew has the right to enter the Temple Mount, to pray there, and to have communion with his maker. This is part of the religious freedom of worship, it is part of the freedom of expression. However, as with every human right, it is not absolute, but a relative right... Indeed, in a case where there is near certainty that injury may be caused to the public interest if a person's rights of religious worship and freedom of expression would be realized, it is possible to limit the rights of the person in order to uphold the public interest.<ref name=Gonen/></blockquote> | |||
"'''Temple Mount'''" is a hill/location in Jerusalem, and not a mosque. Currently the '''Al-Aqsa''' which is a compount, is located on it, which in its turn contains the "'''Al-Aqsa Mosque'''" which is linked to "'''Temple Mount'''" in Arabic. Why? | |||
The High Court ruling is thje Chief Justice's opinion in the source, which is quite explicit that these suiccessive appeals are from extremist religious-nationalist sources and have been repeatedly turned ndown by the court, not, as paraphrased, supported by the court. The result is a travesty. A more accurate rewrite would read: | |||
<blockquote> the chief Justice ] expressed his view that (quotation follows) Gonen pp.154-5</blockquote> | |||
I can't edit this in per 1R but it needs a fix.I have linked the pages used for my paraphrase so that editors can check the appropriateness of an NPOV version.] (]) 14:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:1RR seems to be an obstacle when editors try to make a real contribution. I hope it will be modified in the arbitration case. | |||
:As for the suggested changes - the source says a lot more then the quote you brought. When you summarize it for wikipedia, you need common sense and good judgement which I believe my edit stands for. ] (]) 15:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::If you are responsible for the text as we have it, then you should be able to see that it presents as a legal decision in favour of prayer what was a rebuff to the religious-nationalist appellant. ] (]) 16:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::: It went through a few changes by other editors. but overall I agree. But it needs to be clear that both the court and the police stood against all those efforts. ] (]) 16:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::Okay. Be concrete: What does my summary below leave out of those two pages? or where is it inaccurate I.e. | |||
:::::<blockquote> the chief Justice ] expressed his view that (quotation follows) Gonen pp.154-5 ] (]) 16:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)</blockquote> | |||
{{Reflist-talk}} | |||
::::::: Lets see - it isn't "Muslim consider" but "the Muslim authorities declared". I can't find occupation on the page. And you left out the fact it was officially declared "not forbidden to pray". basically, you have a problem with a few gluing I have done but brings in OR. The extremist part seems fine. ] (]) 17:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Muslim adjusted. Occupied area not under Israeli law p.155 column 1 bottom; The whole section needs rewriting of course. The quote should be paraphrased. The isasue of prayer is complex. The Muslim authorities did not object to prayer at the beginning, and allowed it until Goren started bringing in an altar and a shofar; down through the 80s, private prayer by individuals was allowed on the margins of the haram; restrictions ensued after the Intifada and several episodes involving attempts to destroy mosques or strong-arm and break agreements. Technically Israel has no sovereignty there: and any change must be negotiated between the waqf authorities, Jordan and Israel. What a court says is immaterial, though the point of view is of course admissible. But it is again far more complex than the mediocre and ill-tempered, not to say one-eyed account in Shragai's essay. We have numerous books on all of these details, and where possible his piece's details should be documented by academic sources that associate 'violence' with Palestinians remonstrating for an historic right, and silently ignore the violence of dispossession.] (]) 18:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
"'''Temple Mount'''" article should be linked to "'''جبل المعبد'''" , which is currently redirected to "'''Al-Aqsa Mosque'''" instead. Why? | |||
It's the "'''Al-Aqsa Mosque'''" article that should be actually linked to "'''المسجد الأقصى'''". | |||
== Active Shabbat == | |||
I am facing a lot of issues with Arabic articles which seem biased towards Islam, but it should remain neurtal. I tried to fix the links in the past, and create the relevant articles in Arabic, but they were all reverted. | |||
Hello everybody. Wow, lots of changes of this ]. Will be happy to but in. Have made one technical edit, removed the text Nishidani added about the sign at the entrance (with an explanation in the edit summary), and added half a sentence so far. All the rest is more or less fine with me.] (]) 17:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Hope you had a fine Shabbat, Dovid. As explained above, in the balancing act of NPOV, the secular court decision was both misrepresented from the source, and lacked a balancing statement, which I added. It was not quite as balancing the prior statement. As it now is after your edit, in my view it is, it is unbalanced. I think all of this should be collected in one section and not be dispersed in several places, and written synthetically, and my point was to that end, in the eventuality we can collate the disiecta membra in NPOV fashion. I look forward to your collaboration on this.] (]) 19:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:: In case you have 'missed' it. The source you used doesn't even mention the status quo which makes the edit OR. After your insistence on clarifying Havakook is talking about Susya, I expect you to follow the same standards.] (]) 20:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
::: Thank you, Nishidani, and nice to meet you again. | |||
::: The question whether it is allowed by halakha for Jews to ascend there, or to be more precise, where precisely one is allowed to go, has many points of view. The sign you mentioned, was put up by the rabbinate for two reasons, as I see things: 1. To make sure no Jew would go where it is not allowed, by forbidding ascend altogether (a usual step of rabbis, to be stricter than the law, in order to prevent its desecration). 2. As a result of political pressure, in the form of an official request, trying to minimize the Jewish presence on the Temple Mount as much as possible, precisely in order to acquiesce the Arabs. Both these reasons I mention can be sourced. | |||
::: Please also notice that if halakha forbids Jews to ascend there, ascend of non-Jews is even more forbidden by the halakha, which the sign is considerate (or political) enough not to mention directly. ] (]) 22:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::Thanks for the clarification. Re the second point, I don't have the impression that the rabbinate fusses on this, though I may be wrong. I don't see my evidence that the kind of remark we associate with the extremist national-religious viewpoint on halakha is shared there. I am reminded by your use of 'desecration' of 's ’every Jew is obliged to go up (to the Temple Mount) in order to nullify the desecration of God’s name that has been created by Arab access and control of the site.’ Marshall J. Breger,Yitzhak Reiter,Leonard Hammer (eds.) Routledge, 2013 p.2. Note that 'Arabs' are the object of halakhic outrage, but the author is careful not to offend the Western goyim in his blanket dismissal. ] (]) 10:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
] (]) 04:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Contradictory History == | |||
: On the English wiki we have no control or responsibility for the content of the Arabic wiki. If there is a better choice for the interwiki link, tell us, but it has to be an article which exists. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
The lead section states that the site remained undeveloped from 70CE to the Arab Conquest (complete with source, which is followed largely verbatim). It is generally attested that a temple to Jupiter was in fact constructed on the site, and archaeological evidence indicates a subsequent Christian structure, both of which are covered within the article with appropriate sources. I would have amended the header accordingly, but don't know what wikipedia policy is regarding contradicting or dissing previously quoted sources. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Latest revision as of 12:29, 21 October 2024
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. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
This level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
Better sourcing for introduction
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
For this section "The Israeli government enforces a ban on prayer by non-Muslims as part of an arrangement usually referred to as the "status quo" " two of the sources linked are very heavily opinionated and biased articles. One of an account of prominent reactionary and the second is an opinion piece, both provide little insight into the policies and have little to do with the text written. (sources for reference)
I'd suggest removing them, they would be more relevent in a chapter discussing issues of entry rather than referenced in the opening section. Galdrack (talk) 09:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Not done: The sources are not being cited for their opinions, but for the fact that the "status quo" is a thing that in fact exists. If you have other sources you think would be better, please suggest those. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Voorts I think the links from this wiki page make more sense Status Quo (Jerusalem and Bethlehem) or Temple Mount entry restrictions, indeed to just link to one of those pages would probably make more sense here. Galdrack (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Galdrack Misplaced Pages is not itself a reliable source, so we still need to cite to something other than another Misplaced Pages article or the two sources that were cited back in January when I declined this request. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Voorts that's fair, I got this source from one of those pages which seems a lot better than the previous ones
- https://ecf.org.il/media_items/1486 Galdrack (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- With an alt link to the Archive.org site for the original https://archive.org/details/cust-status-quo-holy-places/page/n5/mode/2up Galdrack (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- In regard to citations, there is a sentence that surprised me. It’s says “ For Sunni and Shia Muslims alike, it ranks as the third holiest site in Islam.”
- The reference offered is a link to a Misplaced Pages page about Sunni Islam. I would think this sentence should, for a high standard, follow the format you’re requiring here, and would offer a non-wikipedia reference for both Sunni and Shia beliefs. Do you agree? 49.185.168.147 (talk) 03:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Galdrack Misplaced Pages is not itself a reliable source, so we still need to cite to something other than another Misplaced Pages article or the two sources that were cited back in January when I declined this request. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Voorts I think the links from this wiki page make more sense Status Quo (Jerusalem and Bethlehem) or Temple Mount entry restrictions, indeed to just link to one of those pages would probably make more sense here. Galdrack (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 April 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the first paragraph where it reads "that has been venerated as a holy site in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam for thousands of years."
It is odd since Islam doesn't have thousands of years. I understand the wish to treat all religions the same way, but that is no reason to try to change facts.
The easiest way to edit would be to remove "for thousands of years", but if we want to keep the message that it has been venerated for a long time we should make if factually correct, something like: "that has been venerated as a holy site in Judaism and Christianity for thousands of years, and by Islam for hundreds of years."
Since Christianity is just two thousand years old I think saying it more like this: "that has been venerated as a holy site in Judaism for thousands of years, and by Christianity and Islam for hundreds of years."
There are a lot of ways... but keeping Misplaced Pages factually incorrect shouldn't be one of them. Joaquim Calainho (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Done ZionniThePeruser (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- How this paragraph currently stands still implies something fallacious. Probably best to remove the phrase “thousands of years” altogether if you’re not going to spell out the time periods.
- In my view, to avoid misunderstandings and misrepresentations this page should at least give reference to the time lines and the claims for significance. It would ideally say something like “This site holds profound religious significance for the three Abrahamic religions. Originally a Jewish holy site dating back to at least 957 BCE; it has been an Islamic holy site since the 7th century, and a Christian holy site since the 12th century.”
- To bring the page up to a high standard this paragraph would be expanded with a single sentence on each of the conflicts which resulted in a change of authority, and hyperlinks out to existing Misplaced Pages pages which describe those conflicts in detail.
- A disproportionate number of the sources are narrative driven. Narrative driven sources can be important where appropriate but they can imply bias. If you’re unable to access historiography with a focus on evidence then be careful to be aware of your own bias. Aim for specificity over vagueness. 49.199.93.77 (talk) 03:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies. I meant to xx out the dates and places. I’m not sure they are accurate, I meant to just suggest a format. I do think that Misplaced Pages users expect hyperlinks to more detailed pages about the conflicts and dates with such a hugely significant topic, so I believe it’s worth putting the effort in here if your aim is to improve Misplaced Pages. I do trust that Misplaced Pages’s process will iron out any duplicitous edits, although it may take some time to identify patterns of behaviour. 49.185.168.147 (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- My understanding of Misplaced Pages policy may not be adequate. I now read that Misplaced Pages links are not sufficient. I had expected that they were based on my usage of Misplaced Pages. Perhaps I misunderstand when they are acceptable. My concern is just with wanting the page to reach a high standard because I’m finding that the pages on this topic all have notifications of disputes and editing restrictions, and that they are often lack the clarity needed to use those pages as an encyclopaedic summary. I am not involved or invested in this conflict but have been trying to understand it because of the vast difference in news reports depending in who is reporting. I have noticed that some official pages lack balance ie some of the pages of museums and other repositories that I’d expect to be comprehensive are very one-sided. It makes studying this topic very difficult; but I think it’s worth mentioning so that editors are aware. I won’t disclose where I found the bias as that would be annecdote anyway. I mention this to suggest that anyone editing pages refrain from labelling anything as ‘propaganda’ (one person’s propaganda is another person’s primary or official source); and instead take care to look at multiple sources from both sides of the conflict. This will help ensure that there aren’t omission which are misleading; this is preferable to striving for some kind of ‘fairness’ that ends up producing false balance. 49.185.168.147 (talk) 04:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies. I meant to xx out the dates and places. I’m not sure they are accurate, I meant to just suggest a format. I do think that Misplaced Pages users expect hyperlinks to more detailed pages about the conflicts and dates with such a hugely significant topic, so I believe it’s worth putting the effort in here if your aim is to improve Misplaced Pages. I do trust that Misplaced Pages’s process will iron out any duplicitous edits, although it may take some time to identify patterns of behaviour. 49.185.168.147 (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 April 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The first paragraph under the section "Temple Mount" is very poorly punctuated and, in a few cases, phrased. Here is my suggestion for cleaning it up:
ORIGINAL The term Har haBayīt – commonly translated as "Temple Mount" in English – was first used in the books of Micah (4:1) and Jeremiah (26:18) – literally as "Mount of the House", a literary variation of the longer phrase "Mountain of the House of the Lord" – the abbreviation was not used again in the later books of the Hebrew Bible or in the New Testament. The term was used throughout the Second Temple period, however, the term Mount Zion – which today refers to the eastern hill of ancient Jerusalem – was more frequently used. Both terms are in use in the Book of Maccabees. The term Har haBayīt is used throughout the Mishnah and later Talmudic texts.
SHOWING MARKUP The term Har haBayīt —– commonly translated as "Temple Mount" in English —– was first used in the books of Micah (4:1) and Jeremiah (26:18), – literally as "Mount of the House", a literary variation of the longer phrase "Mountain of the House of the Lord". – Tthe abbreviation was not used again in the later books of the Hebrew Bible or in the New Testament. The term was usedremained in use throughout the Second Temple period, however,although the term Mount Zion, – which today refers to the eastern hill of ancient Jerusalem, – was used more frequently used.
CLEAN REVISED VERSION The term Har haBayīt — commonly translated as "Temple Mount" in English — was first used in the books of Micah (4:1) and Jeremiah (26:18), literally as "Mount of the House", a literary variation of the longer phrase "Mountain of the House of the Lord". The abbreviation was not used again in the later books of the Hebrew Bible or in the New Testament. The term remained in use throughout the Second Temple period, although the term Mount Zion, which today refers to the eastern hill of ancient Jerusalem, was used more frequently. Modularscholar (talk) 09:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Done * Pppery * it has begun... 22:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- You seem better versed in both topic and procedure. Would you care to take a look at the lede? It currently reads with a an over extended sentence that ends “…is a hill in the Old City of Jerusalem that has been venerated as a holy site for thousands of years, including in Judaism, Christianity and Islam.”
- For expediency I suggest:
- ”The Temple Mount (Hebrew: הַר הַבַּיִת, romanized: Har haBayīt, lit. 'Mount of the House '), also known as Haram al-Sharif (Arabic: الحرم الشريف, lit. 'The Noble Sanctuary'), al-Aqsa Mosque compound, or simply al-Aqsa (/æl ˈæksə/; المسجد الأقصى, al-Masjid al-Aqṣā, lit. 'The Furthest Mosque'). It is sometimes referred to in popular media as “Jerusalem's Holy Esplanade”, and is a hill in the Old City of Jerusalem that has been venerated as a holy site by all three Abrahamic religions; Judaism, Christianity and Islam.”
- Thoughts? 49.185.168.147 (talk) 03:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 September 2024
Rename it to Al-Aqsa mosque
2607:FA49:4203:4000:EDB0:B1D1:B3AB:AAD0 (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Wrong language links mess
Why is "Temple Mount" article linked to the "المسجد الأقصى" (Al-Aqsa Mosque) article in Arabic?
"Temple Mount" is a hill/location in Jerusalem, and not a mosque. Currently the Al-Aqsa which is a compount, is located on it, which in its turn contains the "Al-Aqsa Mosque" which is linked to "Temple Mount" in Arabic. Why?
"Temple Mount" article should be linked to "جبل المعبد" , which is currently redirected to "Al-Aqsa Mosque" instead. Why?
It's the "Al-Aqsa Mosque" article that should be actually linked to "المسجد الأقصى".
I am facing a lot of issues with Arabic articles which seem biased towards Islam, but it should remain neurtal. I tried to fix the links in the past, and create the relevant articles in Arabic, but they were all reverted.
Jimmyp84 (talk) 04:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- On the English wiki we have no control or responsibility for the content of the Arabic wiki. If there is a better choice for the interwiki link, tell us, but it has to be an article which exists. Zero 06:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- B-Class level-4 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-4 vital articles in Arts
- B-Class vital articles in Arts
- B-Class Religion articles
- Low-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- B-Class Islam-related articles
- High-importance Islam-related articles
- WikiProject Islam articles
- B-Class Israel-related articles
- Top-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- B-Class Judaism articles
- Top-importance Judaism articles
- B-Class Palestine-related articles
- High-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- B-Class Middle Ages articles
- Low-importance Middle Ages articles
- B-Class history articles
- All WikiProject Middle Ages pages
- B-Class Mountain articles
- Mid-importance Mountain articles
- All WikiProject Mountains pages
- B-Class geography articles
- Mid-importance geography articles
- WikiProject Geography articles
- WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration articles
- B-Class Anthropology articles
- Unknown-importance Anthropology articles
- B-Class Oral tradition articles
- Unknown-importance Oral tradition articles
- Oral tradition taskforce articles