Talk:Al-Aqsa Mosque/Archive 7

Current status and phases of the disambiguation traffic assessment
Onceinawhile (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 10:17, 15 July 2022: Base name "Al Aqsa Mosque" was redirected to the disambiguation page
 * Phase 1: 20:56, 15 July 2022: new piped redirects were first added
 * Phase 2: 10:24, 17 July 2022: the ordering was swapped
 * Phase 3: 10:27, 25 July 2022: the names were amended
 * Phase 4: 19:47, 31 July 2022: the descriptions were amended to comply with MOS:DABPIPE
 * 20:08, 1 August 2022 All incoming article links to the disambiguation removed. So from here onwards visitors to the page will be external only.
 * Phase 5: 05:24, 2 August 2022: Simplified version designed by Zero (see Talk:Al-Aqsa Mosque (disambiguation))
 * Phase 6: QUEUE Apaugasma's version to come


 * Diligence is a great thing, but honestly, I think the wider problem here is just the inevitably low sample size (time-wise) - and this is likely going to persist as a bit of a problem. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Though it's interesting that the |Al-Aqsa_Mosque_(Al-Isra)|Al-Aqsa_Mosque_(Qibli_Mosque) lines haven't crossed over, even once, regardless of how much the definitions have been rejigged - it is somewhat indicative of a trend. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Over two weeks in, no matter the wording, not once has user traffic to the southern prayer building outweighed traffic to the entire compound. It's 2:1. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

There are dab pages at both al-Aqsa and Al-Aqsa Mosque (disambiguation). They should be brought into conformity. Zerotalk 12:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Traffic stats
I am commenting here because is correct that the MR page is not the right venue.

Certainly the traffic stats from the dab page (less than 10 days old) suggest that the Temple Mount has an edge. I think this is pretty straightforward, because there is no other way than through the dab page that one could get to those redirects. The data, however, is not old. Worse, there are many incoming links to that page that have not been checked (and corrected). All the data might really show is that we have lots of bad links that are meant for the mount, not the building. But those are editorial errors and, I would argue, of no relevance. In fact, we can see that even with dozens of links, the dab page gets only ~200 views a day. There are 25 redirects to the dab page. That means a total 26+ things you could type into the search box that would land you there. Perhaps you did not notice—although I assumed you would—that I pointed all the "masjid" titles to the dab page so the links could be sorted out. Of course, I suspect most (but not all) of those should correctly point to the mount. Still, internal searches and links are not the primary way people got to the two articles.

The other data confuses me. If the mount and the building had roughly equal views (and I bet it fluctuated a lot over time) prior to the move, and now the building and the dab page each get only about 15% of that, where did all the other views go? Combined, this suggests that over 80% of those who came to the old al-Aqsa mosque page clicked the hatnote or the link in the lead to go on to the mount. But how did they get there to begin with? Google, I'd think (since internal searches should show up in larger hits for the dab page now). But could Google have been sending people to the wrong article (i.e. the one they weren't looking for) based on our title and then immediately changed after a move? Google still puts the building, now called Qibli, in the box on the side when I search 'al aqsa mosque' incognito, although the dab page is the top result. The Temple Mount appears nowhere on the first page of Google results for me. The very fact that Temple Mount views are completely unaffected by the move also needs explanation, since there is no longer a hatnote at the building article, which is also getting a fraction of its former views. That makes it look as if the old setup wasn't hindering anybody in getting to the right article. Srnec (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * thank you for this. I am so pleased to have some good engagement on these statistics. Some comments:
 * The Masjid redirects were moved back to the Temple Mount by Drsmoo after a discussion between Drsmoo and me. Sounds like you also agree they should be directed to the Mount, so grateful if you could move them back for now. If we later have a broad-concept article on Farthest Mosque, I still think Masjid Al-Aqsa would redirect to the Temple Mount as the primary topic.
 * The redirects bring a very small number of views. As you say these are not the primary way that our readers get here.
 * I provided my view on the incoming links on 15 July. I had hoped others would help given the interest here; I made reasonable progress, but there are 310 still remaining. The majority I reviewed were "bad"; i.e. they were meant for the Mount, but directed to the building. This evidence that our encyclopedia had managed to get so confused on this name is, to me, just another powerful argument for disambiguation.
 * On the other data, if you google search "Al Aqsa Mosque wikipedia", the top four results (in order) are disambiguation, Al Aqsa (another disambiguation), Qibli and the Mount. Google shows me mini extracts for the third and fourth as follows: Qibli: "The Qibli Mosque more commonly known as al-Aqsa Mosque is a congregational mosque in the Old City of Jerusalem. It is located within, and commonly named..." ; Mount: "The Temple Mount also known as the Haram al-Sharif al-Aqsa Mosque compound, or simply al-Aqsa Mosque (المسجد الأقصى, al-Masjid al-Aqṣā, lit. I think those extracts are enough for most people to decide where they want to go. So I think that this is where the other views went - readers have stopped going via the "wrong" article on the way to the place they were trying to get to.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The links need sorting, so the masjid titles should point to the dab page until it's sorted out. I would be fine with them pointing to the Temple Mount article after that's done, although my preference at the moment is for a broad-concept article article titled either Masjid al-Aqsa or Farthest Mosque.
 * I think in some cases it will be impossible to decide if the term means the building or the area. That is one reason a broad-concept article would be helpful. (This is like the old chimpanzee situation I objected to.) The few links I fixed were meant for the building, but they were mostly Crusades related and I am beginning to think that Crusades scholarship prefers the sharp distinction between the al-Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock.
 * I don't think that explanation works, that readers have stopped clicking on unwanted Google results. Or at least it seems too perfect. It requires that people used to click the building article believing it was the one they were looking for before clicking through via an internal link to Temple Mount. Since Temple Mount views are stable and people aren't getting there via that old process, it means that Google is so good that, with one little page move by us, the search engine instantly gets people right to where they want to go—and that without the Temple Mount page being moved. A gloomier story is that the Qibli viewers have disappeared because Googlers do not recognize the article or think it is of interest under its new title. Srnec (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree re Crusades scholarship. Latin Crusades sources usually differentiate clearly between Templum Domini and Templum Solomonis (albeit Templum Solomonis seems to have been very frequently confused for the Dome of the Rock), and I don't believe that Crusader scholarship has a standardized name for the whole compound.
 * I also agree that in some cases it is not certain what article our prior wikipedia authors had meant to point to. In those cases I think it is best for us to take a decision, choose whichever we prefer and then amend the surrounding language for clarity. I have just fixed another 17 links, but it is a hard slog and takes time to think about each one.
 * As to your final paragraph, prior to the base name being disambiguated 10 days ago, the building article was at the top of the google results (under the name Al Aqsa Mosque), and then Al Aqsa and then Temple Mount was next. I suspect almost everyone will have pressed the first link without thinking.
 * My explanation was certainly much too perfect, because people will have done so many different things. Some people will have have stopped at the building, got confused, and then moved to another subject. Other people will have read the building lede, reversed back into google and searched scrolled further down the results list. Or searched for another term like Haram Al-Sharif. And I am sure your last sentence will have applied too.
 * To the question I posed at the MR, is there anything we can amend now to gather even better data? Perhaps use new piped redirect links in other places to learn even more about what links people are pressing?
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

(Not sure if this is the issue being discussed.) If this page gets far fewer views than expected, it can be attributed with 100% certainty to the fact that it has a name which almost nobody heard of. A self-inflicted injury, in other words. I'm sorry that I did not participate in the move discussion as I did not imagine that this would be the result. Zerotalk 01:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You know, I was on that side before. I think the best move was just al-Aqsa Mosque (congregational mosque) or something because I think Ive become convinced that it is at least ambiguous. But I agree that the low traffic stats are more a result of people generally not knowing this name as opposed to knowing that they mean the article Temple Mount.  nableezy  - 13:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks for this. I was expecting this comment, although I don’t agree with it. If our readers are looking to read an article about the southern building, they will find it. If they don’t recognize the Qibli name, they likely won’t get there on the first click, but suggesting that 80%+ of them give up at that point can’t be right. Having said which, I am looking to find a way to test every hypothesis now that the base name is not occupied. If we made this amendment at the disambiguation page, and then gathered the outbound traffic stats data, would you consider it a better assessment for the primary topic? Is there any better way of assessing the data you can think of? Onceinawhile (talk) 05:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have changed it from Qibli to Al-Aqsa Mosque (congregational mosque). I think that is a more recognizable name which will give a more accurate picture of what readers are looking for. Vpab15 (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've changed the other - it's either one or both: we can't have just one called Al-Aqsa Mosque (disambiguator) ... probably should have been both from the beginning. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree, I think it is more clear now. Vpab15 (talk) 10:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am happy with the new blue-text wording. Do you have a source for "the largest building in the..."? It strikes me that the Dome of the Rock may be larger by volume or even floor space, given it has multiple levels. The Jami'a must have the largest single-level footprint though.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 10:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The Dome of the Rock has an underground part, but it is quite small (I've been there) and the Jami'a has a large underground part as well as a very high ceiling. So I'd be very surprised if the Dome of the Rock is larger in any sense except perhaps for the elevation of the top of the dome, about which I am unsure. On the name of this article: It is very unusual to see an article that admits in its first sentence that it is violating COMMONNAME. The usual way to name articles on ambiguous topics is to qualify the name, not to use a different name rare in English. "Al-Aqsa Mosque (congregational mosque)" should be the primary name in my opinion. Zerotalk 12:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Think this is correct. I really didnt get the opposition to that change.  nableezy  - 13:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And then Al-Aqsa mosque = Haram? Selfstudier (talk) 13:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Al-Aqsa Mosque (compound) and Al-Aqsa Mosque (congregational mosque) so readers will know in advance what they are going to get when they click. It is bad design to rely on a dab page to take readers to an article with a name much less known than the common name. Zerotalk 13:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Or Al-Aqsa (congregational mosque) and Al-Aqsa (compound).  nableezy  - 13:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's slightly better. Zerotalk 14:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Think if we put that up altogether like that, the result might be different. Selfstudier (talk) 14:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not in favor of losing the word "mosque" from the description of the compound. It leads to the same core confusion over whether the whole compound is considered to be the Masjid Al-Aqsa, or just the southern building. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was going to say, unless one were to put Al-Aqsa (mosque compound) for the second part - but then it just seems like really going out of the way not to say Al-Aqsa Mosque for either, even though this is actually the primary term under contention and in need of disambiguation. "Al-Aqsa" is less problematic. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * As also noted below, I rewrote parts of the Al-Aqsa Mosque (disambiguation) page to comply with MOS:DABPIPE, which I think may significantly affect the outcome of this experiment. However, shortly after I updated the page, made some small changes that yet may also influence the outcome in my view.First, I think there's a significant difference between stating that the al-Aqsa Mosque complex is located on the Temple Mount, and stating that is also named the Temple Mount. I think that the latter statement is not entirely factual, or at least misleading with regard to the actual significance and connotation of these names, but more importantly for this experiment, it tends to give readers the impression that the Temple Mount article is all about the al-Aqsa complex, which it is not.Second, adding prayer hall after "The al-Aqsa Mosque" is seriously misleading, giving the impression that it's just some unimportant and insignificant hall, while it's actually the main building on the site. Apart from being misleading in itself, again in the context of this experiment it is likely to unduly steer traffic away from the Qibli Mosque target. I understand the urge to correct the common but mistaken translation in English of both  and  as "Mosque", thus completely obscuring the Quranic concept of  and confusing it with the congregational mosque that is, but we on Wikipedia must (at least when it comes to naming articles and implementing disambiguation measures) follow what is most common, not what is most correct. Explaining what is correct must be done in the articles themselves, not in the page names.I propose that these two changes to Al-Aqsa Mosque (disambiguation) be reverted. Note that I am not hereby endorsing the experiment itself, whose results I believe to be only of very limited value for determining whether this article is the primary topic or not. To show that it is not the primary topic, I think it should be shown that in external reliable sources "al-Aqsa Mosque", , in a significant amount of cases refers to the larger site or to the Quranic concept rather than to the Qibli Mosque. I tend to believe that this cannot be shown, but in any case that's what would truly be needed in my view, and if someone does show it, they will find no further opposition from me. ☿  Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 02:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you for this. On the two points, let's revert them exactly as you propose, and see what happens. Please could we leave the current version as it is for one day to let it settle and then we create a Phase 5 with exactly your version?
 * I have put your version at Talk:Al-Aqsa Mosque (disambiguation) so it will be easy to pull across.
 * To comment for the record on your two points:
 * "Prayer hall" is widely used to describe the building nowadays, and it is consistent with how the building was described by historical Arabic and Persian scholars over the last 1,000 years. But I do accept that it could imply a reduced importance to the building. So I am fine to remove it. What I am trying to avoid is the confusion around the term "Al Aqsa Mosque complex", which suggests "complex of buildings around the Jami'a Al Aqsa" rather than "a mosque that happens to be a whole complex". Somehow we need to make clear on the DAB page that Masjid = Mosque and Jami'a = Mosque, but these are different types of mosque. That is the main reason I like "mosque prayer hall" as it parallels "mosque complex", but I am sure there is a better way to achieve the same.
 * "located on" is very problematic:
 * - Common usage: Most scholars and media nowadays use "Temple Mount" as the Judeo-Christian name for the compound, not for the geographical feature on which the Islamic buildings sit
 * - Article scope: Our Temple Mount article covers the whole thing, not just the site underneath the Islamic buildings
 * - Haram: Our Temple Mount article has always used "al-Haram al-Sharif" as an alternate name for Temple Mount. Noone ever wrote that "al-Haram al-Sharif is located on the Temple Mount. "al-Masjid al-Aqsa" is a pure synonym for "al-Haram al-Sharif".
 * - Quranic concept: The Quranic concept of al-Masjid al-Aqsa is the entirety of the Judeo-Christian religious place, not just the Islamic buildings on top of it. The Islamic buildings didn't exist when the Quranic concept of al-Masjid al-Aqsa was written.
 * - Confusion for readers: Your version implies that we do not have an article on al-Masjid al-Aqsa, leaving readers confused as to where to click if they want to read about the compound
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 09:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * On my talk page, you posted the following sources:

Sharon's visit: There are many dozens like the below. Remember, Sharon did not visit the Jami'a / Qibli, and the outrage related to the compound.

Third holiest / first qibla: There are many dozens like the below. Remember, the third holiest and first qibla statements correctly refer to the compound.

Political brand:


 * These sources strongly suggest that Ariel Sharon and the Second Intifada he sparked by visiting the al-Aqsa complex is almost the sole driving factor of referring to the whole compound as al-Aqsa Mosque. This all seems to be very recent political posturing, which makes me feel uneasy about it. What I'm missing here are the all-important historians and religious studies scholars: are these too following the awkward reference to a large open site spanning several buildings as a 'mosque'? I would expect them to be aware of the fact that in the Quran, the word masjid does not refer to a 'mosque' building as we know it (this did not exist yet), but to a generic sacrosanct 'place of prostration' (its literal meaning). I would expect them, therefore, to be aware of the fact that translating al-masjid al-aqsa as 'al-Aqsa Mosque' is misleading. Especially given the existence of an actual mosque building at the site carrying the name 'al-Aqsa', the insistence that 'al-Aqsa Mosque' must refer to the entire complex seems to be purely politically inspired. But if this truly has become a thing, Wikipedia may as well follow, and disambiguate the compound from the building. I would suggest though that al-Aqsa Mosque (building) would be sufficient to disambiguate. I think that adding 'building' rather than 'prayer hall' would also be a better option for the DAB page experiment. About the located on vs also named point, my version does indeed imply that we don't have an article on al-Masjid al-Aqsa, which is correct. The Temple Mount article is, and should be, about the broader significance of the site in Judaism as well as in Islam. To suggest that al-Masjid al-Aqsa and Temple Mount are merely two different names for the same thing is to deny the historical, religious and political significance of these names. They are not interchangeable. They each have their own very specific connotations that are completely absent from the other. The fact that the mosque complex is built on the mound covering the Second Temple also adds a delicate dimension all of its own. We know this, and we should not try to conflate the sensitivities surrounding it away by ecumenically declaring it to be all the same holy place. It's not our place, as an encyclopedia, to do that. Instead, we should have a broad concept article called al-Masjid al-Aqsa that explains all these things to the reader: the Quranic background, the site and its features, its relation to the Temple Mount, the clashing Jewish and Islamic views about it. In the absence of such an article, we should direct readers looking for information on the compound to Temple Mount, since that article contains the best information we have on this topic, but that does not mean that we should suggest that the Temple Mount and the mosque complex somehow are the same thing. Our mission is to inform, not to confuse. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 12:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks again for such a detailed reply. I will try to address your main points.
 * I don't understand your first sentence, as I gave sources covering three separate topics where the use of the English term "Al Aqsa Mosque" refers to the wider Masjid / compound: (1) Sharon's visit, (2) Third holiest / first qibla, (3) Political brand. I could add: (4) Muhammad / Isra / Buraq, and (5) Western Wall. "Sharon's visit" could be extended to references to most Israeli incursions into the area, and "political brand" could be extended to any references to liberation / conflict etc. I set this out a couple of months ago in this edit. On the other hand, if the publication is about architecture or medieval history, then the term likely refers to the "Qibli building".
 * Re recent political posturing / political inspiration, the resurgence of the use of the English-language Aqsa = compound began in the 1980s according to Yitzhak Reiter in his detailed explanation: Reiter is wrong about the 1980s though. The start date is more a function when the Palestinian community themselves began communicating their struggle widely in English. For example, equivalent language was used by local Palestinians a century ago, as recorded in the  Report of the Commission on the Palestine Disturbances of August 1929:  – it includes repeated references to the Western Wall as the "Western Wall of the Mosque of Al-Aqsa".
 * To your point about “the awkward reference to a large open site spanning several buildings as a 'mosque’”, Le Strange makes the direct comparison of the Masjid Al Aqsa to other early mosques in region, many of which have large courtyards. He compares it in detail with the Mosque of Ibn Tulun in Cairo, and we could make the same connection with the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus and the Great Mosque of Kairouan. Most importantly of course is the Masjid al-Haram, which is always described as a mosque. I don’t think it is correct to say that “translating al-masjid al-aqsa as 'al-Aqsa Mosque' is misleading”, particularly when Mosque=Masjid is literally the root of the word. I agree it is confusing though, and is the heart of the problem here.
 * On your final paragraph (“located on”), please could you help me understand by answering two questions:
 * (1) are you saying that you believe we don’t have an article on the Haram Al-Sharif?; and
 * (2) in Islamic belief, at the time the Quran was written [i.e. before the Islamic buildings were built], what part of the Temple Mount did al-Masjid al-Aqsa then refer to?
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Does TM just mean the hill (Mount), if so then everything there is "on" it, in principle. If, OTOH, TM is (currently) already referring to everything on it as is done here, the whole esplanade and everything underneath, that's a different thing. Selfstudier (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Onceinawhile, you say you don't understand my first sentence, but from your reply it appears that you do fully understand. Our problem here appears to be created by the political posturing related to the Palestine-Israel conflict, with Sharon's 2000 visit as a boiling point, and going back to the 1980s or to somewhere earlier in the 20th century at most. The lengthy quote from Reiter 2008, again not a historian or religious studies scholar but someone who looks at it from the modern political angle, confirms my suspicion that the enthusiastic use of al-Masjid al-Aqsa has a relatively recent Islamist background. Like al-Haram al-Sharif, it's an originally religious concept that is now being promoted as a secular name for political purposes. Yes, the al-Masjid al-Aqsa in Quran 17:1 was likely (according to dominant early interpretations) a reference to the Temple Mount, as a general location, but that's precisely why the translation 'Furthest Mosque' should be taken with a grain of salt. It's an inaccurate translation, as I'm sure scholars are aware. The fact that the English word 'mosque' in a much later period was derived from the Arabic masjid has nothing to do with this: in English, 'mosque' refers to a specific type of building, while the masjid of Quran 17:1 absolutely does not.Now of course the Quranic al-masjid al-aqsa is not located on the Temple Mount, it (likely) is the Temple Mount. But the complex of mosques and plazas that many people nowadays refer to by this Quranic term obviously is located on the Temple Mount. At least that is what sources seem to adopt when they use the English 'al-Aqsa Mosque' for the whole complex: I have yet to see a source that follows Islamists in insisting that the proper name of the whole hill is 'al-Aqsa Mosque'. I have to admit that when one adopts that name for the compound, it would only be logical to also adopt it for the entire hill, since the latter is likely its original Quranic meaning. But then I think that most sources are not aware of the proper Quranic background of the term, and rather relate the term synecdochically to the al-Aqsa mosque building, as would be most natural for the English word 'mosque'. Again, to properly disentangle this, we need an article on al-Masjid al-Aqsa. It won't help to keep bickering about it on this talk page. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 15:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, just a few thoughts on this, for the record:
 * Everything in the region has the scope to be impacted by political posturing from the conflict. Reiter describes “An additional factor leading to a return to the Qur'anic name is an Israeli demand to establish a Jewish prayer space inside the open court of the compound.” I don’t think there is any evidence to support your suggestion of an influence of “Islamism”. Palestinian nationalism more generally, sure - most things in the Israel-Palestine conflict do not come down to religion, which is more frequently used as a tool of ethnic nationalism. And as with everything in this conflict, this naming question can be viewed from both sides. It is equally true that per Reiter's "Israeli demand", Third Temple advocates have pushed an argument to question the Islamic sacredness of the whole plaza, using an incorrect understanding of the term Al Aqsa, and taking advantage of the shorthand first used in the 19th century English works to differentiate the Masjid from the Jami'a. These advocates argue that the whole plaza is not a mosque, counting on the fact that most Westerners don’t know that a Haram is even more sacred. It is just PR. That resulted in the enthusiasm Reiter describes to propagate the Islamic terminology in English, as loose terminology in English scholarly works hadn’t mattered to the public before. So you could just as reasonably replace your statement that “…has a relatively recent Islamist background” with “…has a relatively recent  Jewish fundamentalist background”. These things are always two-sided.
 * Our job is to carefully avoid taking sides, and explain things properly. We work with the reality that we face - this enthusiastic use of Quranic terminology has been widespread for decades now - it is “popular and prevalent” as Reiter says. It has simply overtaken the use of another Arabic (but not Quranic) term, Haram al-Sharif, which was once the favored term of English-speaking scholars. I am not sure it is correct to say that either of those names are “secular”. Is there really such a thing as a religious building with a secular name? “Temple Mount” is not secular, whereas “Sacred Esplanade” is but - sadly - is not widely used.
 * Your point that the translation 'Furthest Mosque' should be taken with a grain of salt. It's an inaccurate translation is interesting; I need some time to think about this further. Masjid Al Aqsa => Furthest Mosque is very common. Noone has ever written “Furthest Compound” or “Furthest Place of Prostration”. And other Masjids are always considered mosques; why should a translation problem appear only in this location.
 * I provided some thoughts on a new “al-Masjid al-Aqsa” article a few weeks ago here. I am content with having an article on the terminology, and perhaps a similar article on the “Temple Mount” terminology. I am against an article on the Muslim compound separate from the Jewish archaeological site, as splitting articles like that fails to achieve the best of Wikipedia, discourages editors with different viewpoints from really collaborating, and creates massive duplication. It also creates unresolvable arguments about the article scope boundaries, which serve only to discourage editors from real quality work.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 12:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If it's "popular and prevalent" "for decades", how did you not know about it until recently, given that you edit in this space almost exclusively? How much less likely is the average person to know this "popular and prevalent" usage? And how is there so much "confusion"? Sorry, but that does not concord with the usage you describe being "popular and prevalent" in English. Drsmoo (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Until my visit there four years ago, I wrongly assumed the Aqsa / Aqsa Mosque “brand” referred to the southern mosque. My fault for trusting Wikipedia without double-checking the sources. The confusion can be seen if you review the 400 or so links which had previously directed to Al-Aqsa Mosque – a few of us have worked together to correct these. More than half were incorrect and should have been pointing to Temple Mount. Suggests a large number of editors here were equally confused over a long period of time. As to "popular and prevalent", if you are uncertain perhaps you could contact professor Yitzhak Reiter, whose words those are. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Referring to the Al-Aqsa Mosque (without compound or complex) for the entire area is not popular or prevalent in English, and Reiter doesn't claim it is either. It is sometimes done, usually with compound or complex appended. It is also strange that you would "fault" Wikipedia for your assumptions, when this article (Al-Aqsa Mosque) actually covered both usages of the term. You and other editors in this field were/are not confused/needing to be educated or informed (and the idea that they do goes against the idea that the wider conception is highly prevalent), they were/are just using the term by its common english usage. Additionally, it's quite something to claim that "400 or so links" were incorrect. That is wrong. Those links absolutely were correct for this page. You have removed close to 20,000 characters (essentially half the page) from this article, claiming that it's out of scope. Now you are editing massive amounts of links that were formally correct, based on your personal recomposition of this article. This doesn’t conform with the ethos you stated above regarding splitting articles. Drsmoo (talk)
 * Your first two sentences are your view. Reiter's view speaks for itself.


 * The rest of your comment is false, and has been previously shown as such: . Al Ameer's comments in these diffs provide ironclad proof that the article scope did not include the wider usage, and that there was significant confusion and misunderstanding. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Half of the article was related to the wider usage. Ipso facto the article covered that usage and the links were fine. The links only became incorrect because you removed half of the article (which was before the name change). The “popular and prevalent” quote is related to speculation of Saudi funding of Islamic institutions in Jerusalem to change the name. “Both Ibn-Taymiyya and Mujir al-Din were affiliated with the Hanbali School of law-the relatively more puritan stream in Islam that prevailed in Saudi Arabia. The Hanbalies rejected innovations, such as the idea of a third haram. One cannot exclude the possibility that the Saudis, who during the 1980s and 1990s donated significant funds to Islamic institutions in Jerusalem, exerted pressure on Palestinian-Muslim figures to abandon the term "haram" in favor of "al-Aqsa". The "al-Aqsa" brand-name has thus become popular and prevalent.” It has nothing to do with western usage, and he is not discussing western usage in that section. This is off topic for this section though, so I won’t be replying further here.Drsmoo (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You're just spouting OR now. One cannot exclude the possibility that all the above is nonsense. As for Hanbalism being more conservative, so? How is that a means of evaluation? Can you make a balanced assessment of any religion while ignoring conservative sources? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Plus, it seems Drsmoo may not have checked the original source. In Reiter's work, "The "al-Aqsa" brand-name has thus become popular and prevalent" is the start of a new paragraph, and read in context is clearly a summation of his last few paragraphs, not just the few sentences that Drsmoo selected towards the end of the prior paragraph.
 * Separately, whilst Drsmoo is welcome to their interpretation of the prior scope of the article, the documented views of the article's primary author - the editor responsible for bringing it twice to WP:GA status - bear much more weight. Drsmoo himself has repeatedly emphasized the relevance of the scope of the WP:GA version of the article, and Al Ameer has confirmed that it was only the southern building.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Iskandar, I was not expressing my views on Hanbalism, I was quoting from Reiter, who is discussing Islamic usage, not English-language usage. When writing in a broader scope (for example "Contested Holy Places in Israel–Palestine"), he primarily (but not exclusively) uses "Al-Aqsa Mosque" for the building.
 * Onceinawhile, an article on Wikipedia is just a collection of data edited by multiple users. The article is the content within it. If that content is about the wider usage, and has been for an extended period of time, then linking to the article re that content is fine. Those links were not "incorrect". And the scope of the article when it achieved WP:GA was, factually, both uses of the term. It is frankly both surprising and sad that after so many years of editing, you believe that any editor's views "bear more weight". That is not how Wikipedia works. No one Owns an article, and no editors's views "bear more weight". If you continue to be confused about this, it should be discussed on an appropriate noticeboard, as understanding this concept is foundational to editing on Wikipedia. Drsmoo (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Drsmoo: I see, it's Reiter's ... political scientist and not historian for sure. I do see the quote marks now, but it would make things clearer if you used the template that makes embedded quotes green. But in that case I apologise, though the sentiment remains for Reiter's work ... I'm moving away at pace from thinking he's a particularly sound source on this subject - he really rushes over some things. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Onceinawhile: Ah, I see you already critiqued the 80s bit - yes, he's an odd source - skittering between incredibly insightful and rarely mentioned historical factoids and instances of seemingly wild speculation. Needs corroborating I guess. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * On the point about the GA, it is very much relevant what the intention of the author was in expanding the article and raising it to GA - as is the admission that they confused and inadvertently blurred terminology, and agree it should now be fixed. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem Iskandar323, I’ll be more careful with quotes going forward, and assumed that that was the issue. In this case I was describing events from a few months ago, not the GA. It’s a bit strange because I’m citing the format of the article, as it was a good example. Any user's retroactive intention doesn’t change how the actual article was presented, and no user has elevated status in, or ownership of an article, no matter how much they conribute. That is foundational to Wikipedia. For example, if a group is painting collaboratively, and one user adds both red and green, and then says they didn't realize they were adding green because they're color blind, they still added that green, and the assessor still assessed the painting with all its colors, unaware of the painters intentions. As an aside, while there are some passages that could have been clarified, the article delineates the two usages for the most part. Drsmoo (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Drsmoo, although your view on this appears to be in a minority of one, I personally remain open-minded.
 * WP:SCOPE and WP:LEAD both confirm that the lead of an article must explain the topic / scope of the article. Please quote here a single stable version of this article, in twenty years of its existence, where the lead of the article stated or even implied that the article's scope referred to the whole compound in addition to the southern building.
 * It won't be for example, the version at the beginning of this year (before all this discussion and my edits that you have referred to multiple times), because that version stated explicitly Not to be confused with... the Al-Aqsa Compound.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Onceinawhile, the hatnote was added by you. It wasn't "before all this discussion and my edits". It was your edit. There was wider usage in the lead, it was also removed by you. And variants of that usage had been in the lead since at least the GA appraisal. Just as you then removed half the article which pertained to the wider usage.
 * Interestingly, the lead section was modified by you in 2016, with the citation about how the name is now reserved for the congregational building. I don't know how you can say it wasn't stable in the lead, when you added detail to it and then removed it years later. I'm also not sure how you can point to a hatnote that you yourself edited in as being "before all this discussion and my edits". We literally have a reliable source that states that the name is reserved for the building. There is some ambiguity, but that can easily be addressed in the article, either by restoring/expanding its scope, or with a hatnote to Temple Mount, or articles for Masjid al-Aqsa, al-Aqsa Mosque Compound, Haram al-Sharif, etc. This is not such a complex issue. Sources state that the term is used for the building. The Reiter source is discussing Islamic usage, are there any sources which contradict the Grabar source that discuss English-language usage? If there are, then that can be the focus of the discussion. The traffic appraisal can provide some interesting info, but it's far too susceptible to bias and gaming to be the basis for determining a primary topic (if one is even needed) for one of the most disputed sites on earth. That about sums up my views, I don't have anything else to add until there's some new development here. Drsmoo (talk) 01:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you for finding this. It confirms without doubt that for at least the last four years the scope of the article was with absolute certainty the southern building only.
 * Importantly, the two important edits you point out were the result of discussion between multiple editors:
 * 2016 discussion: Talk:Qibli Mosque/Archive 4 (note that the text you said I "removed" had in fact been drafted and added by me just two weeks' prior)
 * 2018 discussion: Talk:Qibli Mosque/Archive 4
 * You will see that these discussions were consensual, with editors who have historically shown opposing viewpoints being in agreement throughout. The editors on all sides agreed that this article was about the southern mosque building. No editor ever suggested it has, or should have, a dual-definition.
 * All this comes after Al Ameer brought the article to WP:GA in 2008 and 2011, and as we have confirmed, Al Ameer explicitly confirmed in 2015 that he wrote the article to be about the southern building.
 * That 2018 hatnote clarifying the scope of the article being just the southern building remained completely stable for the last four years.
 * I also note that you were unable to provide a single stable version of this article, in twenty years of its existence, where the lead of the article stated or even implied that the article's scope referred to the whole compound in addition to the southern building. I hope this all means we are now agreed and we can now move on from this particular rabbit hole. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You appear to be confused. You modified the lead in 2016, and removed it years, not weeks, later. Drsmoo (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources collapsed above only serve to show that "Al-Aqsa Mosque" is sometimes used for the whole complex. That has been acknowledged from the beginning by almost everyone. I've been saying it on Wikipedia for years. They don't show anything at all about the frequency of use, since it is also true that "Al-Aqsa Mosque" is sometimes used for the building. Since Sharon did not visit the Al-Aqsa Mosque building, we know without looking that the minority of sources that didn't use "Temple Mount" used "Al-Aqsa Mosque" for the complex (or qualified it like "Al-Aqsa Mosque compound"). Zerotalk 14:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I asked for a significant amount of cases, promising no further opposition (from me at least). I think Onceinawhile gave this. You are right that, even though the amount of sources is significant, it doesn't say anything about relative frequency of use. But isn't it enough to start doubting that there is a primary topic for 'al-Aqsa Mosque'? And if there is doubt, isn't it better to just disambiguate the titles? Though I'm not sure whether it's really needed, I also don't see any great harm in moving this article to al-Aqsa Mosque (building). Obviously, there should be a top hatnote explaining that this article doesn't deal with the larger al-Masjid al-Aqsa complex, information about which can be found at Temple Mount. For the moment, our article doesn't even do that. And the current Qibli Mosque name is disastrous. But why? It really shouldn't be so difficult. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 15:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Relative frequency via sources
Some editors have suggested that there are even better ways to assess PTOPIC than this traffic assessment, by referring to sources. I have been trying to figure this out. For those mathematically-minded, I have been thinking about it as follows:


 * A × B% ≤?≥ C × D%
 * A = The frequency of mentions of the Temple Mount complex
 * B = The % of which mentions of the Temple Mount complex which use the term “Aqsa Mosque”
 * C = The frequency of mentions of the southern mosque building complex
 * D = The % of which mentions of the southern mosque building which use the term “Aqsa Mosque”

We know for sure that D > B. Illustratively, D might be 70-80% and B might be 20-30%, depending on how strict we are. With a bit of work, this can be estimated with more accuracy.

We also know for sure that A > C, because it is much more notable as a topic. But I have no idea how to assess this. Any ideas on this would be greatly appreciated.

Onceinawhile (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)