Talk:Temple Mount/Archive 1

Official 1925/1950 Wakf Guide Book to the Temple Mount
I honestly do not understand why this important Muslim document should not be part of the article. I tired to insert it a few times and each time it was edited out. A scanned version of the document can be read at http://www.templeinstitute.org/wakf-1925-guidebook.htm

In addition I also tried to add to the section dealing with Jewish law on entry into the Temple Mount. It is a very complex legal question, which is over simplified on the site. I tried to give a more balanced approach by pointing out how Maimonides and other great codifiers of Jewish law decide the law and its modern application. I don’t understand why my additions were rejected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.217.8 (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Yos —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yos Ben Yitzchak (talk • contribs) 19:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Holy Site
Hmm, sounds like it's primarily a Muslim holy site. Do Jews consider it important, too? Just asking (not advocationg); I'm an ignorant, easily-led Christian (wink). --Ed Poor

Thank you, Galizia, Danny & RK for responding so quickly for my request for information. --

--- Two Jewish temples stood in succession on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem:
 * 1) Solomon's Temple, from approximately the 10th century B.C., replacing the Tabernacle, destroyed by the Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians in 586 B.C.
 * 2) The Second Temple, built after the return from the Babylonian Captivity, around 536 B.C.
 * 3) Herod's Temple, was an expansion of the Second Temple, but is not usually counted as a third temple. This expansion project began around 19 B.C. by Herod the Great. It was destroyed by Roman troops under Titus in A.D. 70.

There was an aborted project by the Roman emperor Julian (331-363 CE) to allow the Jews to build a Third Temple. A few very small Jewish groups today support constructing a Third Temple, but most Jews oppose this, both due to the enormously hostile reaction from the Palestinians and Arab nations that would likely result, and because according to the Talmud the reconstruction of the Temple would require the recommencement of animal sacrifices, something which few Jews would like to happen.

Some fundamentalist and evangelical Christian groups, especially those who follow a dispensationalist theology, believe that the Jewish people will build the Third Temple on the Temple mount shortly before, of perhaps after, "true" Christians have been raptured. --- Unless I'm mistaken, this comes from the Temple in Jerusalem, where it truly belongs. I'll try to merge the rest. --Uri

There were way too many inaccuracies in the previous edition. Sorry, but this is my field of expertise. For one thing, the Western Wall is not only holy site in Judaism. If it is holy, that is only because it is an accessible remnant of Herod's Temple Mount comples. It is also not the only remaining wall. In fact, in medieval times, the eastern wall was considered the important wall. The southern wall includes the two gates of Huldah from the Second Temple, etc. Let's be accurate here. ALSO!!! there is an incredible amount of Islamic history at the site. In fact, there was a movement in the Middle Ages to replace Mecca with Jerusalem as the Holy City. Okay, it was politically motivated, but that's how Dome of the Rock became such an important shrine (al-Aqsa already was). Finally, in dealing with the Temple Mount, it should be noted that this is probably the most heatedly contested piece of real estate anywhere in the world today. Relate to the Temple Mount Faithful, the fire of 1968, various attempts to blow up the mosques, all of which had the potential to (no exaggerration here) spark WW III. Danny


 * Ok, I accept your expertise, Danny, but still I must wonder why you had to delete the statements about significance to Judaism. It surely didn't help. I'll sure be more than happy to leave the article in your hands, though. --Uri


 * P.S. Ah, sorry, now I saw your reply :-) --Uri


 * Why did Arabs get so upset at Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount a couple of years ago? Was it because he was "violating" a Muslim holy place? Ed Poor


 * See my response to you at Talk:Intifada. --Uri

This article could use some help from Wesley (and other Christians), Uri (and other Jews), and all our Muslim friends (sorry, I'm not sure of your names) -- to ensure that the POVs of Islam, Judaism & Christianity re: this holy site are all represented. --Ed Poor 20:11 Sep 27, 2002 (UTC)

"Abdul-Khinzeer Kalb'ullaah al-Murtad Shabazz"!!!! This name (I assume a pseudonym) means Slave of the Pig, Dog of God, the Apostate Shabazz. I can only assume including a quote from such a source as an authority on Quranic interpretation was a misguided attempt at a joke. I am removing it. - Mustafaa 00:31, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, I've removed most of the extremely detailed polemic against the traditional Islamic interpretation of that verse, as the "controversy" is almost exclusively among non-Muslim historians, and the relevant question for this article is whether Muslims believe the verse to refer to the Haram al-Sharif, not whether historians believe it originally referred to something else; in any event, it goes into far more detail than is relevant to this article, and breaks the flow of the description. If User:RK (the apparent author of that polemic) would care to make it a separate article, I have provided a link for him to put it there; I will not create the article myself, as I certainly do not want to claim authorship of it.  Mustafaa 20:01, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * When you see historians (both Muslim and non-Muslim) dispassionately studying the history behind the development of this belief, you personalize it and call it a "polemic"; you see it as an attack. However, it is neither. This is merely a historical review, and dispassionate historical study is at the root of all Wikipedia articles on religion, myth, politics, sociology, etc. I understand that as a religious Muslim this kind of study offends you. All I can say is that it used to greatly offend me as well! If you read a set of our articles on Islam, Christianity and Judaism, you will find this kind of critical historical analysis on many religious topics! While religious believers are upset by this analysis, we are obligated to summarize the views of the historical community on such issues. RK 01:12, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * While I do not consider this a fair summary of the historians' views, that is not the point at hand. "Studying the history behind the development of this belief" may be a worthy goal, but there is no good reason to spend 8 out of 12 paragraphs on "The Haram ul Sharif in Islam" nitpicking over the interpretation of a single verse which represents only one out of several reasons for its sanctity in Islam.  I repeat: this material may well have a place in Wikipedia, but is a bloated digression in this article and should be made into a separate article.  This is an article about the Temple Mount, not about the interpretation of ayah 17.1; if you want to keep the material, you're welcome to make it a separate article. - Mustafaa 04:55, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * On second thoughts - your whole argument is about the interpretation of the term masjid al-aqsa - Al-Aqsa Mosque - which is a different article. I have therefore moved it to a separate section of that article, mentioning its previous history in this article and your authorship of it. - Mustafaa 06:42, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A page on this web site states: Archeological Controversy In recent years many complaints have been voiced about Muslim construction and excavation underneath the Temple Mount. Many archaeologists fear that this will lead to the destabilization of the Temple Mount and the Western Wall). Some also believe that the Palestinians are deliberately removing significant amounts of archaeological evidence about the Jewish past of the site. Since the Waqf is granted almost full autonomy on the site, Jewish archaeologists have been forbidden from inspecting this area for themselves.

In autumn 2002, a bulge of about 70 cm was reported in the Southern Wall part of the complex. It was feared that that part of the wall might seriously deteriorate or even collapse. The Waqf would not permit detailed Israeli inspection but came to an agreement with Israel that led to a team of Jordanian engineers inspecting the wall in October. They recommended repair work that involved replacing or resetting most of the stones in the affected area. This was completed by mid-2003.

This is all completely incorrect. The evidence is clear that the excavations are being undertaken by the ISRAELI'S, NOT THE PALESTINIANS. The Palestinians have been refused permission by Israeli authorities for years to rebuild parts of the Mosque damaged by Israeli excavations and attacks. Palestinians do NOT have access to the tunnels and caves beneath the sanctuary. Please correct these facts immediately as they are very misleading and completely false! - anonymous


 * You may well be right, anonymous user - I've certainly heard stuff to that effect - but why not provide some links where we can find out? - Mustafaa 17:41, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * The paragraph "In autumn 2002, ..." is quite correct as I researched it carefully at the time. The previous paragraph "In recent years..." is too one-sided and vague.  There have been accusations by several parties about other parties but I'm not sufficiently familiar with the whole scene to make an accurate summary. --Zero 23:11, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I found a couple more sources for the claim that Israeli archeologists have been doing "bad things" to the Haram al-Sharif. I think Noam Chomsky addresses it somewhere in The Fateful Triangle.  But more info would still be welcome. - Mustafaa 23:37, 21 April 2004 (UTC)

Recent Damage

 * templemountjerusalem.blogspot.com The Third Temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem

Just out of curiosity: is anybody so obsessed as to even care if a stone retaining wall for a ramp collapses somewhere in the vague vicinity of the holy sites in question? - Mustafaa 17:49, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Given that that stone could be the prelude to the whole thing collapsing (Which could easily trigger World War III), yes. I would dare say many would be so obsessed. Given the possibility of World War III, you would be insane not to be. --Penta 22:26, 19 October 2004 (UTC)

Jewish Acknowledgement as Muslim Holy Site
Though I put in this title myself, on closer examination I realize the analogy is misleading. Neither side is stupid enough to deny that the other views the site as holy: even the fatwa quoted in the "Muslim claims of exclusivity" states that Jews view the Western Wall as one of their holiest sites - its writer just happens not to care! What they do occasionally deny is that its holiness in the other side's tradition has a valid basis. The appropriate analogy to Muslims describing the site as the site of the Temple would thus be Jews describing the site as the site of the Isra wal-Miraj, then, since that is its only point of holiness that's specific to Islam. I will therefore make the appropriate change. - Mustafaa 07:33, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * To be precise, it says "Jewish worshippers pray at the wall, which they revere as part of a biblical temple. It forms part of a raised esplanade that Jews call Temple Mount and regard as their holiest site." - Mustafaa 07:51, 23 April 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous user's repeated reverts
This guy claims to be "revers(ing) the revert. restor(ing) citations examples and quotes regarding destruction of antiquities" For the record, no citations nor examples were deleted, and only one irredeeemably NPOV quote: "I don't understand it, either it's based on ignorance and a lack of appreciation, or it's just vandalism."-Jon Seligman". All the many other changes were NPOVing and adding information and links - which, since they do not suit his POV, he is determined to eliminate. - Mustafaa 18:05, 27 April 2004 (UTC)

Mostly man-made hill
It's a minor point, but why would this go in history? It's a part of the description of the site. Is there some sort of controversy attached to this statement? - Mustafaa 20:45, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Being that the Talmud says that it was around at the of Abraham and earlier, it would seem to be a problem best dealt with in the article. --Ezra Wax 09:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Of course the mount was around, but most of today's shape and area are man-made, namely Herod and Solomon. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:19, 31 August 2004 (UTC)

Damages section
I started to edit the "damages" section, which was (and still mostly is) very much the presentation of only one point of view. A recent article on the part I editted is http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/476592.html. Much work is required on the rest of the section too. --Zero 03:23, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good luck - hopefully the anonymous guy who refuses to use the talk page is gone now... - Mustafaa 08:17, 14 September 2004 (UTC)

MPLX' recent edits
Can you mention the sources for your recent Al Aqsa fire-related edits? - Mustafaa 14:43, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I did not want to intrude too much into this article and so I created an entire article (which I am still adding to) about Michael Dennis Rohan who was and still is at the center of this hot topic. I have tried to document as many sources as possible on that article due to the reaction that the article is likely to provoke. I am personally a non-partisan and non-sectarian person (see my User page) and I am not attempting to slant the article but it is possible that some Jews, Arabs, Muslims, Christians, Australians, breakaway churches from the old Worldwide Church of God, etc., etc., will attempt to skew the article after getting upset with its most peculiar story that seems to rival the controversy over Lee Harvey Oswald. MPLX/MH 15:38, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't see too many sources in that article; it helps to separate them out into a "Sources" or "Bibliography" section. However, there is one point I'd particularly like to see documentation for: what Arab media other than the JNA reported that he was Jewish? And what do you mean "Yassar Arafat constantly used it as the foundation of his attacks on Israel"? - Mustafaa 16:05, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Okay, good questions. First let me say that I am peddling as fast as I can (I am trying to work this in between doing other things in real life), but your questions are valid and they are worthy of answers. I will find as many sources as possible and for the main article on Rohan and I will also address your specific question on Arafat. As it happened, I already knew of the Rohan incident (see my other interests on my page) and when Yassar Arafat started mentioning this incident on US TV within recent times my ears pricked up and I started to pay closer attention. Then I discovered that a lot of the reprisals against Israel were being tied to this incident in an oblique manner so that only someone who understood the background would understand what was being addressed. I will therefore document as much as I can over the next couple of days (while doing other things.) However, I am also trying to document the Herbert W. Armstrong aspect of it because not only did he imply that he had never made such statements, but after his death the church that he founded suddenly lurched in another direction and closed all of its colleges, dropped the old style Plain Truth magazine, axed all radio and television broadcasting, sold its headquarters in Pasadena and denounced Herbert W. Armstrong and all that he had ever taught! Weird. But there are a lot of splinter groups out there who are still loyal to Armstrong and they are also likely to try to defend his actions. I think that Rohan is about as controversial as Oswald and it is anybody's guess at the moment as to what really motivated either of these two historical characters. All I can do is to try to rescue as many of the facts as possible and assemble them in one place since this may be the first time that this has ever been done. MPLX/MH 16:42, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Don't mean to hurry you here, but I still see no citations for the claim that "The Jordanian News Agency was among many Arab sources that incorrectly reported that Rohan (http://www.petra.gov.jo/nepras/2004/Aug/20/20958400.htm) performed his deed because he was Jewish". So I'm removing it for the meantime. - Mustafaa 11:52, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry Mustafaa I don't understand the problem. I have no ax to grind here, all I am doing is documenting stuff about Rohan, what he said and what others said and what others keep saying. I personally saw and heard Arafat going on about this incident as the foundation for all of the trouble and that is what prompted me to inject the story about Rohan. The Arab press blame Rohan as being a Jew who the fire as a Jew to further a Jewish cause. But I knew that this was not the case. The problem here is trying to refute a negative - in trying to show that Rohan was an Australian who became inspired by an editorial written by a man now dead whose church has now repudiated both the author and the magazine and of which Rohan was never a member in the first place. He is the Lee Harvey Oswald of all this trouble. However, just like the Kennedy assasination theories, the Arab press have used this story to infer a conspiracy when there was no conspiracy, only a lonely person who acted out a wild idea. On the other hand, let me bounce the ball back in your court: you find and document the Arab sources who blame Rohan because he was a Jew and that he set the fire because he was a Jew. You can find them probably better than I can. I have no beef with this issue at all. I am not involved in the slightest with any part of the religious controversy. I am only interested because I happened to know quite a bit about Rohan having read about all of this years ago when it happened. Since then the passage of time has only made things more murky and distorted. If it is possible to hit this nail on the head once and for all and refute the nonsense about Rohan and the acts of killing that are being done to avenge his perceived deed, then let's do it! Over to you. MPLX/MH 17:35, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not disputing most of your Rohan stuff, just this point. The quotes you've already found establish that "Arafat goes on about the incident", and that he and many others (including, if I recall rightly, Chomsky) suggest darkly that Israel was behind it somehow, but he doesn't claim that Rohan himself was a Jew, and neither does any other source I've seen except the single one which I found and cited from the JNA. Even if you have no particular agenda here, most sources reporting on this do, and I strongly suspect that's the motivation for many claims that this is what the Arab press has reported. If the article is to report such a claim without citing the Arab press itself, it must at least say who says so. - Mustafaa 18:20, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The trouble is I have not made a habit of documenting this stuff - before I began posting these bits about Rohan. However, it was because of what I heard Arafat say that finally prompted me into adding this material. The trouble is that I made no effort to record or document what I was watching. I only know what I saw and heard.

However, here is one reference - not by Arafat - but by Arab media which I took from another site just now: "After an August 21, 1995 bus bombing in Jerusalem, Syrian radio aired statements by Fayiz Qabdil in a "Palestine Broadcast" segment linking the bus attack to commemoration of the al-Aqsa fire. Qabdil said: Michael Rohan is an Israeli Jew even though Israel tried to prove that he is not a Jew, a Zionist or an Israeli when it claimed that he was an Australian. The Jerusalem bombing proves that death will be the lot of the enemies of Arab Jerusalem and Arab Palestine." Anyway, as I stated before I have no ax to grind and if you want to search the Arab media you may find a lot more quotable material. I do know that the Arab media did not attack Herbert W. Armstrong and his Worldwide Church of God (except perhaps in context of being a friend of Israel, but the funny thing is that just before the 6 Day War Armstrong signed a contract with Jordan (he also seemed to be on good terms with the King), to use its broadcasting facilities which unfortunately for him ended up on the Israeli side of the cease fire line and Israel did not allow him to make use of them!


 * Over on the Palestinian National Authority official web site I found this: "In the 35th Anniversary Of Burning the Al-Aqsa Mosque, Several Voices Call for More Protection 21-08-2004 Today marks the 35th anniversary of burning Al Aqsa mosque, which came amidst calls necessitating the drum of a wider massive moves defending the holy sites and to mobilize the Arab and Islamic nations to restore its historic leading."


 * Unfortunately the links to the PLA site don't work for this article and so I cannot find the rest of the story. But why is the PLA marking the 35th Anniversary of the burning of the Al-Aqsa? Surely not to rant against Herbert W. Armstrong: he is dead. His church has even disowned Armstrong and everything that he said and wrote! The only message here is that the Israelis are to blame and since the Israelis are mostly Jews, then it is obvious what is being inferred. A lot of this material must be in Arabic which I don't understand because I am not finding much in the way of English language material on the Internet that comes directly from Arabic sources concerning this subject. MPLX/MH 19:37, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you. The media quotes you've found are good (well, I'm suspicious of the Syrian radio one given the nature of the two sites that quote it, but the other two are great.)  But as for the PLA site, there is a big difference between claiming that the Israelis are to blame for the burning (eg by secretly bribing Rohan or something) and claiming that Rohan himself was a Jew.  - Mustafaa 00:15, 9 December 2004 (UTC)

Palestine Chronicle
Check out this entry on the Palestine Chronicle because it plainly calls Rohan a Jew and it is about anniversary of the Al-Aqsa arson attack:

"MiddleEastWire.com: Washington, DC - Tomorrow marks the 32nd anniversary of the burning of Al Aqsa by extremist Michael Rohan. Rohan, an Australian Jew, set fire to the mosque, burning Saladin's pulpit and destroying approximately one third of the total area. Israeli occupying forces cut off the water supply and prevented the fire engines from arriving on time to extinguish the fire. Rohan's attack on Al Aqsa is just one in a long list of threats to Muslim rights in Jerusalem. The one-year anniversary of the Al Aqsa Intifada, sparked by Ariel Sharon's violation of the Noble Sanctuary, is approaching. Just last month, Israeli authorities allowed the extremist group, the Temple Mount Faithful, to place a 4-½ ton boulder at the foot of the Noble Sanctuary. The group is intent on destroying Al-Aqsa and building the Jewish temple in its place. The boulder they placed symbolizes the first step in that process."


 * I am still looking for more quotations. MPLX/MH 19:58, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Does any of these Arab newspapers realize that only damaging the inside but leaving the rest of the building unharmed could only be bad for the Israeli government?- Moshe Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Islam Online
Here is another article from Islam Online that is telling the same story which of course is totally untrue:

"CAIRO, August 21 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) – Exactly thirty five years passed Saturday, August 21, after setting Al-Aqsa Mosque on fire by an extremist Israeli, but still accusations are leveled at Israel of being the mastermind behind the debilitated fire of the holy place. The arson attack on Al-Aqsa, Islam's third holiest Mosque, in 1969 by an Australian Jew named Denis Rohan, had destroyed the priceless one-thousand-year-old wood and ivory Minbar of Saladin. Palestinians at the time accused Israeli authorities of failing to exert enough efforts to put out the blaze. For its part, the Israeli government always tried to distance itself from the crime, claiming that the perpetrator was insane and therefore could not be prosecuted. ... '''The Arab world accuses Israel of being responsible for the fire of Al-Aqsa mosque following its seizure of the area after the 1967 war. A Jordanian government official said there was "crystal clear proof" that Israeli authorities were involved in instigating the fire in the holy site, the Washington Times said Saturday, August 21, quoting the Jordanian official Petra news agency.''' ..." (There is more text online.) MPLX/MH 20:24, 8 December 2004 (UTC)

Random sample of the Arabic search results for "rûhân al-quds"
I tried Googling one possible spelling of the name with "al-Quds", and the top 15 results were:


 * http://www.raddadi.com/madinah/aqsa.htm: "the Zionist Michael Rohan"
 * http://www.palestine-info.info/arabic/books/beet_maqdes/maqdes4.htm: "the Zionist Australian terrorist Michael Rohan"
 * http://www.rcja.org/jerusalem/history.html: "the malignant/malicious Jew Michael Dennis Rohan"
 * http://www.arabcin.net/areen/22/reports1.htm: "an Australian tourist of Jewish origins called /Michael Dennis Rohan/"
 * http://www.jcdhr.org/me/maqal%2029_9_04.htm: "the extremist Zionist Michael Rohan"
 * http://www.alresalah.org/alresalah/artical/2004/ata%20allah/6.htm: no comment on origins
 * http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:s3YYkr52odIJ:amcoptic.com/a_news/news_egypt/n_011_015.htm++%D8%B1%D9%88%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%86+%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%AF%D8%B3&hl=en: "an extremist Jew called Michael Rohan"
 * http://www.alarabonline.org/index.asp?fname=%5C2004%5C11%5C11-23%5C762.htm&dismode=x&ts=23/11/2004%2004:47:29%20%D9%85: no comment on origins
 * http://www.aqsa-mubarak.org/?cat_id=132&page_id=540 "the Australian Jew Michael Rohan"
 * http://www.islamonline.net/livedialogue/arabic/Browse.asp?hGuestID=9Y0Dfv: no comment on origin
 * http://www.alshaab.com/GIF/01-06-2001/Ads.htm: "and this Jew is called 'Rohan'"
 * http://www.zu7l.com/vb/showthread.php?s=6028d4a3569bc1bc1fe7a32d4b6de837&threadid=1892 "Michael Rohan, of Australian nationality"
 * http://www.shamsona.250x.com/alqods.html: "the Zionist criminal Michael Rohan"
 * http://www.waarabah.net/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1762: "the terrorist Michael Dennis Rohan"
 * http://www.pna.gov.ps/Arabic/qadaya/alquds/alquds/alquds_important.asp: "a Jew called 'Rohan'"

At 6 out of 15, this unscientific poll certainly supports your contention that the rumor itself is sadly widespread. However, most of these sites are not media, but rather polemics; I'd be rather interested in the question of how the rumor began in the first place. But also a cautionary note: there were only 266 hits in any event. The spelling of Rohan I'm using may be unusual. - Mustafaa 00:54, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Mustafaa I am very impressed with your efforts because my own search ability on this was limited. I kept on hitting various Jewish sites yelling about the fact that Rohan was a "Christian" or an "Australian" or a "tourist". One thing I do not know the answer to is what ever became of him? Where is he today? Is he alive and if so, what has he said about all this, if anything? It is reported that the Israelis thought that he was insane.
 * As to how it all started, well the answer is actually in your own description of these web sites: "polemics". I have an interest in the entire Herbert W. Armstrong, The World Tomorrow saga that involves Michael Dennis Rohan because it would seem that a lot of people on all sides of this issue have used and abused the word truth to strut a political message which has resulted in death and destruction.
 * I doubt very much that most people know much about this very important episode which is why I created the Michael Dennis Rohan article and others for The World Tomorrow, etc. Rohan is not the only person caught up in this, the other person who has inflamed a lot of hate after having contact with Armstrong is Bobby Fischer (the chess champion.) But that is another story.
 * However, there does seem to be a possibility that clandestine black funds from the US government were involved with some of Armstrong's operations. One quirk is that without his broadcasts the largest of the so-called pirate radio stations broadcasting from off the coast of the UK between 1964 and 1967 would never have lasted.
 * I believe that it is in everyone's interest to stop these rumors about Rohan and to try to expose their malicious source wherever possible. I hope that you continue your search and that you will add more links as you find them. It would be good to see this stuff translated into Arabic where it will do the most good! MPLX/MH 02:01, 9 December 2004 (UTC)

Source for "rubbish dump"
From the article:

When Muslims first entered the city of Jerusalem, according to Arab historians of the time (eg. Mujîr-ud-Dîn ) as confirmed by the medieval Jewish Geniza documents, the ruins of the Temple were being used as a rubbish dump by the Christian inhabitants, in order to humiliate the Jews and fulfill Jesus' prophecy that not a stone would be left standing on another there;

Where in the second link is there confirmation of this?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.212.42.41 (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Renaming to "Temple Mount/Noble Sanctuary"
I propose that this article be moved to a new, neutral title, "Temple Mount/Noble Sanctuary". Currently, "Noble Sanctuary" redirects here, and has no page of its own. It is biased to have only the Jewish name in the title. Certainly it was the Temple Mount first, and I have no objection to "Temple Mount" leading the name. However, the inescapable fact is that the area is now 2 different places/institutions with distinct names sharing the same spot. The title should reflect this, and not display favouratism.--AladdinSE 18:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Come on, there must be opinions regarding this proposition?--AladdinSE 14:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I would vote against it and besides, I think that having slash in the title is a bad idea. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call "Temple Mount" biased, it's just one of the names of the area (to be exact, the Noble Sanctuary sits atop the mount). However, to take your original idea above, I think it would make much more sense for Noble Sanctuary to have a page of its own, given its unique status, separate (Islamic) importance and context, and that it's not exactly the same as the Temple Mount. I do think it's more than a bit weird that it redirects here, although it is certainly relevant to this article also. Ramallite (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Having a separate page for Noble Sanctuary that does not redirect to Temple Mount seems reasonable to me. Any objections to Ramallite's formulation?-AladdinSE 01:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What is the difference between the two? Jayjg (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * One is a Jewish name, the other is a Muslim name, maybe? &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 04:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

special significance to Christianity?
What is the "special significance to Christianity" that the article refers to?


 * I'm not a christian but I am pretty sure that it is important to them as well for a variety of reasons mostly related to the early history of Christianity as a Jewish sect.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not really an answer to my question Isarig 03:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I was wondering about that myself. I could ask, but from what I know, it seems that there are many groups of 'Christians' who regard the building of the 3rd Temple on the spot as a prerequisite to the returning of Jesus. These are the same people who fly over from the US to hug the settlers and give doughnuts to soldiers manning checkpoints inside the occupied territories. Of course, these people also believe that once the temple is rebuilt and Jesus's spaceship does land, Jews (and Muslims) would have to convert to Christianity or burn in hell - but that's the part they're not supposed to talk about just now... Ramallite (talk) 06:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to remove that sentnce, then. There does not appear to be any special significance to Temple Mount to any mainstream Christian sect. Isarig 15:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The Temple Mount is very important to Christians for much the same reasons as the Jews consider it holy. They believe the land was given to the Israelites by God, and that Solomon built his Temple there under the commandment of God. It is holy because they considered it the resting place of God--even Jesus spent much time in the Temple (beginning with the Finding in the Temple and finally with the incident of Jesus and the Money Changers). After Jesus' cricifixion, the Gospels state the Temple's curtain, separating the Holy of Holies, was ripped, allowing humanity to have a personal relationship with God (And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst). Christians, as do Jews, believe the Temple Mount must be rebuilt in order to fulfill Biblical prophecy. While Jews believe the coming Messiah will build the Third Temple, Christians of course believe that Jesus is the Messiah. Christian views on the rebuilding of the Temple differ as the New Testament only alludes to it. Many believe the anti-Christ will rebuild the Temple and there proclaim himself to be God. (Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.) This is seen as prophecy of the construction of the Third Temple because Jesus prophecized on his Mount of Olives sermon that the Temple would be destoyed (Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. "Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.") Jesus then also prophecied about the end of days, alluding to the coming of the anti-Christ. ("Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many. You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains... So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains... --Matthew 24) For the most part though, concerning the history of the Temple, Christians accept nearly all Jewish beliefs about the Temple and its relationship between God and Israel. For these reasons also, many Christians may consider the building of the Al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock to be a desecration of the Temple and sacrilegious. A good summary of these beliefs is available here: http://www.templemount.org/TMXNS.html — Aiden 19:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Aiden, very informative, and I must add, very different from the stuff I've learned from native Holy Land Christians... Ramallite (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Citation for "A Brief Guide to al-Haram al-Sharif" material
From the article:
 * ===Muslim===
 * The main reason that the Temple Mount is holy in Judaism is that it was the site of the Temple. This fact provides a reason for its holiness in Islam; it is still considered to be the orthodox Islamic position.  A Brief Guide to al-Haram al-Sharif, a booklet published in 1930 by the "Supreme Moslem Council", a body established by the British government to administer waqfs and headed by Hajj Amin al-Husayni during the British Mandate period, states (page 3):


 * "The site is one of the oldest in the world. Its sanctity dates from the earliest times. Its identity with the site of Solomon's Temple is beyond dispute. This, too, is the spot, according to universal belief, on which David built there an altar unto the Lord, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings." A footnote refers the reader to 2 Samuel 26:25.

Why "citation needed"? The source is provided in the preceding paragraph. I am removing the "citation needed". For doubters, I found a scanned image of the cover of the 1935 edition of this book at this location and an image of the page cited is at this location. I have also touched up the quote slightly to match that in the image. Yoshm

--

Perhaps someone who knows how can add the images of the pages of this book to Wikipedia's image base? They are all located & referenced at this page I don't think there's a copyright issue any longer for this 1935 material (is there?). There are also images of other pages from the 1924 edition located at this site. some of those scanned pictures might also make a nice addition to this article (for someone who knows how to add them)Yoshm 09:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

--

Above links are no longer valid - here's a new link to a scan of the entire booklet - 1925 edition. Yoshm (talk) 07:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Reference 9
wrt the following statement in the Jewish claims to exclusivity section :

As the Al-Aqsa mosque was constructed 78 years after Muhammad's death, some deny any correlation between the "Farthest Mosque" and the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Rather, many scholars consider it logical that Muhammad intended the mosque in Mecca as the "Sacred Mosque," and the mosque in Medina as the "Furthest Mosque". Some argue Jerusalem's role as "The Third Holiest Site in Islam" in mainstream Islamic writings does not precede the 1930s. [9] the sourced article, seems to be circulating a lot mostly on sites aligned with the hardline Jewish POV that the Al-Aqsa mosque be demolished and a temple mount built in it's place.The article itself is mostly disinformation and I've checked up on other articles by the same author and it seems he seems to have authored several articles which don't look like an analysis but looks more like propoganda and I dont think it's in line with WP:RS (His page at an organization he's part of)


 * i addressed the last sentence at some length on Talk:Religious significance of Jerusalem and don't think i need to repeat myself here. whether it's disinformation or just misinformation, it is wrong, wrong, wrong, and it has no place anywhere except perhaps Israeli-Palestinian history denial. 65.95.37.193 03:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of tagged statements
Nobody has so far cited reliable sources for those disputed statements. Shall I delete them from the article? Thestick 14:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Muslim/Jewish claims of exclusivity
There have recently been edits and reverts in this section. Since I don't wish to create an edit war, I'd like to discuss any change here.

Here is what I propose:
 * The Jewish claims section should be before the Muslims (logical order), but this is not important
 * In the Muslim section, there is a quote by Yasser Arafat. That quote does not demonstrate his claim of exculsivity, only that he suggests that the [Jewish] Temple is not located there. He never says that this land belongs to Muslims and Muslims only 9unles you can find an alternate quote). He never says that Christians (or other religions) don't consdier this land to be holy.
 * The same goes for the quote by Palestinian Authority and Higher Islamic Authority of Palestine Al-Quds.
 * Similar arguments can be made about the Quran and the hadith, that tell us that Temple Mount is holy to Muslims. But neither document says that Temple Mount is holy only to Muslims, and not other religions. The Quran, in fact, recognizes the religous beliefs of the "People of the Book" (namely Jews and Christians).
 * There are however, some crazy scholars that make some arguments for exclusivity, and they should be quoted.

Bless sins 00:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In the Jewish section, there is, with some exception, "Jews" believe this and "Jews" believe that. Please cite specific (notable) persons and organizations who hold particular beliefs, and demonstrate how these belifs fit in. Or show a general statement in some scholarly source.
 * Also the section is "Jewish claims of exclusivity". Non-Jews, such as Julian, and the Egyptian cultural minister should not be quoted.
 * All good points. 1)Arafat said this in order to refute the Jewish claim (Temple Mt. is only claimed by Jews mainly b/c of it was the site of the Temple), by doing this he is saying it is only holy to Muslims. 2) The claim of Julian is being used by Jews to argue that it was recognised as their property, the fact that a non-Jew gave them permission I don't think matters. 3) Where is the ref. to the Egyptian minister? Chesdovi 11:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "The claim of Julian is being used by Jews to argue that it was recognised as their property, the fact that a non-Jew gave them permission I don't think matters." Which (notable) Jew(s) is/are making that calim? Please state clearly. Bless sins
 * - I am the notable Jew making the claim! I also think Shuml Katz mentiones it somewhere, (I will try and find if you want) Actually, even if there is no Jew making the claim, by stating this historical fact it supports the Jewish claim. Is that good enough? Chesdovi 10:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The section is specifically stated "Jewish claims of exclusivity". Unless, you want to start a new section "other", these quotes don't belong here. Also, I presume "I am the notable Jew making the claim" is a joke.Bless sins 18:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "Where is the ref. to the Egyptian minister?". The second last point in the Jewish section, is linked to a document prepared by the "Egyptian Ministry of Culture". Also, if a Muslim or Christian makes some claim acknoledging Jewish religous siginificance, it would go in the next section.Bless sins 19:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * - Well he isn't making a claim that it's an exclusive Jewish site, but what he is saying is that the Temple Mt. is not the site of Al - Aqsa. therefore there shoud be no muslim attachment to the site. By stating this view it supports Jewish claims of exclusivity. I don't think we should make another sub-section dealing with "non-Jewish support for Jewish claims of exclusivity"? Do you agree? Chesdovi 10:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Think of it this way. I am a Muslim. If some neo-Nazi anti-Semitic racist made some disgusting remarks about Jewish holy sites, I would not want it to be put in the Islamic section, because it goes to say that Muslims are bieng racist. I don't know who you are, or what you want, but non-Jewish remarks should be put elsewhere, not in the "Jewish claims" section. Like I said before, you are more than welcome to start an "Other claims" section. Bless sins 18:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "Similar arguments can be made about the Quran and the hadith - which Jewish religious claim are you refering to - I think there may be a diiference. Chesdovi 10:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am talking of arguments made in the "Muslim claims" section. Islam, does not teach religious intolerance or that Jews be denied access to holy sites. There for the Quran and the hadiths should not be quoted in the "Muslim claims of exclusivity", (unless someone can find a scholarly source that says this).Bless sins 18:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

'''Also, please remember that, just because someone acknowledges religious rights of a certain religious group to the Temple Mount, doesn't mean that it is a claim of exclusivity. The claim should be included in the next section, Temple_Mount.''' Bless sins 18:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think sections should be renamed "x claims of ownership" and "Those denying other religions connection to the site" as currently all can be interpreted as not claiming exclusivity Chesdovi 14:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

x claims of exclusivity doesn't mean that a member of religion x makes a claim of exclusivity, but that a claim of religion x's exclusivity is made.  Tewfik Talk 01:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Seperation
I suggest the seperation of Temple_Mount], into seperate sections dealing with History and Traditions.

Thus the two sections should look like this:
 * History
 * Relevent parts of History_and_traditions_of_the_site
 * Temple_Mount
 * Perhaps Recent_events


 * Traditions
 * Relevent parts of History_and_traditions_of_the_site
 * If necessary three sections:
 * Jewish
 * Christian
 * Islamic
 * Jewish_religious_law_concerning_entry_to_the_site. Bless sins 20:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems to me like a good idea. Chesdovi 10:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I have seperated the section. What needs to be done now is the following:
 * A section about Christianity
 * Expansion of the Muslim section
 * Greater unity in the History section
 * Reduction of the "Jewishlaw entry to site", we should link this to some othe section.


 * I could agree with rearranging the material within the article, but removing Jewish-law material seems problematic as this material is legitimately complex. Jewish attitudes include material from very early sources and have had a long time to develop. If this religious-law material were spun off to another article without a general spin-off for each religion's attitudes, it might move the WP:NPOV pendulum in the opposite direction. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You have my agreement on this. Bless sins 05:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason why the jewish law section should be reduced. Amoruso 05:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Because of undue weight. Bless sins 05:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I changed the following: "after the legend of Muhammad's miraculous nocturnal journey in the Quran and the hadith", into: "after Muhammad's miraculous nocturnal journey, as stated in the Quran and numerous hadith ". It would also be acceptable to say "Muhammad's miraculous nocturnal journey, according in the Quran and numerous hadith " (emphasis added). The word "legend" implies heavy anti-islamic POV. It's like calling the birth of Jesus (wihtout male intervention) a "myth" or "falsehood". I think we can do without that modifier. It would make the article more NPOV. Bless sins 05:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it's like saying it's a legend that Jesus' mother was a virgin. Legend is what used, like tradition says. Legend is not like a myth of falsehood, it's simply a legend. The miracle of hanukkah is a legend too etc. Anyway, undue weight of course doesn't apply - this is an article about the temple mount, obviously jewish law regarding it should be one of the main and long parts. Amoruso 05:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but I see nowhere in Hanukah where it is described as a "legend". If I was to go ahead and put it there, it would most likely be considered POV, unnecessary and removed.
 * I don't know why you are absolutely insistent about putting the word "legend" there, when this can be (and has been) described other ways: "according to the Quran", "after the Islamic belief", "as beleived by Muslims", "as stated by the Quran", "as believed in Islamic tradition", "as reported by the Hadith" [Hadith is (supposedly) a collection of eyewitness accounts of what Prophet Muhammad said or did], believed by most Muslims to be true.Bless sins 16:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Why is the big controversy section (about the location of the temple) under the Christian section? The book may well be by a Christian author, but I doubt many have heard of him nor his theories and I find only an indirect relationship to Christianity. — Aiden 07:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a mistake probably, shouldn't be under that section. I doubt the book deserves its own section to begin with, probably could be trimmed. Amoruso 08:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Date of First Temple Destruction
Am I the only one bothered by the citation of 607 b.c.e. as the date of the destruction of First Temple? The correct date, of course, is 586/7 b.c.e. and the 607 date does nothing but to line up the arithmetic for Jeremiah's prophecy of the length of the exile. Should this not be corrected? 67.20.61.14 15:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Jews and Christians barred form conducting ceremonies
Does somebody have a source for this statement? I don't know if this is accurate or not, but I would really like to see a source for this. I did some looking (albeit only a little) but I haven't found anything that substantiates this. As I understand it, the government of Isreal allows the Waqf to retain "civil control", or day-to-day operations. I checked at www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf20.html#r) because I figured that if this was true, they would certainly have something written there about it, but they don't. They state that "an Israeli presence is in place at the entrance to the Temple Mount to ensure access for people of all religions."

I'm going to remove this statement, if someone can provide a source for it, then put it back, but I have a hard time believe the gov't there would allow this. A student of history 23:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Found source for this well-known fact. --Shirahadasha 02:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Then add the source to the page. I'm not out to start anything, it just sounds like something that ought to have a reference. If you have a source for this, great, put it up for us. I see further down the page under "Management of the site" there is a reference to a WND article. WND is not a reliable source, see WP:RS. This is *supposed to be* an encyclopaedia, the information here should be held to a higher standard than the rubbish of WND (I can recall when Sharon had a stroke, they reported he had died). There is a very good reason why scholars don't use WND as source material. A student of history 03:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I found a good source from the Israeli MFA, it's a translated op-ed Ha'aretz article. A student of history 04:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The source you provided is dated 1994, pre-intifada. The polices involved are additional post-intifada strictures. Although the above source is reliable for what was the case as of 1994, it shouldn't be used to describe the current situation. A post-intifada source is required for that. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Added some better sources. Presumably Ha-Aretz and The Jerusalem Post are acceptable. Note that the Jerusalem Post article identifies when the ban began, justifying removing the 1994 MFA article as preceding and not accurately describing the current state of affairs. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the cnd-friend.whatever source. The Ha'aretz one was good and I this second source seemed redundant - also, this source isn't particularly good, fairly POV'd. Other than that, I'm happy with this, I really just wanted to get some better sources in here. Thanks, Peace.


 * I don't see a reason to remove the Jerusalem Post article. It's opinionated because it's an editorial, but the editorial states a number of facts which serve as the background for the opinions expressed. These facts (such as the fact that the ban is a post-Intifada government policy) aren't sourced in the Ha'Aretz article. The Ha'Aretz article only describes an isolated incident (three people arrested by the police on a particular day). The Jerusalem Post article describes an intentional government policy. There's no basis for removing the Jerusalem Post article. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

A student in history, please differentiate between ACCESS and the right to conduct services. Since its being under Israeli rule, it is controlled by a Muslim Waqf. They do not allow any non-Muslim services. As far as access to, I believe the actual ban of non-Muslims from even entering began in 2000 or 2001. My main point was to make sure you both differentiate that fact. --Shamir1 00:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Our sources show that the ban is not just on conducting "services" or "ceremonies". The ban is on praying, of any kind. --Shirahadasha 02:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Round table?
Temple Mount's connections with the Knights Templar seem to suggest the Round Table is at Temple Mount

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.96.194 (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

removed the "israelis barred by jordan" comment
this was irrelevant and only designed to further israeli claims on the templemount especially when juxtaposed with the sentence that followed it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.184.125.155 (talk) 05:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not irrelevant. Under the terms of teh 1949 armisitice, Jordan was required to allow free access to the holy place, and violated that agreement. Isarig 06:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No, under the terms both parties were obliged to set up a commitee to formulate and then implement a policy regarding acces to the holy sites however this, and numerous other obligations weren't met by both paties involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.184.125.155 (talk) 04:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Mughrabi Gate
Information on the Mughrabi Gate (or Rambam Gate) would be nice. 134.193.168.99 23:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Acknowledgments of the basis for its holiness to other religions
I moved some of this copy around and added. It was shockingly POV

First error: It attributed to Jews the idea that Muhammad's visit lacks historicity, a view shared by everyone in the world save pious Muslims.

Inserted scholarly viewpoint on what makes a site holy 9 clue - not whether muhammad actually visited it, but whether worshippers confer importance)

Second error: the section of Muslim attitudes toward Jewish holiness appeared to be an attempt towhitewash the extent and enthusiasm of Muslim Temple Denial. I added a sentence at end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athena's daughter (talk • contribs) 14:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This section is opinionated.Its an irrelevant addition to the topic in my opinion and asserts more on the Jewish opinions. Based on the indicated references, that is not a secular point of veiw. Thats Jewish point of veiw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.173.228 (talk) 06:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Debate on location of the Jewish Temple
I'm not the one to add this, but there is a debate on the location of the temple mount. Tuvia Sagiv, has a theory which places the Jewish Temple between the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa mosque. I think this should at least have a notation in this article. More information is available at http://www.templemount.org/sagiv2/index.html. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AvatarZ (talk • contribs) 18:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC).18:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Tuvia Sagiv is an architect, not an archeologist. His speculatons were not published in any peer-reviewed journal or other reliable source. Beit Or 18:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a reliable source and publications concerning the others localisations? The study of Tuvia Sagiv is not only speculative. He give many scientific elements that anyone can understand and verify, except if you are one of those obscurantists, of course (and I guess you are)... Djampa (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Terminology: God - Yahweh - YHWH
First, a short intro to other editors:

After my initial edit, changing "God" to "Yahweh", User:Rabbeinu left a note on my talk page taking issue with that. I appreciated the fact that he had notified me of his revert, and engaged in what I believed was a cordial discussion (it certainly was on my part, at any rate). I made what I consider a judicious change, from Yahweh to YHWH -- and was frankly stunned to receive a decidedly un-cordial reply. I haven't the slightest interest in engaging in a one-on-one personal battle with Rabbeinu over this, so I am turning it over to the wider community of editors.

Following is the 3-part exchange of notes that took place on my talk page:


 * Jews consider the usage of the term "Yahweh" to be highly offensive. Because of this, combined with the fact that this is the English Wikipedia (note that that name is not used on the Hebrew Wikipedia either), we simply write "God". Therefore I have reverted your edit to the article "Temple Mount." See Names of God in Judaism for more information. --Rabbeinu 22:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your note, Rabbeinu. This would seem to be a rather complex issue. Thanks for the link to Names of God in Judaism -- I took the time to read the relevant passages. It is without a doubt true that some/many Jews (especially ultra-Orthodox, such as yourself) consider the term "Yahweh" to be "highly offensive" -- but I think it's an overstatement to say simply that "Jews" (implying ALL Jews) so consider it.


 * However, from my perspective, that is actually beside the point. I was coming at it from a historical perspective, and I was a bit bothered by the use of the word "God" -- a modern English term, after all -- in a passage discussing what is regarded as a historical event that took place several thousand years ago. (When I say "bothered", I mean something between "annoyed" and "mildly offended" -- in somewhat the same way that I tend to roll my eyes when people who come from a Christian background unthinkingly use the term "Old Testament" when referring to the Jewish/Hebrew scriptures.) In any event, I find the word "God" rather out of place in the context of Abraham & Isaac. Before I made the change to "Yahweh" I had already read through the discussion in the article I linked to at Yahweh, and I believe that in some form that is the historically correct term. After receiving your note and giving it further reflection, I think perhaps it would be better to go with "YHWH" (linked to "Yahweh"), which maintains historical accuracy while avoiding the issues of pronunciation, etc.


 * Regards, Cgingold 23:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, you are wrong. All Jews consider that term to be offensive. That term is not used by any Jew (who knows the slightest bit about Judaism - of course if you ask a Texan Jew who eats pork at MacDonalds on Saturday afternoon you might get an "I don't care"-answer). The only acceptable spelling here is 'God', and that is the one we will use. I would strongly advise you not to revert me. --Rabbeinu 07:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I've already explained the reasoning for my edits, and I believe I've made a good case for "YHWH", which conveys to the reader the term of reference for a supreme being that was extant during that particular historical era. All the same, in the event that, following discussion here, there is a strong concensus and a good case made for the use of "God", I won't stand in the way.

Lastly, some advice for Rabbeinu: be sure to read WP:CIV and WP:OWN before you're again tempted to lecture another editor on this or any other article. Perhaps that sort of thing works well in the social milieu you are used to, but it doesn't go down well here on Wikipedia. (Although, I must admit, I was trembling with fear of being struck down by lightning after reading your warning...) Cgingold 11:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You again reverted me, without responding to my comments at all. I reiterate that there is no 'complex issue' at all. We write "God" here, and nothing else. There is no discussion possible about that. Please refrain from reverting me again. --Rabbeinu 10:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There is not going to be any consensus on changing this to your version. I have explained this to you with reasonable arguments and have pointes you to Names of God in Judaism. There is nothing else I can do regarding 'making a good point.' All I can do aside from that is revert and ask others to revert, and that is what I will do. --Rabbeinu 11:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I see that Rabbeinu just couldn't wait for me to post my response here (I was sidetracked by real world issues for about an hour) and has once more reverted my edit -- once again without any rational discussion, simply the same old resort to religious authority:


 * "We write "God" here, and nothing else. There is no discussion possible about that."


 * Please. If you are unable to put aside your religious convictions, perhaps this is not the best place for you to participate in a collaborative effort. Wikipedia is NOT owned by Orthodox Judaism or any other religion.


 * If you can manage to participate in a discussion without demanding obeissance to your personal religious doctrine by your fellow editors, then please be good enough to await the results of this discussion. In the mean time, since you have not seen fit to provide a rational explanation, please refrain from again reverting my edit. Remember, you do not own this article.


 * And one more thing: DO NOT delete comments on the talk page -- this is strictly forbidden under WP rules. And please remember the 3-revert rule. Cgingold 12:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * uses more than one word for God; YHWH occurs in verses 11 and 14 to 16, but not at the start of the chapter where "God tested Abraham." So, "God" is the appropriate word here. - Fayenatic london (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, verses 1, 3, 8, and 9 use אלהים to refer to G-d. While I don't quite agree with Rabbeinu that using the tetragrammaton in the article is 'offensive' to Jews, especially not translated into English, I also don't think that it's appropriate or necessary here. The term "God" conveys all the necessary information and is unmistakably correct from the Hebrew. Also, please consider avoiding the term "ultra-Orthodox" - it's considered somewhat demeaning. Daniel C/T+ 13:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Cgingold has asked me to comment - this is a complex issue and I have a three-part comment. First, I think we need clarification on why Jews find YAHWEH offensive.  I can think of two.  One: it is not the correct spelling of the name of God.  The Hebrew Bible provides a four letter name of God, but the four letters are consonants (Hebrew scripture does not provide vowels) and no one knows the correct vowels.  Two: Jews consider it sacrilege to say the name of God, or destroy the written name of God.  This is generally true among Jews.  Jews to my knowledge - certainly any observant Jew - never attempt to pronounce the name; when they come across the name they say "Lord" instead, this being a title, not a name.  If a Jew has a text with the name of God written on it, s/he ought not destroy it.  When the text is to be disposed of, most synagogues have a small room where they deposit such texts in lieu of throwing them away.  Wikipedia creates a BIG problem for any religious Jew as anyone could write God's name and then anyone could delete it.  I do not know how Orthodox rabbis have ruled on this.  I can only guess: I can guess that they may say that YHWH is NOT God's name because these are English not Hebrew letters.  I can guess that even if we used Hebrew letters some may say it is not God's name because it lacks the vowels.  I can guess that some might rule that creating ielectronic text simply is not equivalent to writing.  However, I can also guess that some have ruled that electronic texts are like writing and that it is sacrilege to write the tetragrammaton. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "I can guess that some might rule that creating electronic text simply is not equivalent to writing." That one is correct. Note that we consider the four-letter name without vowels to be equal to the one with vowels. The vowels indicate that the proper pronunciation is 'Ado-nai' (or 'Elo-him'). The problem for Jews here is not so big, except if we would print texts. --Rabbeinu 14:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Second, I think the issue here is not NPOV I think but rather the extent to which Wikipedia as a community wants to respect very deeply held feelings of a religious community. Note: I do not think this is a matter of censorship, because we are talking about respecting the religious practices of others, not agreeing with them.  In other words, some people may not believe in Darwin's theory of Evolution, or the body of scholarship that claims that humans wrote the Bible long after the events it describes.  These are beliefs and NPOV insists that we represent all - we must represent creationism and Biblical inerrancy in a neutral way, but we can also represent the theory of evolution or Higher Criticism in a neutral way.  But writing God's name is not a belief, it is a practice, and Rabbeinu may well be correct that writing God's name on the internet is intensely upsetting to most Jews.  Note: Rabbeinu is not asking that everyone agree that God exists or that the Jewish God is the only God or that Jewish beliefs about God are true.  I think he is aksing that a practice be respected and I would suggest that editors here look to the way we handle anti-semitism and racism.  We have article on anti-semitism and on racism, but we have also traditionally avoided gratuitously reproducing racist and anti-semitic comments in Wikipedia.  Ditto sexist comments.  Another model for thinking about offensive vs. inoffensive representations is how we handled "vagina" or "clitoris."  We do have photographs and diagrams of these body-parts.  But, if you go back far enough in the history of these articles, you will see that there were images that had been placed and then removed after much community discussion because people concluded that the images were in and of themselves pornographic and inappropriate representations.  These topics provide precedent for thinking through the use of representations that many readers may find offensive.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank yuo for your good comments. The issue is that no Jew would ever write that name (of course, a pork-eating Texan Jew who drives to the MacDonalds on Saturday afternoon might be different). There is absolutely no sense in it. In fact, it represents pushing an extremist Christian POV - since they are the main users of that name. --Rabbeinu 14:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Third, there is the practical question of how to represent this material. Some Jews consider the word God equivalent to the name of God and only write it out G-d so as not to write it out; others argue that God is obviously not the name of God becaus the name of God is whatever God's name is.  The Hebrew Bible actually provides two names for God: El (same root as Allah) which is usually translated as God, and the tetragrammaton, which as I said is usually considered the real name of God (because it was revealed specifically as such in Exodus) and people generally use the Hebrew word for "lord" in its place, and it is therefore generally translated as LORD.  I think if this were an article on the Religion of Ancient Israel, or the Hebrew Bible, or the Documentary Hypothesis or Higher Criticism or Source Criticism - in which the distinction between the two is very very important - we definitely need to find a way to represent the two words.  Most scholars use abbreviations for the sources (i.e. distinct traditions that use one or the other) i.e. J or E and these initials would offend no-one.  I also see no problem using conventional translations i.e. God for El and Lord for the tetragrammaton, when the point is to distinguish between the two.  When the distinction between these two textual traditions is not important, I see no reason for not doing what most Jews do which is to use the generic word "God."  So, in this specific case I have to side with Rabbeinu.  Wikipedia is an English-language encyclopedia.  In the cases where Rabbeinu reverted Cgingold, the text was not making any claims about Hebrew language or distinct textual traditions in Ancient Israel, but rather drawing on the Bible and Talmud to make some general claims about widely-held Jewish beliefs.  Jews today - talking in casual conversation or lecturing in a University course or giving a sermon in a synagogue would, as long as they were speaking in English, use the English word God.  So why can't Wikipedia?  Cgingold seems to want to make this a matter of anachronism, as if the word God is a "modern" word.  It is not a question of modern versus ancient, indeed I think to claim so is offensive because as far as modern Jews are concerned the tetragrammaton still refers to God's name - to associate it with the archaic is to suggest that Jews no longer exist, but Jews do exist today and continue to worship God (English for the tetragrammaton) and for Jews there is nothing "old-timey" about it.  It is ONLY a matter of Hebrew versus English.  Cgingold seems to have no problem using the name Abraham, which is definitely not Hebrew. He also has no problem with words like "Temple," "mount" "angel" and "sacrified" - none of these are words used by the ancient Israelites, who did not speak English.  But so what?  We use English words because this is English language Wikipedia.  If Cgingold doesn't want to edit the article so it exclusively uses "Beit HaMikdash," "har," "malach" or "korban" and is content to use English here, we should use the English "God" also.  It doesn't sound "modern," it just sounds English which is entirely appropriate for Wikipedia. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct, it's plain English. Problem solved, as far as I'm concerned. --Rabbeinu 14:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well stated, and certainly plenty of effort! :) Even if the passages used the tetragrammaton exclusively I would agree with the points you've made in favor of the common term. Daniel C/T+ 14:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

My goodness, what a can of worms I've opened up here -- complexity upon complexity.

To begin with, I'd like to say that -- as I indicated above -- I have no desire to stand in the way of the apparent concensus here supporting use of the term "God", since it's been arrived at on the basis of rational discourse. My real objection was to the unilateral, peremptory and singularly arrogant reverts of my edits by Rabbeinu. The comments from Fayenatic london and Dbratton, on the other hand, were both very reasonable and would, I suspect, have been sufficient even without SLR's extensive analysis to persuade me to go along with their preference for "God" over "YHWH".

I had no idea what SLR would have to say, but knowing that he's done a good deal of work in the subject area, I was confident that he would make a thoughtful contribution to the discussion. (Obviously, I was correct on that score.) By and large, I find his remarks cogent and, even if I disagree somewhat on various details, generally persuasive in terms of the issue at hand.

But, SLR, I do need to take issue with your remarks near the end where you say, "It is not a question of modern versus ancient, indeed I think to claim so is offensive... to associate it with the archaic is to suggest that Jews no longer exist... "

I couldn't disagree more with your take on this (see below for my discussion), but more importantly, after reading that section in its entirety I was left with a queasy feeling in my stomach. It may not have been your intention at all, but it felt like a subtle insinuation of some sort of antisemitism on my part. Truly, you have no idea what a bizarre notion that is, considering that I've spent my entire life fighting against antisemitism (and other forms of racism, as well). In any event, I sure would appreciate some clarification on that.

Now, as to the rationale for my edit... It's pretty apparent that my previous remarks didn't succeed in explaining my intentions. I'll get to that in a moment. But first I want to say that in my initial edit I used the term "Yahweh" because I had just finished reading the article Yahweh -- I simply went with the term that was in my head and didn't give it serious thought until I received Rabbeinu's first note, upon which I promptly changed it to YHWH.

So, what was the rationale for my edit? In a nutshell, you could say it was an (imperfect) attempt to insert a tiny bit of historical verisimilitude. I think it would probably help to know that I am, among other things, a history writer, and I therefore tend to approach things from a certain frame of mind. For example, when writing a piece about the arrival of Columbus in the Caribbean as experienced by the Taino inhabitants he first encountered, I made a point of using a number of actual Taino terms to convey how they perceived what was happening.

In this case, when I read the passage in question it happened to strike me that it might be better -- out of respect for the historical personnage of Abraham -- to use a historically accurate term instead of the word "God". It's entirely possible that if I hadn't just read the article on Yahweh I wouldn't have given the matter a second thought. But having just read the section of Yahweh explaining the conflation of terms and shift in meaning that took place in the course of the transition from Hebrew to Aramaic during the Babylonian captivity, it struck me that Abraham would surely have thought of "God" as "YHWH", given that he is considered to have lived more than a millenium before use of the term was proscribed.

I hope I've now imparted some real understanding of what I was trying to accomplish. But, having said all of that... Reflecting further on what I actually know about the specific subject, I don't believe I would make that particular edit -- because, strictly speaking, I doubt that scholars can establish with any real certainty what exact term Abraham would have utilized. In other words, the whole issue is basically moot in any event.

And with that, I bid one and all Adieu. (Yes, I know... it's French for... ) Cgingold 12:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Cgingold, I am not accusing you of being an anti-semite and have no reason to think you are. But somneone who is not an anti-semite can unintentionally offend Jews, just as someone who is not a misogynest can unintentionally offend women.  I am not criticizing you personally, I am simply making a point about one thing that you wrote.  The tetragrammaton is not archaic; it is no more archaic than "September."  OIver 2,000 years ago Romans used the word September to name a month in the calendar, but we still use that word today - it is neither an archaic or a modern word, it is a word people have been using for a long time.  Jews today still use the tetragrammaton so it is not archaic.  Would Abraham have used the word "god?"  Of course not - but not because "God is a "modern" word (which you suggested), only because "God" is an English word.  I personally do not see how using any Hebrew words adds versimilitude to the article.  I assume Hebrew Wikipedia uses Hebrew words Abraham himself used.  Here in English Wikipedia, why chose to translate some words and not others?  I really see no reason for it.  It seems to me that the only time we ought not to translate a word is when there is no translation for that word in English.  However, as you know, "The Lord" is precisely how Jews translate the tetragrammaton, and God is the more generic word Jews use, and the word that is specifically used for El (and according to Genesis it was God, not the Lord, who commanded Abraham to take his son to be sacrificed, anyway).  Since Jews believe there is only one God, and Christians and Muslims claim to worship the same God that the Jews do, it seems strange to suggest that the tetragrammaton should not be translated as "God."  But even if most English-speakers did not understand "God" to refer to the God of the Bible (rather than say Spinoza's God), the point is, in English, "God" is what we Jews call Him.  I believe you when you say you are not anti-semitic.  Therefore I am sure you are grateful that a couple of Jews have explained to you how a certain use of language can be offensive to Jews.  As someone who fights anti-Semitism, I am sure you are glad to understand this now. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response, SLR. I've already acknowledged that there's a concensus, reasonably arrived at, for use of the term "God", so I'm not sure further elaboration was required. All the same, I think perhaps your repeated use of the term "archaic" helps to explain our divergent perceptions of my edit. Whereas I used the terms "historically correct" & "historically accurate" — neither of which carry the necessary implication of obsolete — you substituted the term "archaic", which of course does imply that. You then extrapolated from that erroneous assumption to what was, consequently, a far-fetched and appalling inference — that "...to associate it with the archaic is to suggest that Jews no longer exist..." — while simultaneously failing to perceive, or even consider the possibility, that the edit was, to the contrary, meant to be a gesture of respect.


 * The point, of course, is that both writer and reader should consider alternative perceptions/interpretations of textual passages — a notion that you are, of course, very much aware of, as is amply borne out by your user page. For example, the tone of your two concluding sentences above ("I am sure you are grateful", etc.) comes across to me as fairly patronizing. But I can't be entirely certain that it was deliberate — there is, I suppose, at least a possibility that it was inadvertent, simply the result of some less-than-artful wording.
 * PS - You might just possibly want to reconsider your apparent presumption that I am not Jewish. Regards, Cgingold 12:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You are right I made an assumption about your identity - what can I say? the statistics are on my side, but you are right I ought not to have made any assumptions.  About patronizing: I definitely did not intend to be patronizing or sound patronizing and apologize if I wrote in that tone.  I do think I got hung up on your using the phrase "modern English" when i think "English" was sufficient.  I really do understand your concern for what is historically appropriate but it still seems to boil down to the fact that Abraham and others thousands of years ago spoke in Hebrew, not English.  If it is historically appropriate to transliterate one word from Hebrew to English, why not all words? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The article God refers to the being, the article Yahweh refers to name. When talking about the being use "God" when talking about the name use "Yahweh". I personally find it troubling when various name are used in place of "God" because it implies that every name of God is a distinct being. Jon513 12:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi all. Please accept my apologies for not having participated in this discussion a little more. As you can see from my contribs], I haven't been active since Friday the 15th. I have been quite sick for a couple of days and am only now beginning to recover slowly. SLR: thanks for your arguments. Must have taken up quite a lot of your time. Cgingold: I am happy we have reached a happy end here. Also, please note that I did *not* delete anything from this talk page at any point - when you accused me of doing that, there were two sections right after each other: mine (the older) and yours (the newer). I simply removed your section title and the double copied user talk page remarks, because there is no need to have the same text written here twice. Hopefully, this solves all questions anyone might have had. --Rabbeinu 15:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, Rabbeinu. Please take a closer look at your edit and you will see that, in fact, you actually *did* delete my intro paragraph (not to mention that my heading was more informative). However, I accept that it was not intentional, merely a sloppy, overly-hasty edit.


 * Ironically, it also resulted, indirectly, in your own comment getting lost in the shuffle -- when I saw that User:Guycalledryan had reverted your deletion, I followed suit, not realizing that further down the page you had added a short paragraph. (I've already restored that comment in my edit of 12:27, June 18, 2007.)


 * I agree that it doesn't make sense to have two copies of the same comments, so if it's allright with you, I'd like to delete the duplicated material in the section "Temple Mount" and move the comment you posted to its proper place in the discussion. Cgingold 06:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, problem solved. Go ahead! Such things happen when multiple people are editing a (talk) page simultaneously... --Rabbeinu 08:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Conversion of non-Muslim places of worship into mosques
Does this site fit into this category? Anyways,--Tom 17:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Tom,
 * I think that some sites in the category definitely fit, especially those with current Muslim emplacements like the Temple mount. I do agree that others don't though, like the Ramban synagogue where you've also edited, due to the short-lived nature of the mosque there. I haven't been through the rest of the category yet though, so it's hard to say how common this criteria is. Daniel C/T+ 17:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have VERY limited knowledge in this area, but I did see that this category was being added to a number of historical sites and was just curious. The catgory page dosen't really say what the criteria for inclusion are and the talk page was blank? Thanks for your reply and I will defer to others expertise. Cheers! --Tom 19:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This edit introduces an unreliable source. The source is firstly quite biased. The source says: "The only solution for Jerusalem is to preserve its complete Israeli sovereignty, for this has been the only proven path to the respect for, and access to, holy sites of all faiths." Ignoring centuries of Muslim rule where Jews and Christians were allowed to access their holy sites, the quote presents a naked pro-Israeli position.

Secondly, who is Mr.Hazony and what qualifactions does he have? He makes, at best, allegations towards Muslims, citing little evidence to support them.Bless sins (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Why argue about very debatable 'centuries' of 'tolerant' Muslim rule when you need look no further than Jordan's control of the Mount (and refusal to allow Jews access to the site), the riots that occurred when Sharon attempted to visit the same site, and the prohibition on building or repairing non-Muslim houses of worship throughout the Islamic world? A simple resolution to this question is this: under Jordanian Muslim rule could Jews pray at the site?  Under Israeli rule can Muslims pray at the site?  I think the point pretty much makes itself.  In any case, please elaborate on the "allegations towards Muslims" you are referring to that they might be addressed.--144.37.193.249 (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Dome of the Rock
The Dome of the Rock is the oldest Islamic monument. This means that of all the religious structures constructed by Muslims and still standing, none is older than the Dome of the Rock. This can be ascertained from the first sentence of Britannica and other sources.Bless sins (talk) 06:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable source
The following is not a reliable source: Hazony, David. "Temple Denial In the Holy City", The New York Sun, March 7, 2007.Bless sins (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent removals
Chesdovi, can you explain you recent removal or a large amount of sourced material? Bless sins (talk) 05:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Bless. Which material are you refering to? It looks shorter, but alot of stuff has simply been transfered into the footnotes. The most glaring removals, the section on the fire at Al-Aqsa and ritual purity of Jews regarding the mount, I think are better placed in their respective articles. Other stuff was unnecessary surplus to the article. If there is anything particular you are disturbed about, please let me know. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Name change
I oppose that the page be named Temple Mount/Noble Sanctuary. Chesdovi (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And so do I. At first I wondered whether the Temple Mount is indeed equally called the Noble Sanctuary.  I think the answer is no, not in the English-speaking world—and this is the English-language WP.  No doubt it has various other names in a variety of other languages that would translate into English as other than "Temple Mount", but no obligation exists to include them in the title or even the text.


 * As the change was made without any discussion, let alone a consensus, I believe we are within our rights reverting the change. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we should wait for a concensus here first. Temple Mount is more common. And it doesn't look right with the slash. Chesdovi (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I am the person who edited the Name, and I should have discussed it before editing. In contrast, i now do agree that in the "English speaking world" it isn't known as the Noble Sanctuary. Kind Regards, Shakarian141 (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's okay Shakarian141. Well done for being bold! Best, Chesdovi (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I also oppose the name change. Do we have a consensus? -- Nudve (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Even better, it seems to be unanimous and, thanks especially to Shakarian, a good example of collaborative editing. I'd say it's now time to proceed with reverting the name change. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Replace Robinson's Arch photo?
Would anyone object if I replaced the Robinson's Arch image with the following?



It is higher resolution and shows more of the neighborhood.

Wilson44691 (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

What happened to the Temple of Jupiter?
If the Roman Emperor Hadrian built a temple to the Roman god Jupiter on the Temple Mount in 130 CE in Aelia Capitolina, then how could the Roman Emperor Julian encounter ruins there in 363 CE? What happened to the Temple of Jupiter that had been built there in the meantime? Was it destroyed by the Parthians or the Sassanians? I would very much appreciate it if anyone could answer this question. Thank you. Keraunos (talk) 01:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Mount Moriah as synonym in the lede
I am going to rephrase this, as, according to the wikipedia entry, it is not a synonym. - "Moriah (Hebrew: מוריה, Mōriyyā = "ordained/considered by YHWH") is the name given to a mountain range by the Book of Genesis, in which context it is given as the location of the near sacrifice of Isaac. Traditionally Moriah has been interpreted as the name of the specific mountain at which this occurred, rather than just the name of the range. The exact location referred to is currently a matter of some debate."93.96.148.42 (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Original research
It seems to me that the section "Jewish religious law concerning entry to the site" is original research since it is mostly a collection of conclusions made on the basis of primary sources. Is there a good secondary source that covers the same ground? Zerotalk 06:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Jews and non-Jews alike
"All Haredi rabbis are also of the opinion that the Mount is off limits to Jews and non-Jews alike." -- what is the source of the claim about non-Jews? One of the two links does not contain this information, and the other is dead at the moment. Zerotalk 11:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like the Hebrew bit of this sign has been "amended" to included non-Jews! Chesdovi (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe that should be mentioned on the description page of the image. As I understand it (with my minimal Hebrew) "גזר" (judgement) has been vandalised into "גוי" (goy = gentile).  Is that right?  Zerotalk 23:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The word "אדם" (person) has been vandalised into "גוי". Chesdovi (talk) 10:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Geology of the Temple Mount
I'd like to know more about the geology of the Temple Mount. I read somewhere that the Old City was situated on Turonian age limestone, particularly meleke; in fact there's a quarry under the Muslim Quarter or something. That would suggest that the Temple Mount is itself composed of meleke, and that it began as offshore sediment in some shallow sea northeast of Africa. As the ages went by, there was uplift and then the Dead Sea graben developed. Am I right? &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 20:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Linked to the quarry once I remembered its name. There are also apparently caves (expanded by people into tunnels, anyhow) under the City of David, and there is a hollowed out area under the Rock that might also be at least partly natural. All this fighting over a sacred peck of limestone. Interesting. &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 15:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Which muslims are demanding exclusive right?
"This being the case, Muslims are resolute in calling for recognition of their exclusive rights over the site and demand that it be wholly transferred over to Muslim sovereignty." (Section 18)

Anyone could provide reliable and verifiable source regarding this statement? The aforementioned statement is quite controversial, let alone its factuality.

So I challenge that line to be removed, if no source if provided. --WhizzWr 20:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhizzWr (talk • contribs)