Talk:Temple Mount/Archive 2

Israeli Sovereingty
Why is the location stated as Jerusalem, Israel? Should not Israel be removed as the temple mount lies within disputed or occupied territory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.119.204 (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Temple Mount is part of the territory Israel occupied in 1967 and subsequently applied her law, jurisdiction and administration on. It is not clear whether Israel's measures amount to formal annexation, nor are they recognized by any state or political body in the world, and they have been harshly criticized on numerous occasions. To state in the infobox that Temple Mount is in Israel is misleading, as it is a minority view in the face of overwhelming opposition, not to mention that it is completely unnecessary (nobody would mistake its location for Jerusalem, Ohio...) -- unless somebody wants to make a political point. There's plenty of room for that in the body of the text, such controversial statements have no room in the infobox. I will remove the word "Israel" and the flag, if there is no objection.--128.139.104.49 (talk) 15:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * However, no matter the lip service, in reality, Jerusalem, Gaza, the West bank and the Golan heights are all inside Israel.The Latin term in de facto.--71.162.248.240 (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Way too long
Any article that requires the references be put into their own little frame is just too long.

Splitting off history to its own article and retaining just the current status and recent events would halve the article. Hcobb (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There's nothing exceptional about a length of 60,000 bytes for a WP article. Many cities (with much less history) have articles around twice that size.  In terms of content, history is the very essence of the Temple Mount, and the reader is entitled to see it presented as an integral part of the article.  I think it would be a disservice to spin off the history to a separate article. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Something wrong with this statement
Opening paragraph currently states "It was expanded by Herod the Great in 20 CE, " however, the article for "Herod the Great" claims that he died around 4 BCE or 1 BCE,  more than 20 years before it is claimed here that he expanded the temple in 20 CE.Eregli bob (talk) 05:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The correct date is ca. 20 BCE. It's a typo, easily fixed. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Foundation stone presumption and direction of Prayer
The Foundation Stone as shown in the image is the presumed location. The source brought in the adjacent article - Babylonian Talmud Yoma 54b does not directly relate to the image shown for The Foundation Stone, its not relevant. If there are other worthy sources please identify them. To ensure no further confusion on this matter the edit should remain.

Further, the direction of prayer at the Kotel for the vast majority of people, as witnessed by any attendance at the Kotel or the numerous images of prayer at the Kotel, is due East. The Foundations stone is North East of the Kotel. If the Foundation Stone is the place of the Kodesh Hakodashim it is contradicted by Jews who according to Halahka would be praying to the North East when standing at the Kotel - which they are not! The theoretical inference can then be drawn that the Foundation Stone is either not the location of the Kodesh Hakodashim or that it is located elsewhere - due East of the Kotel.Copytopic1 (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Map is fnorded up
What's with granting only all of Jerusalem to Israel with all other illegal land grabs marked as disputed? Hcobb (talk) 01:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Location of Temple Mount
Temple Mount is located within the Occupied Palestinian Territories. As noted in that article, the International Community (bar Israel) and all International bodies consider Israel's 1980 annexation to be illegal. Hence it is POV to say it is within Israel. OPT should be used.Steve3742 (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if somebody wants to argue it is not in the Palestinian territories, it is certainly not in Israel.  nableezy  - 23:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Temple Mount is in Old City of Jerusalem capital of Israel. It is under Israel sovereignty and control even if rest of world does not recognize. Current direct negotiation aim to find solution to conflict within a year, when it will be determine what will be final agreement about Jerusalem. Until then, area is under control of Israel. Saying "Occupied Palestinian Territory" is POV. LibiBamizrach (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're basically arguing that Israel has de facto control, which I don't think anyone has or would dispute. But East Jerusalem is de jure part of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, however much Israel dislikes this. Note the two are not exclusive - to say that Israel has de facto control over Palestinian territory is what Occupation means.
 * I do not see that Wikipedia is obliged to use the de facto version, especially when every other country in the world disagrees. Consider the analogous case of Northern Cyprus, a country whose existence is acknowledged by only one country in the world. The northern bit is de facto a separate country but de jure it is part of Cyprus. And Wikipedia articles are all careful to say that.
 * So...
 * We can either put Occupied Palestinian Territories and maybe another bit to say that Israel has de facto control. Or we can simply leave it as Jerusalem. Personally, I'd go for the latter.Steve3742 (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see on this talk page. I agree that simply "Jerusalem" is sufficient since adding either "Israel" or "POT" raise too many issues.Cptnono (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Cptnono's suggestion is a good one. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, this seems like an OK compromise. I'll be Bold and do it.Steve3742 (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Name of Temple Mount
OK, as has been pointed out the name Temple Mount is the most commonly used English one. But Wikipedia usually puts Native names on also. Hence al-Harum ash-Sharif should be added. There's a Native names section in the info box template for this. And, as I've earlier said, the Hebrew name could also go there. Although as Temple Mount is a direct translation of the Hebrew name, there's less need.Steve3742 (talk) 01:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Whilst here, I notice that the infobox uses the Mountain Template. This is wrong as a) It's not a mountain, it's a hill at best and an artificial one at that and b) surely the reason for the Wikipedia article isn't to find its elevation or what mountain range it's in but because it's a site of religious significance. I'm minded to change the Infobox to the Religious Building Template, which still doesn't match perfectly as it's a religious site, not a building. Still, it's a closer match than mountain. Any objections?Steve3742 (talk) 10:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I've just noticed that the Religious Building template has a religious affiliation section and is colour coded to the religion. I can foresee endless problems with this, so perhaps it's best we don't use it. Possibly use Protected Sites template? Or stick with mountain?Steve3742 (talk) 12:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, as nobody has responded, I'll assume nobody objects and I'll do it as we have a consensus. But those who reverted my edit last time and then said I should discuss it on the Talk page note that I did and nobody else was interested, not even the reverters.Steve3742 (talk) 10:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

yehudah etzion
Someone please expand ...

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

134.193.168.250 22:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Better placed at Dome of the Rock. Chesdovi (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

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

The reason the order is Judaism, Christianity and Islam is simply chronological. It is the only order everyone can agree on. Another suggested order, namely the order of "importance", will create edit conflicts since there will be disputing claims about which religion's claims are more important.Bless sins (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The Mount features in the New Testament, but Jesus preached in many locations all over Judea. The holy place in Jerusalem for Christians is the Sepulchre church. No Christian sect would do battle for the possession of the Mount as fiercely as they would for a foothold in that church. In the Byzantine period they dumped their garbage on the site. I do not think a mention is necessary in the introduction. Chesdovi (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it'd be appropriate to ask an editor who has experience on Christianity related articles to comment here?Bless sins (talk) 06:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

VANDALISM? WTF?

I added this:

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

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

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

EJ is also more informative then just "Jerusalem" so that should be used as its location description. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Such changes contradict compromise agreed upon two sections earlier ("Location of Temple Mount"). Hertz1888 (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. The map in the infobox is not discussed there, so you have not provided a reason to remove it. 2. "East Jerusalem" does not contradict "Jerusalem" its only more specific. Does anyone object to "East Jerusalem" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. Source given for the change is not "the international community", just a non-binding UNGA resolution. 2. Consensus (above) was for saying "simply 'Jerusalem'". Hertz1888 (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Source is a UN resolution where the extreme majority of the international community vote's in favor, calling EJ "Palestinian territory". Here is also a BBC source that says: "Within the international community the overwhelming view is that Article 49 is applicable to the occupation of the West Bank including East Jerusalem" so we can use either the PT or WB map, which one do you prefer? The dispute they are talking about above is not about "Jerusalem" or "East Jerusalem", see these diffs: its about the text after Jerusalem. Its a different kind of dispute. Me changing it to "East Jerusalem" does not contradict to only have the name of the city with no "PT" or "Israel" after.  East Jerusalem is also Jerusalem. Unless someone specifically disagrees with this now then it should be okey. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

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


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

Its a legal anomaly. How can EJ be recognosied as belonging to a party, but WJ is not? Chesdovi (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your source is a Primary source and we cannot infer from the text of such resolutions what the IC holds. US has actually not voted in favour as such language implies J is part of the WB, let alone Palestinian territory. UN in 1979 and EU in 1999 said J is part to be part of the CS plan. Chesdovi (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes we can see what the IC view is, the only one voting against is Israel, US and a couple of client states. And just because someone votes against doesn't mean that they object to it. The vast majority of countries voted in favor. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You refer to your source, and just b/c they vote "for" does not mean they agree with it. Many factors are at play in the voting system at the UN. (This is to counter your assertion that "just because someone votes against doesn't mean that they object to it" which I agree with.) Do you see now that UN resolution can not be used as a yardstick or final view held by the IC on this issue. What I am saying is that IC does not view EJ as part of the OPT. Lets take the EU who in March 1999 affirmed that the specific status of Jerusalem, (East and West), is a CS, a not PT. Chesdovi (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You have misunderstood, there are many different points in a UNR, to vote in favor a country agrees with all of them, but if a country agrees with all of them except one, it votes against. Show me the source about the EU you are talking about. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I see, thank you for clarifying that. I also want to point out that UN resolutions are not indicitve of international law: For example, in paragraph 19 of the ICJ 2004 opinion regarding the Wall, it notes that in 1997 the Security Council rejected two one sided draft resolutions that sought to brand Israeli settlements as illegal. The ICJ then proceeds to quote a resolution subsequently passed by the General Assembly (not the Security Council). The Bench underscores in para. 19 that: “...the GA expressed it conviction that: ‘the repeated violation by Israel, the occupying Power, of International law’ and condemned the ‘illegal Israeli actions’ in occupied EJ and the rest of the OPT, in particular the construction of settlements in that territory.” One is led to believe that, because the automatic majority of Members of the UN concurred with bringing the subject of the so-called “illegal Israeli actions in occupied EJ and the rest of the OPT” to the Assembly and voted on it, this UN citation makes the document true and relevant from a legal standpoint. One is led to believe that repeating such sentiments makes the UN document admissible as the basis for establishing the legality or illegality of an action in the International court of law. Yet the General Assembly affirmations are not a directive or law. Such resolutions are not legally binding documents by any measure, as is stated in the UN Charter (Article 10). Past members of the bench have gone on record to emphasis that the UN Charter does not grant the General Assembly or the ICJ authority to enact or amend international law. pg 97-99. The question now is can the resolutions however be used to give an indication of the IC stance on any given subject. Who knows. All you have provided is the BBC to back this up. Chesdovi (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That book is published by Myths and Facts. Are you serious? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

EU wants Jerusalem to belong to the UN
If Europe Affirms Support for a Corpus Separatum for Greater Jerusalem, it can not be said that the IC view East Jerusalem as being in Palestinian Territroy. Chesdovi (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because the EU supports an internationalization of Jerusalem doesn't mean that the IC view is that EJ is not part of PT today. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The EU actually supports that Jerusalem eventually be split between Israel and Palestine, but they currently view the status of Jerusalem as CS, not the territory of either party. So is my understanding. The UN is also of this view. Now EJ could be described as being part of the West Bank (land previously under Jordanian control), but to say its Palestinian territory would be a clear contradiction to the UN's 1979 report which states that the city's current status is that of CS and just as Israel's presence in West Jerusalem is not recognised by the UN, East Jerusalem cannot be said to be recognised as Palestinian. The UN proposal for the internationalization of the city remains the formal position of the international community. The united states has not accepted the sovereignty of any state over any part of jerusalem. Chesdovi (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your understanding is wrong. EU currently believes EJ is occupied. Read here And see here (the CIA world fact book map, showing the West Bank together with EJ and clearly marking it as being occupied territory.) You have been flooded with an overwhelming amount of evidence, have provided none of your own besides unsourced literature and candid letters, have branched this subject in to multiple topics ultimately discussing the same thing, making the debate all that more difficult. You are quite frankly being disruptive at this point. -asad (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, see this is an excerpt from the West Bank entry on the world factbook: "includes West Bank, Latrun Salient, and the northwest quarter of the Dead Sea, but excludes Mt. Scopus; East Jerusalem and Jerusalem No Man's Land are also included only as a means of depicting the entire area occupied by Israel in 1967" -asad (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I never denied EJ is occupied. EJ is indeed occupied by Israel, and so is West Jerusalem, according to the Arab League, the UN, US and EU. According to the IC, the whole city's status is undetermined and does not belong to either party. So whether East Jerusalem indeed forms part of Palestinian territory needs clarifying, and you can help by commenting here. It would further seem from the CIA that East Jerusalem is not viewed as part of the West Bank but is included in its area only to depict the area occupied by Israel, not that "East Jerusalem and Jerusalem No Man's Land" form an intrinsic part of the West Bank. They have a separate stauts to the rest of the west bank, albeit being viewed as being under occupation. Get it? Chesdovi (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to municipal boundaries, yes the U.S. and the world considers Jerusalem to be occupied but only considers the land east of the 49 armnistance line as occupied. Do you want to introduce the new idea that the entire world believes West Jerusalem to be occupied as well, because that is the first time I have heard about it. In the international legal context: Jerusalem = West Jerusalem; East Jerusalem = East Jerusalem.

As for your absolutely obvious wrong statement saying that East Jerusalem has a separate status. There is no proof or documentation of that whatsoever, I have absolutely no idea where you got that from. Once again, for the 118172389203 time, please provide evidence showing that that current occupation of East Jerusalem is legally separate from that of the West Bank. I won't hold my breath. -asad (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Acc. to the UN, the whole of Jerusalem has had a separate staus since 1947 when the CS was proposed, 1949 when it asked Jordan (and Israel?) that it be implemented, and in 1979 when the CS paln was reaffirmed. And as long as the UN and others hold that Jerusalem should be internationalised, it neither forms part of Israel or the Palestinian territories. I repeat, both EJ and the WB are both occupied, but EJ is currently not recognised as territory automatically belonging to a future Arab state, while the West Bank generally is. Therefore it would be wrong to use a map of the "Palestinian territories". Why I favour a map of Israel, is because that party currently controls the whole city whose status is undetemined. I would like to centralise this discussion over at EJ talk page. Chesdovi (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 181 was a General Assembly resolution, not a legally binding mandate. If 181 said anything about current Corpus Separatum, it is would have been a mere suggestion. UNSC 242, arguably the most of important of all the SC resolutions, made no separation of the territories other than that they were occupied. Though, UNSC resolution 476 did make clear that Jerusalem is occupied Arab territory. Calling it Arab or Palestinian territory is a question a matter of logic now. -asad (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi, in your latest posts you keep on repeating that the IC believe it should be internationalized, I already respond to this above: "Just because the EU supports an internationalization of Jerusalem doesn't mean that the IC view is that EJ is not part of PT today.", then you said "but they currently view the status of Jerusalem as CS, not the territory of either party.", do you have a source for that? I provided a worldview source before saying its regarded as part of the PT. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As stated on another article's talk page: This article is not about international law. The minority view is even significant enough that those going against the general opinion are not a fringe. Therefore we need to go off of sources and not opinions. If sources say simply "Jerusalem" then that is good enough. Keep the nationalism stuff at the appropriate articles. Cptnono (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Worldview sources say EJ is PT, no worldview source has been presented saying EJ is Israel.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you just read the tail end of this? The sources SAY East Jerusalem Occupied Arab Territory, etc. -asad (talk) 13:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * More say simply "Jerusalem" though. Are we going to start cherry picking?Cptnono (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Temple Mount is in East Jerusalem, the worldview is that EJ is part of the PT, so how can we use a map of Israel instead of the PT? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Temple mount is in Jerusalem. The worldview is that it is in Jerusalem. There are other factors that make it complicated but "Jerusalem" is completely correct and is drama free. Similarly, not using any map would be drama free so just remove the map instead of starting an unrelated fight that is more complicated then details in the article allow. Infoboxes and images are supposed to assist readers. If the explanation takes more effort and creates any confusion for the reader then they are contradicting their purpose.Cptnono (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No one has said its not in Jerusalem, but its in East Jerusalem, which is in the PT, therefore that map should be used instead of a country it is not located in. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, this comment applies to the multiple maps in the topic area that are being bickered over. Kill 'em all. Cptnono (talk) 09:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And thinking about it more it makes me livid. The material used (incredibly important) is still tagged as needing a citation while there is bickering over what format the map is? This is why cannot have nice things like flags and maps since it just oozes POV lameness, fosters bickering between editors, and creates a disservice to the reader. The reader is not an idiot and knows where it is. If they don't know where it is we are not assisting them by fighting over where the map is centered and what is highlighted. Axe it and do it across the topic area. Problem solved.Cptnono (talk) 09:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Does the consensus process mean anything to you? You have completely overlooked all the arguments(be it for or against) and the sources and made an edit that you felt was best. I would rather have Israel listed as the local than to have no map as a result of your editorial decision. This is not how Wikipedia works. Stick to the debate, and try to find sources that prove your point. If you are not interested in that (which it appears that you aren't), you could contribute by citing those sources you were so upset about, but please stop taking the decision making into your own hands. -asad (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to be so worried about it. You can always go revert. And good luck getting Israel listed as the location.Cptnono (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I reverted back to how it was and the discussion continues. Still waiting on the sources that show the Temple Mount not to be in the Palestinian Territories. -asad (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's my question. Under the original partition plan of 1947 (GA resolution 181), Jerusalem was to have been administered under UN sovereignty as an international city. While this plan was rejected by the Arabs, the Jews agreed to it.  At the end of the 48 War, Jordan conquered Jerusalem and the West Bank, expelling the Jews from  old city of Jerusalem, and not allowing access to the Holy Places.  That is when the Jews said that they no longer accepted the internationalization of the city.  In 1950, Jordan annexed the West Bank and East Jerusalem, giving the residents automatic Jordanian citizenship, and controlled it until the 1967 war when Israel conquered it and reunified the city.  Just exactly how is it that it suddenly turned into "Palestinian territory?"  172.129.66.44 (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We are talking about what the IC view is it is part of, not how they want it to be ruled in the future. The IC view today is that it is part of the PT.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * World Guides Travel gives the address as Jerusalem, Israel, just as it gives Luxor as being in Egypt. 172.129.66.44 (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * World Guides Travel has no authority to decide where the Temple mount is, they only represent themselves. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There have been objections and putting in the PT map did not have consensus. Sorry. Israel is in plenty of sources. If you really cannot find any let me know and I will find them for you. No maop might also work better. Centralized discussion?Cptnono (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cptnono, I asked repeatedly for a worldview source showing its in Israel, and not you or anyone else showed me it, there is therefor no objection based on arguments to have the PT map, only people saying "no". Why would we have no map when we have a worldview source saying its in the PT and we have no worldview source saying its in Israel? Why would we have a centralized discussion? There is no argument here not to use the PT map instead of a map of a country it is not located in. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, who cares bout worldview? There is a signifigant enough of a minority that it is not fringe. And again, why even use it in the infobox if it causes this much clarification? Why provide one POV (even a predominant one) when no POV would be better? Spell it out in the body and let the infobox not make a political statement. Infoboxes are supposed to be a quick and easy sidebar for readers. This is to complicated to spell out in the infobox and either map provides some concern depending on your view.Cptnono (talk) 04:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia rule npov, Due and undue weight cares about the worldview. Yes Israels view is fringe - Israels view against the entire world, Its not a political statement to have the PT map, its the view in accordance with the extreme vast majority, while right now with the Israeli map we are violating npov and following the extreme minority Israeli pov. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are misapplying FRINGE but we can open a centralized discussion if you want.Cptnono (talk) 05:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How am I misapplying FRINGE? You keep on ignoring the arguments that the IC view that EJ is in the PT.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't deny that it is a FRINGE argument to argue that the color of a banana is actually red, not yellow. So why would you deny it is a fringe argument that these aren't occupied PT when the entire international community concedes that they are? I don't get it -asad (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

So if the whole world says the color of a banana is actually red, not yellow, does that mean it is true? In that case, saying a banana is yellow would be a fringe theory. Minority does not equal fringe by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bananaisnotred (talk • contribs) 16:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The entire world are not saying a banana is red, they are saying EJ is part of the PT. According to Wikipedia rule npov, Due and undue weight we must follow the worldview.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case, you would rely on sources, wave spectowhatevergrams or whatever they would use. Here, we have sources, they are on the table. And it so happens that the overwhelming majority of all sources say it is OPT. -asad (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Israeli Period
Added inclusion of two very important events the September 2000 visit to the site by Ariel Sharon, which is said to have resulted in the Second Intifada. And the October killings of the same year, which ended up with 20 dead worshipers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.154.185 (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

1. The relevant guideline can be found at WP:ERA. 2. This guideline does not say that the era style first used must prevail in all Wikipedia articles. 3. The guideline does say (quoting) "Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors." 4. This article had been stable in the BCE/CE era style for years until this edit was made by 71.245.92.36 (talk &bull; contribs &bull; info &bull; WHOIS) at 17:18 on 10 May 2011. 5. This edit by 71.245.92.36 was against the guideline since it changed from one style to another without substantial reason or consensus. 6. Subsequent edits by various editors in favor of BCE/CE, including Hertz1888, Wilson44691 and Malik Shabazz , have been in accordance with the guideline as they restored long-standing consensus. 7. Other subsequent edits by various editors in favor of BC/AD, including 71.245.92.36 (talk &bull; contribs &bull; info &bull; WHOIS) and 71firebird  have been against the guideline as they were in favor of the original breach of consensus. 8. The reason the guideline reads the way it does is that several years ago there was a rancorous, disruptive, site-wide dispute regarding era style that was settled with this guideline as a cease-fire. 9. Violations of the cease-fire of the sort initiated at this article by 71.245.92.36 are against the spirit and the letter of the guideline. 10. This article should keep the BCE/CE era style until a consensus to change it, supported by a substantial reason for the change, is reached. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing unsourced accusation
While gazing over the article, I encountered an unsourced statement in the 'Alterations to antiquities and damage to existing structures' section: "These actions are also part of a general trend by the Islamic Waqf to prevent any archaeological research on the mount that may reveal elements of its Jewish past. But the main goal of this construction was to create “facts on the ground” by turning every vacant point on the mount into a mosque."

I have checked the history and it has been there since at least 2010. In any case, I find that to be a rather bold accusation to make without a reliable source and not really in compliance with NPOV. That isn't to say that this isn't the Waqf's policy (whether official or unofficial) but it really should not be there without a valid citation, as it is potentially libelous.

Anyway, I am removing it. Please do not add it back without a valid, reliable source.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Red Heifer Ritual and Refraining from Ascending
The article says that the Red Heifer ceremony justifies the prohibition from ascending the temple mount by Jews. However, it neglects how a ritual that connects to removing ritual uncleanness associated with contact with a dead body applies to the entire Jewish people. Is there some argument that at some point everyone has either touched a dead body or touched somebody/something who has? Can somebody explain this and expand on this slightly in the article? Thanks in advance! Abu Casey (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

St Helena
Text in the article:
 * It is believed that Constantine's mother, St. Helena, built a small church on the Mount around 325, calling it the Church of St. Cyrus and St. John, later enlarged and called the Church of the Holy Wisdom. The church was later destroyed and on its ruins the Dome of the Rock was built.[18] Since it is known that Helena ordered the Temple of Venus to the west of the Temple Mount to be torn down to construct the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, presumably she also ordered the Temple of Jupiter on the Temple Mount to be torn down to construct the Church of St. Cyrus and St. John.

I don't have Wilkinson's book handy. Does Wilkinson make these claims himself or does he report one of the early pilgrims as making it? I read several detailed accounts of Helena's activities in Jerusalem and none of them had these claims. Who believes them? Indeed, many sources say that Helena cleared the site and it remained desolate. Zerotalk 13:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, I found Wilkinson's book and I wasn't surprised to find that it does not contain this information. I was also not surprised to find that this text and its fake citation was added in 2006 by user Amoruso.  All of Amoruso's additions to Wikipedia need to be checked, as has been shown many times.  Wilkinson does record one ancient text that mentions a church of St. Cyrus and St. John in Jerusalem (p. 392) but it was placed near the Tower of David (p. 208) not on the Temple Mount. Zerotalk 08:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Recommendation to add short description of archaeological find
It is recommended that the current article be modified in the sub-topic, entitled "Jewish religious law concerning entry to the site," by adding a short description of an archaeological find in the Temple Mount. The suggested addition will read as follows:

"Gentiles were forbidden to enter the inner-court, as attested to by a hewn stone engraved with Greek uncials discovered in 1871 on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. The stone inscription is today preserved in Istanbul’s Museum of Antiquities, in Turkey and measures 60 x 90 cm. The Greek text reads:

ΜΗΟΕΝΑΑΛΛΟΓΕΝΗΕΙΣΠΟ ΡΕΥΕΣΟΑΙΕΝΤΟΣΤΟΥΠΕ ΡΙΤΟΙΕΡΟΝΤΡΥΦΑΚΤΟΥΚΑΙ ΠΕΡΙΒΟΛΟΥΟΣΔΑΝΛΗ ΦΘΗΕΑΥΤΩΙΑΙΤΙΟΣΕΣ ΤΑΙΔΙΑΤΟΕΞΑΚΟΛΟΥ ΘΕΙΝΘΑΝΑΤΟΝ

(Translation) ''Let no foreigner enter within the parapet and the partition which surrounds the Temple precincts. Anyone caught [violating] will be held accountable for his ensuing death.''[1]"

NOTE: [1] Encyclopedia of Eretz Yisrael, volume a-b, s.v. בית המקדש. A description of this stone tablet is found in Josephus' De Bello Judaico (v.v.2): "...when you go through these [first] cloisters, unto the second [court of the] Temple, there was a partition made of stones all round, whose height was three cubits: its construction was very elegant; upon it stood pillars, at equal distances from one another, declaring the law of purity, some in Greek and some in Roman letters, that 'NO FOREIGNER SHOULD GO WITHIN THAT SANCTUARY'; for that second [court of the] Temple was called 'the Sanctuary,' and it was it was ascended to by fourteen steps from the first court." Yosef b. Mattithiah (alias Josephus) also mentions this stone slab in his "Antiquities" (xv.xi.5 - end).

-END QUOTE- A proper place to insert this addition might be after the first two sentences in the first paragraph, which reads: "During Temple times, entry to the Mount was limited by a complex set of purity laws. Maimonides wrote that it was only permitted to enter this site to fulfill a religious precept." (insertion, followed by:) After the destruction of the Temple, etc."Davidbena (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

(The name of this article should be Haram al-Sharif because of the controversy regarding whether on not this was actually the location of the Herodic temple) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.213.31 (talk) 16:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Links
[>> Jerusalem holy site visit sparks riots([[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)).

Article should be merged with Temple Mount
Article should be merged with Temple Mount --Santasa99 (talk) 10:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)-


 * First off, you mean Temple Denial, and you need to give reasons why it should be merged. Your failure to give any reason whatsoever for the merge mean that I'll be removing the merge tag from the article. AnonMoos (talk) 02:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with AnonMoos 92.99.101.202 (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Conceptions of holiness relating to the al-Aqsa Mosque, the Dome of the Rock and the plateau area
Apparently some people regard holiness to be a significant issue and I was wondering, does anyone know how this works?

Clearly, on purely moral grounds the only justification for restricting access to any group of people, on the Temple mount site is that the land has long been in the possession of "Palestinians" and is part of Occupied territories.

Obviously there has been a lot of water under the bridge with regard to Jewish, Arab relations in Israel but, apart from that, is there any religious reason to say a person needs to pray with a mat rather than with a box on their heads? Is there any reason why believers of certain religions may be restricted from access while a shoeless non believer can saunter around at will?

Al-Aqsa is quoted as being the third most holy spot in Islam and I'm wondering about the extents of the mosque and whether it really includes the grounds (and thus the Dome) or not. As far as I've got so far is to find Majmoo’at al-Rasaa’il al-Kubra, 2/61: “Al-Masjid al-Aqsa is the name for the whole of the place of worship built by Sulaymaan..." I have yet to find the extent of his building efforts.  Any thoughts on this??


 * (note: Sulaymaan is Solomon, either that or I've gone Pete Tong).

Personally though I think that the world would be a safer and, arguably, saner place if the whole site were given over to another popular religion. Failing that I think it would be worth getting some clarity. The Jews seem to view just the southern building as being the mosque while the Muslims seem to think of the whole plateau as having third rank status.

Gregkaye (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * On Facebook you can find a video of Arabs engaging in the popular religion you mentioned, right there at the place they call third-holiest.
 * More to the point, according to Jews there are various degrees of holiness on the Temple Mount, but regarding the Muslim point of view, I was also under the impression that only the Mosque itself is considered third-holiest. Although I could understand how this would extend to the whole plateau over time. Could you provide some sources on the subject? Debresser (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * (Excellent news, If I ever get there again I will have to remember my Vuvuzela). On a more serious note, I'm afraid that the "Majmoo’at al-Rasaa’il al-Kubra, 2/61" reference was as far as I got.  It just seems that there is a critically important lack of understanding on both sides regarding the other sides (and perhaps) their own positions.  What are the extents of this thing called holiness?
 * I have placed a link to this page at: Talk:Jerusalem Islamic Waqf and Talk:Holiest sites in Sunni Islam. I'll also place a simple link from this pages parallels in Arabic and Hebrew.
 * Gregkaye (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The question of whether "al-Aqsa" is the whole of the platform or only the specific building at its southern end has been around for at least 1200 years. Both opinions are widespread in the Islamic literature. Many sources say the entire platform is a mosque, but even those which don't maintain a holiness for the whole site. So the details of exactly what Islam's "third holiest site" vary from source to source. Note that the same sort of variation occurs with regard to Judaism's "holiest site": you can easily find sources that say it is just the "holy of holies", just the Western Wall, the entire Temple Mount, or even all of Jerusalem. Zerotalk 23:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * TY Zero (and nice user name). To my mind it is a pretty important issue to gain clarity on within an encyclopedia for the sake of peace.  If the there were a legitimate current legal right of possession of the temple mount by the Jews (which I don't think there is) then the issue would have legitimacy in regard to arguments re: access.  However people like Sharon schedule visits and Uri Ariel propose synogugue building (which is a little naughty considering that "The entire area of the temple mount is within Palestinian territory".)  All the same, I still think that a lot of clarity on the issue of perceived holiness is yet to be gained here.  Who says what?  And what, in religious terms, is to stop someone praying vertically while wearing a tasselled sheet?  Genuine questions.  Pls all, present some honest encyclopedic information and sort this out.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  06:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've developed this page content so far: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Temple_Mount&diff=624126558&oldid=624116117 .  Anything else?   Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  07:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Zero, thank you for your commentary regarding the area of holiness in Islam. However regarding Judaism you are mistaken. As I said above, there are levels of holiness, starting with the highest level at the Holy of Holiest and going down through the level of holiness of the Temple Mount to the level of holiness of Jerusalem and then of the whole Land of Israel, and other intermediary levels between them. The larger the area, the less holy. Perhaps the same is true in Islam? Debresser (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course there are degrees of holiness, otherwise there couldn't be a "third holiest". What I wrote about Judaism is an accurate report of what you can find in "reliable sources".  A source that claims the Western Wall is the "holiest site" (as do a very large number of sources) is contradicting the possibility of something holier, even though most of those authors would concede that the Holy of Holies is actually more holy if they were pressed on the issue.  Such contradictions abound because claims like this are mostly made for polemic purposes. Zerotalk 02:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * @Zero There is no scientific certainty here of "degrees of" anything. No-one has yet invented a "Geiger counter of holiness".  WP:RELY and WP:VERIFY have specific meanings in the current context.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  05:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Both Islam and Judaism (also Christianity) have a concept of a holiness and regard some things as more holy than other things. The only question is of how formal the degrees of holiness are. Also "scientific certainty" is not a meaningful in theology. Zerotalk 10:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Zero, yes, the degrees of holiness are very clear in Judaism, and are numerated in the Mishnah. If sources say that the Western Wall is the holiest site in Judaism, it means the holiest among those readily accessible. Debresser (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Ownership
Another area of potential misunderstanding relates to legal and perhaps other conceptions of rights of access to the Temple mount site. I think there are two issues here. The Temple Mount is, as far as I can work out, an area within the boundaries defined for the Palestinian territories. I cannot see a reason why this information should not be added to the page. As far as I can see it is just as accurate to talk of the Palestinian territories in Israel as it is to talk of, for instance, the Navajo Nation in the United States.
 * I think that the Arab authority concerned should have a level of tolerance that would facilitate a non exploitative scheme that would allow Jewish people a level of access to their most holy site.
 * I think that it would also provide clarity to give a clear indication here related to ownership issues of the site according to international law.

Gregkaye ✍ ♪  14:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That information is already there, but a little more neutrally worded. That is why I removed your second mention of that fact, which was also worded in a one-sided way. Debresser (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd like to propose the following addition/amendment to article section, Israeli period:
 * "The 1967 Six Day War was the second occasion (following the 1948 Arab–Israeli War) in which Arab forces attacked Israel and in which Israel responded by capturing and occupying Palestinian territory. On the 7 June 1967 Israeli forces took control of the Old City of Jerusalem including the Temple Mount.


 * The Chief Rabbi of the Israeli Defense Forces, Shlomo Goren, led the soldiers in religious celebrations on the Temple Mount and at the Western Wall. The Israeli Chief Rabbinate also declared a religious holiday on the anniversary, called "Yom Yerushalayim" (Jerusalem Day), which became a national holiday to commemorate the reunification of Jerusalem. Many Jews saw the capture of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount as a miraculous liberation of biblical-messianic proportion. A few days after the war was over 200,000 Jews flocked to the Western Wall in the first mass Jewish pilgrimage near the mount since the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.


 * The then Prime Minister of Israel, Levi Eshkol, gave control of access to the Temple Mount to the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf. The site has since been a flash-point between Israel and local Muslims."


 * I hope that gives a balanced account of the situation in a way that represents both sides claim to the site. Gregkaye ✍ ♪  19:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC) edited Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  21:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I made a few changes to the text, only to improve the English. Seems fine to me. Debresser (talk) 22:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * TY Debresser and, amazingly for me, a good proportion of those amendments were in text imported from previously used article text.
 * It seems to me that supporters of Israel's territorial gains may gloss over the fact that territories are widely described to be "Palestinian" and "occupied" while opponents of Israeli occupation may gloss over the fact or just forget that Israel's opponents were the primary antagonists on both occasions. A no messing account of both sides of the history is needed both in terms to political and religious claims to the site.  I changed "capturing" to "occupying" as this is the commonly used wording describing the territories concerned.  "Capturing and occupying" may also work.
 * Gregkaye ✍ ♪  00:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * To keep the account true by all opinions "capturing and occupying" would be best. Also, capturing is not the same as occupying, since you can capture and then give back, so that is a second reason why I think we should state both. Debresser (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Palestinian territory" is contentious, ambiguous, non-neutral terminology that assumes something unproven; such wording would be tendentious editing. I propose we simply say "additional territory". Hertz1888 (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding "the second occasion (following the 1948 Arab–Israeli War) in which Arab forces attacked Israel and in which Israel responded by capturing and occupying Palestinian territory". This is an unacceptable and inaccurate potted history that hides a dozen controversies.  In 1948 (pre-)Israel captured a huge amount of territory outside the UN partition plan before the Arab states attacked.  Jerusalem wasn't in the UN-designed Jewish state or Arab state anyway, and it is known that Jordanian forces only entered Jerusalem when it became clear that Israeli forces were about to capture it all.  In 1967, Israel attacked first.  The debate over whether attacking first was justified belongs in another place. In both cases the inserted sentence looks like a justification based on over-simplification.  I don't think it is our business to write justifications. Zerotalk 01:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Zero thanks for the edit to: "On 7 June 1967, during the Six Day War, Israeli forces took control of the Old City of Jerusalem including the Temple Mount." It provides a simple clarification and yet I think that more can be said.
 * Hertz1888 The Israeli presence and actions in and use of Palestinian territory are the contentious issues. They relate to an illegal occupation of militarily gained land.  A clear picture needs of the situation needs to be reported.  It is a controversy that has been a catalyst for conflict particularly especially in regard to connections to  the Arabic speaking world. Many people have died. The Arabic arguments regarding access to the site should be clearly and proportionately represented.  There is no problem with the commonly used term "Palestinian territory".  Navajo Nation in the United States essentially presents a nation in a nation and yet this is still used.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  05:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Kindly do not post anti-Semitic lies. It is not illegal for Jews to live in their own homeland. The Temple Mount is the holest site in Judaism. The ones doing the illegal occupying are the Arabs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.115.24.87 (talk) 09:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 58.115.24.87, Kindly consider that people are dying. The dead include many Jews, many more Palestinian and a whole load more victims directly and, arguably, indirectly worldwide. I am more than happy for people to live.  Preference is for life to continue in a ways fitting with international agreement.  The comment claiming the ones doing the illegal occupying are the Arabs is ridiculous.  Human beings require physical space.  People don't just disappear. Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  13:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Palestinian territory" is definitely POV and should not be used. Debresser (talk) 11:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Debresser "Palestinian territory" is an article title that also gets "About 276,000,000 results" on Google.  Israeli-occupied territories?  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  14:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Only 2,700,000 on my Google. Strange. In any case, there is another and very simple reason why you can't say "he 1967 Six Day War was the second occasion (following the 1948 Arab–Israeli War) in which Arab forces attacked Israel and in which Israel responded by capturing and occupying Palestinian territory." because it was Jordanian territory till 1967. Perhaps we could say "foreign territory"? Debresser (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If the sentence states the starting event as “Arab forces attacked”, perhaps it should describe the conclusion as “capturing Arab territory”. Unician &nabla; 06:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Propose "On 7 June 1967, during the Six-Day War, Israeli forces advanced beyond the 1949 Armistice Agreement Line into West Bank territories taking control of the Old City of Jerusalem inclusive of the Temple Mount.

Gregkaye ✍ ♪  12:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Debresser (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

To Gregkaye, who states on his user page that he believes the Arabs should have a 22nd country called "State of Palestine" because 21 countries just isn't enough for them: The very concept that the indigenous people of the region re-settling their homeland are somehow "illegal" is preposterous and inherently anti-Semitic. Having an ugly golden-domed mosque on the holiest site in Judaism is like building a synagogue over the Ka’aba in Mecca. Jews aren’t even allowed in Mecca, so Muslims shouldn’t be allowed in Jerusalem. The Arabs should be thankful they are generously being allowed to live in the Jewish homeland instead of being expelled like what the Arabs did to us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.69.109.242 (talk) 09:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

"possibly prompted by governmental pressure on the rabbis"
I deleted that because the source doesn't have it. What that source has (in relation to a different ruling anyway) is the government's restrictions on Goren and his followers, now explained in more detail. The source actually says that "no direct evidence exists to show that the government influenced rabbis to arrive at a prohibition". Zerotalk 04:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Simple edit being reverted many times for "original research" despite a clear source from the Knesset website
Check the history for the edit. What is wrong with sourcing the legal conflict related to the effective ban on non-Muslim prayer on the Temple Mount? SmartIsrael (talk) 01:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The website does not say what your edit says. If there is a High Court ruling that the regulations violate the law, you can cite that, but you won't find any. Who are you to contradict the government's position that Clause 4 allows such regulations? Zerotalk 03:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Precisely. The law is one thing, but to state that the court's decision is contrary to the law is your personal opinion or original research. Debresser (talk) 16:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The court decision is contrary to the current Israeli police practice of forbidding prayer on the Temple Mount by non-Muslims. Read my edit word for word.  That practice runs afoul of the existing law, yet it is done to maintain the "status quo".  I simply clarified that the current practice is actually illegal according to Israeli law. SmartIsrael (talk) 03:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You seem to be unaware of Wikipedia policy. You should study WP:V and WP:NPOV before editing more. Those are policies which are compulsory. In a nutshell, it doesn't matter in the least that you believe a regulation violates a law. Even if you were a legal expert (which you obviously are not), it still wouldn't matter in the least. You will also gain from reading WP:RS. Zerotalk 04:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

What is the point of this synthesis?
"According to the Bible the site should function as a governmental, judicial and, of course, religious center." Shouldn't it simply be removed?


 * Yes, unless a decent (or indecently reliable) secondary source is found with the same analysis.

Jesus in Herod's Temple
According to the Bible, Jesus went into the temple and drove out the money lenders by hitting them with a whip. After that he confirmed himself as the Messiah to the priests. I wonder if that can be added to the article under history section. I think it should be added there. KahnJohn27 (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't belong in the history section. it belongs in the section on the significance of the place to Christians.  However it seems to be essentially already there. Zerotalk 02:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Poor source
This text was added:
 * Although the ban on Jews entering Jerusalem or the surrounding territory remained in force, many emperors did not enforce it strictly and sometimes Jews were allowed to enter the city during holy days of Jewish calendar. Under Constantine I this ban was enforced again although with some changes. Jews were allowes to live in the surrounding territory once again and were allowed in Jerusalem once a year on Tisha B' Av to pray at the Western Wall where they could mourn the destruction of the Second Temple. (Source: )

This source is entirely unreliable. Right on the same page there is the nonsense that the Western Wall is part of the temple. No historian believes that. Nor is there any evidence that the part of the retaining wall called the Kotel became a particular focus of devotion (over the northern or eastern walls that are mostly of the same age) until much later. If Constantine allowed Jews to visit on Tisha B' Av, feel free to return it with a proper source. Zerotalk 08:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually this information comes from Jerome. I reinserted it with a proper source. Zerotalk 13:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ... except that the real sources don't mention the Western Wall; that much was just an invention of the poor source. The Bordeaux Pilgrim's text suggests they might have approached the rock on the summit of the mount, but nobody knows for sure what "pierced stone" (lapis pertusus) he referred to. Jerome just says "the pitiable nation weeps over the ruin of its Temple".  Anything more specific than these is speculation. Zerotalk 01:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Israel-2013(2)-Aerial-Jerusalem-Temple Mount-Temple Mount (south exposure).jpg to appear as POTD
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Israel-2013(2)-Aerial-Jerusalem-Temple Mount-Temple Mount (south exposure).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 17, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-07-17. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Background
This statu quo has been in application since 1757. This is not something that appeared in 1967. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What is refered to as status quo nowadays is the status quo with the Israeli Government. Settleman (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What is referred as the statuq quo is an agreement that was established and kept by the different rulers of Jesuralem regarding the management of the Holy Places of the city. It was disputed in the XIXe, during the British Mandate, not respected for Jews after '48 and re-established after '67. But this is not something new that Moshe Dayan introduced.
 * I don't know why schools in the settlements do not teach this that way. Maybe a way to attack Mapai or "Israeli war heroes" who would be anti-religious ? Or maybe it is linked with the fact that numerous Christian places are also concerned and that Christians are not welcome in this debate ? I don't know.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 07:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In English it is status quo.
 * Please translate the quote from the book and if it will proof relevant to current status quo and unrest around the site, then it belong. Otherwise it is nothing but an interesting historical trivia fact which belong on Status quo (Holy Land sites). You put dubious tag on an excellent source that discuss the issue in length. Settleman (talk) 07:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I was wondering why there was no article on wp and why I didn't find references in English.
 * In latine, there is no 's'. Sorry for this mistake.
 * Status quo (Holy Land sites)
 * British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument)
 * The Holy Places of Jerusalem in Middle East Peace Agreements, p.2, p.54 (and the following), p.66 (Jews/Muslims and the Wall), p.102, ...
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 08:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * For the "status quo" during the mandate period, the most famous document is the report of Cust. There is also a good summary here. Zerotalk 10:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Great documents and very precise.
 * The Status Quo applies to the following nine Holy Places in Palestine (all of which are in the Jerusalem area).''
 * 1. The Basilica of the Holy Sepulchre and its dependencies, Jerusalem.
 * 2. The Deir al Sultan, Jerusalem.
 * 3. The Sanctuary of the Ascension, near Jerusalem.
 * 4. The Tomb of the Virgin, near Jerusalem.
 * 5. The Basilica of the Nativity, Bethlehem.
 * 6. The Grotto of the Milk, Bethlehem.
 * 7. The Field of the Shepherds, Bethlehem.
 * 8. The Wailing Wall, Jerusalem.
 * 9. Rachel's Tomb, near Bethlehem.
 * A summary note on the way in which the Status Quo applies in each of the above nine cases is given in Section D below in the note on the Holy Place concerned.
 * Apart from those nine Holy Places, all the remaining Holy Places in Palestine are not subject to the Status Quo because the authorities of one religion or of one community within a religion are in recognized or effective possession.* (*As for example the Cenacle which, though a Christian Holy Place, has been in Moslem hands since the middle of the 16th century. The position that Christians do not in effect enjoy the right to hold services there is uncontested.)
 * @Zero0000:
 * You have been following this article (Temple Mount) for years. Do you think the material of the status quo should be added to this article or rather moved to Status quo (Holy Land sites). How may words should be given to the topic of the Status quo in this article (Temple Mount) to comply with due:weight ?
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 10:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The rules governing usage of the holy sites in and near Jerusalem have been called the "status quo" since the mid 19th century at least. Of course, some of the rules are older. In the late Ottoman and British periods this was the principle underlying all government policy towards these sites.  So covering it is essential (some is already present in scattered places). It is also reasonable to discuss changes to the status quo since 1948. Zerotalk 11:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * When people nowadays speak of change in the status quo, they don't mean the one from 200 years ago but the one from 1967 which as was decided with Dayan and it belongs on this article. Pluto asked me to add information about the status quo but now it does not belong. Hmmmmm....... Settleman (talk) 11:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it doesn't belong. I have asked for what should be the due:weight.
 * The idea of what people are talking about when they refer to the "status quo" is your opinion but not the one of WP:RS. This has a long history. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Side note - just love the NPov here. I guess you didn't take a look here.
 * "At the issue of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Jordan took control of the Old City of Jerusalem and Jews were expelled and prohibited to visit their Holy Places in the city. Several synagogues were also destroyed[51]" does not belong and the one from 1757 probably need a bit of expansion or be removed.Settleman (talk) 12:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The 1929 riots are directly linked to the problems around the 'Statu quo' around the Western Wall which is part of the Temple Mount. Do you deny this ?
 * The statu quo was not respected by Jordan after it took the city in 1948. If the issue are the synagogue, it can be removed but it illustrates the extent of the Jordanian policy. Do you deny one of those two facts ?
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

This is confusing: "an agreement that became known as the status quo". The expression was not introduced in 1967 but is a very old expression. On page 139 Gonen uses the same expression for earlier periods. It would be less confusing to say that in 1967 a new status quo was introduced. Zerotalk 14:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

This book contains a number of articles which talk about the phrase "status quo" and its history and meaning. Zerotalk 15:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Wp:due weight
If this really due weight ?
 * Members of Murabitat, a group of women, cry 'Allah Akbar' at groups of visitors to remind them the Temple Mount is still in Muslim hands.[55] The group's activities were declared illegal in September 2015 because "The activity is inflammatory and endangers tourists, visitors and worshippers at the site, leading to violence that could harm human life. The goal of Morabiton and Morabitat is to undermine Israeli authority on Temple Mount, alter reality and existing arrangements and restrict freedom of worship, and it is tied to the activity of hostile Islamist organizations and even directed by them."[56]

If so, I think we should mention in details that some Jewish extremists (settlers too but that doesn't prove anything and is just coincidence, it will never be bolded enough) planned to destroy al-Aqsa Mosque in order to build the 3rd Temple, which would have started a Holy War (source Lifta gang).

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * This article is far larger than the recommended article size. It should be pruned, with minor items moving to other articles or disappearing. This Murabitat item is well below the line, in my view. Zerotalk 09:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * That's also my mind. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The part about Murabitat is one line and it has been a lot on the news. Pluto just repeated material about 1929 and put irrelevant text about the Jewish quarter but what bother you is those women that even positive articles about them say they scream at all visitors. Settleman (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Instead of attacking me, you can explain why the material that was added is not relevant. Stop WP:NPA or I will report you.
 * I have explained my point concerning due:weight between wifes screaming at visitors and about the status quo, the fact that Jewish extremist tried to made al Aqsa explode.
 * Would you mind giving arguments to keep this ? Pluto2012 (talk) 12:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 1929 is relevant but is already in the article (this when we ignore the problem with NPoV) but destruction of synagogues is irrelevant since they weren't on the mountain. Settleman (talk) 12:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've shortened it. There is no need to quote in extenso the Israel government's justification for clamping down on one specific group of Palestinian protesters there. WP:Undue etc., aside from being written as if it were based on some valid unchallenged civil law, while contradicting much of the complex history concerning who can dictate terms there. Arrangements are normatively bilateral, given the status quo. Nishidani (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * the sign at entrance is in the article and regardless doesn't belong where you put it. Please remove. Settleman (talk) 12:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Why doesn't it belong there?Nishidani (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There is some confusion here between the government's position and the rabbinate's position. Note that there is already a long section in the article based on detailed sources about the religious aspect. Zerotalk 15:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The official rabbinical declaration which I added above of course is repeated elsewhere twice with two snaps. As has been mentioned, there is reduplication, poor thematic integration, and the whole should be boiled down: but until that is managed, in my view, attempts to isolate one position, as was done, and exclude the balancing (religious interdiction) are not acceptable. My addition is provisional. Perhaps we should be thinking now of how to coalesce the disiecta membra and pare it down, without thematic damage or loss of coherence. One small point that did catch my attention was the difference between Gonen's translation and the official  sign actually visible on the wall.Nishidani (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The source you used doesn't even mention the status quo which makes the edit OR. After your insistence on clarifying Havakook is talking about Susya, I expect you to follow the same standards. Settleman (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Respect sources please
This rewrite significantly alters a highly nuanced source. "In 1976, after several attempts were made by Jewish groups to pray on the Temple Mount, leading to riots, an official statement was made that prayers are not forbidden on Temple Mountain yet Israeli police prevented Jews from praying based on the High Court of Justice ruling which stated:" "The basic principle is that every Jew has the right to enter the Temple Mount, to pray there, and to have communion with his maker. This is part of the religious freedom of worship, it is part of the freedom of expression. However, as with every human right, it is not absolute, but a relative right... Indeed, in a case where there is near certainty that injury may be caused to the public interest if a person's rights of religious worship and freedom of expression would be realized, it is possible to limit the rights of the person in order to uphold the public interest."

The High Court ruling is thje Chief Justice's opinion in the source, which is quite explicit that these suiccessive appeals are from extremist religious-nationalist sources and have been repeatedly turned ndown by the court, not, as paraphrased, supported by the court. The result is a travesty. A more accurate rewrite would read: "Muslims regard the whole haram compound as a mosque, which, being under Israeli occupation., is not subject to Israeli law. Extremist nationalist and religious Jews have filed several appeals to the High Court to alter the status quo policy.These appeals have been consistently rejected on the grounds that the issue is political and beyond the court’s jurisdiction. the government has  treated the matter as a matter regarding public safety under police jurisdiction. In 1976 the chief Justice Aharon Barak expressed his view that (quotation follows) Gonen pp.154-5" I can't edit this in per 1R but it needs a fix.I have linked the pages used for my paraphrase so that editors can check the appropriateness of an NPOV version.Nishidani (talk) 14:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 1RR seems to be an obstacle when editors try to make a real contribution. I hope it will be modified in the arbitration case.
 * As for the suggested changes - the source says a lot more then the quote you brought. When you summarize it for wikipedia, you need common sense and good judgement which I believe my edit stands for. Settleman (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are responsible for the text as we have it, then you should be able to see that it presents as a legal decision in favour of prayer what was a rebuff to the religious-nationalist appellant. Nishidani (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It went through a few changes by other editors. but overall I agree. But it needs to be clear that both the court and the police stood against all those efforts. Settleman (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. Be concrete: What does my summary below leave out of those two pages? or where is it inaccurate I.e.
 * "Muslim authorities declared the whole haram compound a mosque, which, being under Israeli occupation, is (in their view) not subject to Israeli law. Extremist nationalist and religious Jews have filed several appeals to the High Court to alter the status quo policy. These appeals have been consistently rejected on the grounds that the issue is political and beyond the court’s jurisdiction. The government has  treated the issue as a matter regarding public safety under police jurisdiction. In 1976 the chief Justice Aharon Barak expressed his view that (quotation follows) Gonen pp.154-5 Nishidani (talk) 16:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)"


 * Lets see - it isn't "Muslim consider" but "the Muslim authorities declared". I can't find occupation on the page. And you left out the fact it was officially declared "not forbidden to pray". basically, you have a problem with a few gluing I have done but brings in OR. The extremist part seems fine. Settleman (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Muslim adjusted. Occupied area not under Israeli law p.155 column 1 bottom; The whole section needs rewriting of course. The quote should be paraphrased. The isasue of prayer is complex. The Muslim authorities did not object to prayer at the beginning, and allowed it until Goren started bringing in an altar and a shofar; down through the 80s, private prayer by individuals was allowed on the margins of the haram; restrictions ensued after the Intifada and several episodes involving attempts to destroy mosques or strong-arm and break agreements. Technically Israel has no sovereignty there: and any change must be negotiated between the waqf authorities, Jordan and Israel. What a court says is immaterial, though the point of view is of course admissible. But it is again far more complex than the mediocre and ill-tempered, not to say one-eyed account in Shragai's essay. We have numerous books on all of these details, and where possible his piece's details should be documented by academic sources that associate 'violence' with Palestinians remonstrating for an historic right, and silently ignore the violence of dispossession.Nishidani (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

JCPA
The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs is not wp:rs from my point of view. What do you think ? Pluto2012 (talk) 12:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You have an article about the author, Nadav Shragai and he gives his sources. Settleman (talk) 12:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The author seems wp:rs and he seems to have studied the topic. No problem with this.
 * But the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs is not wp:rs from my point of view. [We should use another source, maybe from the same author.] What do you think ?
 * Settleman, is there a chance you succeed in reading a question and answering this ? Pluto2012 (talk) 12:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you believe good journalists on Mondoweiss, +972 or whatever other blogs are RS, I don't see why this would raise your the question. Well sourced article. If you find it somewhere else as well, be my guest as moving the source. Settleman (talk) 13:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please try and stay focused. This is not about beliefs and using analogies like that is pointless. I have argued, for example that, according to context some work in those magazines may be used, while arguing that generally one should not regard them as intrinsically RS. Pluto, as everyone knows, has very strict RS standards, and has often disagreed with me on sourcing material from magazines like the two you mention.Nishidani (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is what pluto has has to say about Mondoweiss ignoring the fact it was writen by a staff member. But this is beyond the point. If he agrees that Shragai as a source can be used, then why are we having this discussion. I hope we can move on. Settleman (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Pluto's first diff simply says, (since two appeals to RSN have yielded outside opinion it can be used contextually and no blanket ban exists) if you have reliable mainstream sources critical of Mondoweiss, that have shown it consistently misleads, rumour-mongers, spreads innuendo, or alters the facts, bring them. Arutz Sheva does this (as in the Khdeir case, as in the Duma attack case etc.) Mondoweiss holds itself up to higher standards.
 * The second diff makes a distinction between where attribution is required for material from Mondoweiss, and is quite sensible. Generally however Pluto's editing avoids it, he prefers a more austere reading of RS: I'm the ugly mongrel who on rare occasions makes a case for its contextual utility.Nishidani (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So much for strict RS standards this edit is either OR or outright falsification. Who are we kidding here? Settleman (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)