Talk:Temple Mount

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

A strange way to describe a mosque

The lede of this article can be paraphrased as:

The Temple Mount... is a hill... The present site is a flat plaza surrounded by retaining walls... The plaza is dominated by two monumental structures... It stands where past Jewish temples... Among Muslims, the whole plaza is revered as "the Noble Sanctuary" or as the al-Aqsa Mosque, the second oldest mosque in Islam, and one of the three Sacred Mosques, the holiest sites in Islam... Since the Crusades launched by the Latin Church (11th–13th century), the Muslim community of Jerusalem has managed the site through the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf.

We all know this is a complex topic, but it feels odd given that our articles normally describe what things are before going on to describe what they were. Underneath the Notre-Dame de Paris is probably a Roman temple, but our article still describes it clearly as a cathedral in the first sentence.

Having said which, if this article is just about the hill and its history, then perhaps rather than changing the lede there should be a separate article on the mosque (compound). Note: per Al-Aqsa Mosque (disambiguation) our article Al-Aqsa Mosque describes the primary prayer building on the mosque compound, i.e. it is only part of the mosque. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a copy edit to address this, although I remain unconvinced. Whilst the lede is now more precise (the Haram / Al Aqsa describes the mosque compound, not the hill underneath), it hasn’t quite helped clarify what this article is really about. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@
Iskandar323 (talk) 09:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you Iskandar. The difficult question now is where the line should be drawn in this article. Clearly much of the history section remains valid here, but some detail would be better at the other article. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There wasn't actually much about the architecture here in the first place - that was sourced almost entirely from the other referenced pages. Most of the overlap is in the 7th-century+ history, but in fact, even there, I think I took more material from elsewhere. This page is extremely generalist, and many things were only ever barely outlined here in the first place - is there something else specifically that you would move from one to the other?
Iskandar323 (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I've definitely said this before as well. What's also uniquely odd about this page (as one about a religious site) is that it uses the infobox template for a mountain, not a religious building. It's pretty schizophrenic in general.
Iskandar323 (talk) 06:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
That can be fixed, by replacing the infobox - be my guest. Now, even though I agree with all of your comments here, I think the new, changed edited lead is actually more problematic than the long-standing previous one, for the first sentence only gives the Jewish name and only its Hebrew translation, whereas, for such a sensitive topic, it is important that all names are presented in the same sentence. The way I see it, this article is clearly not about a mountain, but about the esplanade, which Jews call Temple Mount, Palestinians the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, the UN "the holy esplanade" - so I think we should go back to the previous, more inclusive first sentence, if you guys are okay with it. Dan Palraz (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restoring the traditional first sentence, then, which described both names, not just one, at least until we can find a consensual solution to it. Dan Palraz (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep up.
Iskandar323 (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The fact it was done doesn't mean it was consensual or a good call. The Temple Mount as a whole *is* called the Holy Esplanade by the UN, and Al-Aqsa mosque compound by others, so these names must figure in the first sentence. The lead cannot have only the Hebrew name. Until a consensus is reached, the longstanding, until-then-consensual lead should be kept. Dan Palraz (talk) 20:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protected edit request on 19 Oct 2023

Please make the following change to the article:

−
David subsequently the site for a future temple to replace the Tabernacle and house the Ark of the Covenant
+
David subsequently chose the site for a future temple to replace the Tabernacle and house the Ark of the Covenant

M4yj40 (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thanks.  BelowTheSun  (T•C) 17:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2023

In 1217, Spanish Rabbi Judah al-Harizi found the sight of the Muslim structures on the mount profoundly disturbing. "What torment to see our holy courts converted into an alien temple!" he wrote.[117]

Please remove this from the article. It is inserting an irrelevant comment in an attempt to editorialize. The time frame being discussed in the directly prior and subsequent paragraphs Is 200bce- 100ce. Quite far removed from 1217ce. Thank you for your consideration. 2603:7000:D00:59D9:F8A7:CD61:AC7C:8F5D (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Better sourcing for introduction

For this section "The Israeli government enforces a ban on prayer by non-Muslims as part of an arrangement usually referred to as the "status quo" " two of the sources linked are very heavily opinionated and biased articles. One of an account of prominent reactionary and the second is an opinion piece, both provide little insight into the policies and have little to do with the text written. (sources [32][33] for reference)

I'd suggest removing them, they would be more relevent in a chapter discussing issues of entry rather than referenced in the opening section. Galdrack (talk) 09:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The sources are not being cited for their opinions, but for the fact that the "status quo" is a thing that in fact exists. If you have other sources you think would be better, please suggest those. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of Haram al Shariff

In Arabic Haram means forbidden or unclean, as in pork is haram.

How does "unclean" become sanctuary???

It should more properly be translated to Shrine of the Unclean Lord! 108.26.243.70 (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Haram (site). "Sanctuary" is correct. Zerotalk 01:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 April 2024

In the first paragraph where it reads "that has been venerated as a holy site in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam for thousands of years."

It is odd since Islam doesn't have thousands of years. I understand the wish to treat all religions the same way, but that is no reason to try to change facts.

The easiest way to edit would be to remove "for thousands of years", but if we want to keep the message that it has been venerated for a long time we should make if factually correct, something like: "that has been venerated as a holy site in Judaism and Christianity for thousands of years, and by Islam for hundreds of years."

Since Christianity is just two thousand years old I think saying it more like this: "that has been venerated as a holy site in Judaism for thousands of years, and by Christianity and Islam for hundreds of years."

There are a lot of ways... but keeping Wikipedia factually incorrect shouldn't be one of them. Joaquim Calainho (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ZionniThePeruser (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 April 2024

The first paragraph under the section "Temple Mount" is very poorly punctuated and, in a few cases, phrased. Here is my suggestion for cleaning it up:

ORIGINAL The term Har haBayīt – commonly translated as "Temple Mount" in English – was first used in the books of Micah (4:1) and Jeremiah (26:18) – literally as "Mount of the House", a literary variation of the longer phrase "Mountain of the House of the Lord" – the abbreviation was not used again in the later books of the Hebrew Bible[38] or in the New Testament.[39] The term was used throughout the Second Temple period, however, the term Mount Zion – which today refers to the eastern hill of ancient Jerusalem – was more frequently used. Both terms are in use in the Book of Maccabees.[40] The term Har haBayīt is used throughout the Mishnah and later Talmudic texts.[41][42]

SHOWING MARKUP The term Har haBayīt —– commonly translated as "Temple Mount" in English —– was first used in the books of Micah (4:1) and Jeremiah (26:18), – literally as "Mount of the House", a literary variation of the longer phrase "Mountain of the House of the Lord". – Tthe abbreviation was not used again in the later books of the Hebrew Bible[38] or in the New Testament.[39] The term was usedremained in use throughout the Second Temple period, however,although the term Mount Zion, – which today refers to the eastern hill of ancient Jerusalem, – was used more frequently used.

CLEAN REVISED VERSION The term Har haBayīt — commonly translated as "Temple Mount" in English — was first used in the books of Micah (4:1) and Jeremiah (26:18), literally as "Mount of the House", a literary variation of the longer phrase "Mountain of the House of the Lord". The abbreviation was not used again in the later books of the Hebrew Bible[38] or in the New Testament.[39] The term remained in use throughout the Second Temple period, although the term Mount Zion, which today refers to the eastern hill of ancient Jerusalem, was used more frequently. Modularscholar (talk) 09:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Temple_Mount&oldid=1220852793"