The first quotation is about the Western Wall, not the Temple Mount. So is the second one (see the longer description of Rabbi Zimra's writing in Meir Ben Dov, Mordecai Naor, and Zeev Aner, ''The Western Wall'', p125). But anyway JVL is thoroughly unreliable and MEF/MEQ routinely publishes lies. What seems to be true (but can't be stated in this way without a source that does) is that the Jewish authorities were perfectly happy with the Islamic restrictions re the Temple Mount platform because it conformed to their own restrictions. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 00:12, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
The first quotation is about the Western Wall, not the Temple Mount. So is the second one (see the longer description of Rabbi Zimra's writing in Meir Ben Dov, Mordecai Naor, and Zeev Aner, ''The Western Wall'', p125). But anyway JVL is thoroughly unreliable and MEF/MEQ routinely publishes lies. What seems to be true (but can't be stated in this way without a source that does) is that the Jewish authorities were perfectly happy with the Islamic restrictions re the Temple Mount platform because it conformed to their own restrictions. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 00:12, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
== Religious Significance : Judaism : The Temple -- Missing Verb ==
I noticed a line under the subheading "The Temple" that is missing a verb:
David subsequently ___ the site for a future temple to replace the Tabernacle and house the Ark of the Covenant; God forbade him from building it, however, because he had "shed much blood".
Unsure of the correct verb to use here (perhaps "saved" or "designated", although I haven't found any source to cite definitively), plus I'm new to editing so I can't change it myself, but I just thought I'd point it out :) [[User:Atca Da|Atca Da]] ([[User talk:Atca Da|talk]]) 17:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Revision as of 17:59, 3 January 2023
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Temple Mount article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Archives:1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 90 days
Warning: active arbitration remedies
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles
A lot of the material currently commenting on the permissibility of Jewish access to the site from a Rabbinic perspective currently rests on the authority of Hakirah, which appears to be a pesudo-journal with no journal site listings or clear peer review method. Talk of advertisers makes me think: magazine. It has a page, Ḥakirah (journal), with an ISSN that hints at Youngstown State University as the publisher, but I can't find any reference to that establishment actually having a university press, and the World Cat listings seems to be ambivalent about whether its a journal or magazine. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The staff of Hakirah are mainly volunteers and the core members are those on the Editorial Board: Asher Benzion Buchman, Sheldon Epstein, David Guttmann, the late Shlomo Sprecher, and Heshey Zelcer. Two of the board members have semikhah but none are rabbis by profession. R. Asher Benzion Buchman is the Editor-in-Chief.[3]
none of whom are notable. Orthodox thought has a vast number of scholars, none figure here. It is not 'peer-reviewed' in the general acceptance of that term.Nishidani (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its not an academic journal, it is a religious one. It could be possibly reliable for Jewish scholars say XYZ about such and such dispute. But for us? No, thats silly. nableezy - 20:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I searched the journal's web pages in vain for signs that it is either an "academic journal" or "peer-reviewed". Nada. If the journal itself doesn't make such claims, neither should we. I think it can be used for the opinion of authors who are themselves acknowledged experts, otherwise not. Zerotalk04:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
*David subsequently*
"David subsequently" what?
I would rewrite that as, "David subsequently prepared" ...
To try to progress this, I have listed below the current table of contents of this article, with a strawman view as to which sections would fit neatly into which article, and which would need significant duplication. My strawman is in blue. Views of other editors, perhaps overlaid in a different color, would be helpful.
I think I might support this but process-wise it should happen through an official RFC with notices on all the relevant pages, like any major change to a highly contentious article with many engaged editors. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1 Terminology
1.1 Temple Mount TM
1.2 Other Hebrew terms TM
1.3 Al-Aqsa Mosque MAA
1.4 Haram al-Sharif MAA
1.5 Jerusalem's sacred esplanade Both
2 Location and dimensions Both
3 Heritage site Both
4 Religious significance
4.1 Judaism both (overview)
4.1.1 The Temple TM
4.1.2 In prophecy TM
4.1.3 Binding of Isaac TM
4.1.4 Creation of the world TM
4.1.5 Third Temple TM
4.2 Christianity both (overview)
4.3 Islam both (overview)
4.3.1 In early Islam MAA
4.3.2 Isra and Mi'raj MAA
4.3.3 First qibla MAA
4.3.4 Religious status MAA
5 History both (overview)
5.1 Israelite period TM
5.2 Persian, Hellenistic and Hasmonean periods TM
5.3 Herodian and early Roman periods TM
5.4 Middle Roman period both
5.5 Late Roman period both
5.6 Byzantine period both
5.7 Sassanid period both
5.8 Early Muslim period MAA
5.9 Crusader and Ayyubid period MAA
5.10 Mamluk period MAA
5.11 Ottoman period MAA
5.12 British Mandatory period both
5.13 Jordanian period both
5.14 Israeli period both
6 Status quo both
6.1 Under Muslim control both
6.2 British Mandate both
6.3 Jordanian control both
6.4 Under Israeli control both
7 Management and access both
8 Jewish attitudes towards entering the site both
8.1 Jewish religious law concerning entry to the site both
8.2 Opinions of contemporary rabbis concerning entry to the site both
I support this, because it is currently a disservice to readers that they have nowhere to go to simply read about the architecture and history of the mosque as a structure, in its entirety, without having to trawl an article front-loaded with twice the volume of material not directly related to to its construction and design. As you note, certain elements would invariably be duplicated across both articles, as the history of the usage at the overall site in inextricably intertwined, but I think it's doable. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have several times mentioned that I would support an article, (The) Haram al-Sharif, duplication notwithstanding (because that is what I see in the majority of newspaper reports and books I come across, known to Jews as ...known to Muslims as...). I think however, that it would be better to resolve the ambiguity question before proceeding. Selfstudier (talk) 12:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy did previously suggest an RFC re the ambiguity (in the move review), Idk whether they still think its a good idea but the recent comments at Al-Aqsa indicate that there is a group of editors who believe there is no or little ambiguity and I suspect that this might get in the way of the proposal here unless it is resolved.
Of course, creating an article anyway and then defending it is another way of proceeding. I would just prefer that the ambiguity question was not left hanging. Selfstudier (talk) 12:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I did not have in mind any kind of split. I had in mind an article on the term masjid al-aqsa, its origin in the Quran, its meaning, how it came to be applied to a place in Jerusalem and its broader and narrower meanings. In other words, an article in lieu of a dab page for the underlying Arabic term so that readers have one stop to visit to sort it out. I would oppose a separate article on the Haram al-Sharif, although a history of the haram terminology and its relation to the masjid would fit into the broad-concept article I am envisioning. I first floated this idea at Talk:Masjid al-Aqsa. Srnec (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The compound as a key site in Islamic history is obviously notable enough for an article. The problem is the severe overlap with Temple Mount and the consequences of that. Unfortunately, I believe that one of the consequences of a split will be to provide an excuse to bury the Islamic history now present in Temple Mount. The Temple Mount article will soon show just the Jewish aspects for time periods when the Islamic aspects were paramount. A split will not enhance the visibility of the Islamic aspects, but reduce it, since it will always be the case that "Temple Mount" is the most common search term. That problem will be made worse if the article on the Islamic compound is given a name like Masjid al-Aqsa which has little name-recognition among the general public. Overall, I don't think a separate article is a good idea unless it is restricted to an aspect that will not drain text from the Temple Mount article. Srnec's proposals are worth considering. Zerotalk05:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, "Masjid al-Aqsa" has the same ambiguity as does "al-Aqsa Mosque", though probably not with similar proportions. From at least the middle of the 19th century to the end of the British period, Masjid al-Aqsa was the primary name for the building in English sources including British maps. I still see it used that way. Zerotalk05:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe creating an article for the Islamic site would cause a problem as Wikipedia:Content forking#Related articles "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork." In other words, I don't see a reason why content should be removed from this article. Instead that article might go more in depth on Islamic aspects. There are many notable aspects of this site that have distinct articles, ie Temple in Jerusalem, so it struck me as odd that there wasn't one strictly for the Islamic aspect. Drsmoo (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Drsmoo: in this scenario, how would you propose defining the scope of the Temple Mount article?
1841 British map There is very little confusion indeed between the transliterated titles in serious scholarly sources and the British didn't always have the problem either. Pictured right: the 1841 map had it all accounted for correctly. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What definition of "correctly" is that? Here is the far more influential map from the 1860s Ordnance Survey of Jerusalem, and here is a typical map from the Survey of Palestine (1936, still the same in 1947). Both use "Masjid el-Aqsa" as a label on the building only. I'd be interested if you can find any map from the Survey of Palestine which is different (though documents often called the building Al-Aqsa Mosque). You can also see name #152 on the 1936 name list compiled by the mandate administration with advice from the various communities. You will find on page 31 a response from the Muslim Supreme Council that the correct name for #152 is Masjid al-Aqsa and for the whole compound #113 Haram esh-Sharif. The only conclusion is that "Masjid al-Aqsa" is ambiguous. The fact that it also fails COMMONNAME emphasises that it isn't a good article title. Zerotalk07:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zero0000: my interpretation of this is that the mistake in the 1865 ordnance survey was the catalyst for Palmer's 1871 "Excursus on the name Masjid El Aksa", in which he set things straight. As a result, the PEF's 1884 map [1] removed the term Masjid. Unfortunately the ordnance survey was so influential that the mistake crept into some (many?) later maps which copied it without consulting sources like Palmer.
In the same vein, I believe that the modern English-language application of "Al Aqsa Mosque" to just the southern building was a product of Frederick Catherwood's 1835 map, which labeled it "Mosque El Aksa" (I can't find the usage anywhere else before this date). Edward Robinson commented on and corrected the record in 1838, but kept some of it in shorthand. The Royal Engineers in 1841 corrected it too. After which, writers stopped thinking much about it. Of course Catherwood's name for the whole compound was mistaken too - he called the whole complex "Mosque of Omar". That name was later used frequently to refer to the Dome of the Rock, which scholars today refute as well.
As to the 1936 name list, that was not a blank canvas request - the British wrote the English names, and the Muslim Supreme Council would have had a junior translator write the Arabic verbatim without much further thought. Another relevant source is the 1930 Shaw Commission,[2] where the language of the Muslim Supreme Council "Western Wall of the Mosque of Al-Aqsa" can only refer to the compound.
My conclusion on "Masjid al-Aqsa" is:
Usage in historical Arabic sources (as reported by Western scholars) is 100% about the compound
100% of detailed English-language scholarly assessments of the term conclude it relates to the compound
Modern Arabic usage is 100% about the compound
The modern Arabic name for the compound of "Masjid Al Aqsa" now far outweighs the modern Arabic use of "Haram al-Sharif". "Haram al-Sharif" is still quoted by scholars as the "Arabic name for the compound", but this is a legacy of 19th / early 20th century scholarship
Perhaps emanating from the incorrect 1865 Ordnance Survey map, 19th and 20th century English-language usage of Masjid Al Aqsa was sometimes confused and inconsistent
21st century usage is a more consistently relating to the compound, as more and more scholars have published fulsome explanations of the terminology
Your explanation of the 1936 list paints the Muslim Supreme Council as morons who didn't know the name of one of their most important buildings. The rest of this is not worth responding to. Oh, I just noticed that the article "Aqsa Mosque" in the Encyclopedia of the Quran (2005) is about the building. You should write to them to explain their error. Zerotalk08:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Encyclopedia of the Quran entry (full text here) is an abysmal one that falls down at the very first hurdle - anachronously referring to the sacred precinct as the al-Haram al-Sharif from the time of Muhammad, even though that title was only bestowed on the space at a much later date. This is basically a textbook example of why we sometimes use tertiary sources to establish notability and basic facts, but when it gets to the finer detail, we pull up the secondary sources by subject-matter experts, who stand apart from the often inexpert sub-editors typically drafted to put together encylopedias. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was no mosque on al-Haram al-Sharif before Muhammad’s death - what is this then? Lazy explanation is what it is. Like saying, the Aya Sofia was a cathedral before the Ottoman conquest of Istanbul. Sure, why bother using the right terminology for the right periods? Let's have an anachronism free-for-all! Though incidentally, the encyclopedia as a whole appears to be divided on the use of the term masjid: The use of the term “al-Haram al-Sharif ” to identify the area of the former Jewish Temple Mount in Jerusalem, as well as the identification of the tomb of Abraham in Hebron as a haram, has no explicit qur’anic authority and only came into general use in the Mamluk and Ottoman periods. Prior to that period, the term “al-Masjid al-Aqsa” was used to refer both to the entire Haram area as well as to the roofed structure in the south edge of the Haram. All in all, overall, the terminology and its definitions are somewhat all over the place. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:00, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Using a common name for the site isn't lazy. Most news media say "known to Muslims as Haram al-Sharif", so it is not surprising that an encyclopedia that is aiming to be understandable would use the well-known terms. Drsmoo (talk) 13:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Iskandar323: (Edit conflict.) It is perfectly normal and commonplace to refer to a place using a modern name for it. The text does not imply that the name "al-Haram al-Sharif" existed before Mohammed's death, only that the place did. You failed to prove your point, sorry. Zerotalk13:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So when an archaeology journal writes of "neolithic finds in Palestine", you will take them to task for implying that the name Palestine was in use in the neolithic. Zerotalk15:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not ideal. "Neolithic remains found in Palestine" would be better structurally, but I'd still only expect even that in a news headline. Proper papers use abstract geography like "Southern Levantine Coast" [3]. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know that you can write an argument against anything that doesn't match your beliefs. We can all do that. Now I'll mention the travelogue of Evliya Çelebi who used al-Aqsa Mosque (Turkish al-Masjidu-l-Aqṣa) as a name of the building in the mid-18th century. Repeatedly. Zerotalk11:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The question that one might pose to any source using Al-Masjid al-Aqsa to refer to the prayer hall is: are they unaware of the term Jami' al-Aqsa (19th-century common knowledge), and, if so, how deep might we understand their reading to be? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Zero is almost certainly referring to Stephan Hanna Stephan's translation, serialized in QDAP (consolidated version here). Stephan only once gives the underlying Ottoman Turkish, in the chapter title (p58 of the pdf). That entire page is describing the compound. On the next page Stephan transitions to describing the Jami’, also using English “mosque”, but without telling us what Turkish word Evliya used. Unfortunately this doesn’t give us any certainty of the terminology actually used – we would need a secondary source for that (or the underlying original Turkish version). Onceinawhile (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I don't deny that the most common meaning of "Masjid al-Aqsa" in the scholarly literature today is the whole compound, despite exceptions. If we were forced to choose a primary topic for that name, I would vote for the whole compound. However, the fact that most people have no idea what the Arabic word "Masjid" means is a good argument against using it as the main article title. A redirect would catch those few who specifically look for it. Zerotalk07:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the severe overlap with Temple Mount and the consequences of that. A similar case that springs to mind is the History of Israel / History of Palestine articles. If we can manage that I think we can manage this case as well. Selfstudier (talk) 08:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, on a very rudimentary level, the infobox typology says it all - this article currently hosts an "infobox mountain" template owing to the current fixation on the physical space rather than the structure that occupies it - for which the correct infobox would be "infobox religious building" complete with details such as dome quantities and heights, minaret quantities and heights, etc. The minarets, incidentally, are a good example of the issues with the jami' prayer hall/masjid mosque proper confusion. Minarets are a part of a mosque, and yet, all of Al-Aqsa's minarets sit on the far margins of the esplanade facing the city, not by the jami'. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is a complete waste of time to keep reporting sources that apply the name to the whole compound. Nobody here is denying it is used that way. The problem is flat-out denial that the name is used in any other way, which is simply false. The Supreme Muslim Council agreed to it as the name of the building, no reason to doubt the evidence. But let's check "A Brief Guide to Al-Haram al-Sharif" published by the Supreme Muslim Council in 1925.
The words al-Haram al-Sharif, which can perhaps best be rendered by "The August Sanctuary", denote the whole of the sacred enclosure which it is the object of this Guide to describe.
The two principal edifices are the Dome of the Rock, on a raised platform in the middle, and the mosque of al-Aqsa, against the south wall. (And then follow multiple references to the building as the mosque of al-Aqsa. The Arabic word Masjid does not appear in this document.)
The Department of Antiquities called the building the al-Aqsa Mosque (and nothing else as far as I am aware). Its director Hamilton who wrote a book on his excavation there called it that. A famous 18th 17th century Muslim traveller who described it over several pages, called it that. A good fraction of the scholarly references one finds at Scholar use it for the building. The Palestine Ministry of Tourism and Antiquites (undated "Guide to Palestine") seems to be confused. On one page "visitors can visit the magnificent Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque, two of Islam’s holiest and the most beautiful shrines" and on another "Al-Aqsa Mosque (Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa). Also known as the al-Haram ash-Sharif" immediately followed by "the mosque itself" when referring to the building. Now the venerable Encyclopedia of Islam also tackles, from two different expert authors (New edition, vol 6, 1991):
The words [al-Masdjid al-Aksa] were commonly used in early Islamic times for Jerusalem, and during many centuries, more specifically for the Haram al-Sharif... The most common use of the words is for the large building located on the south side of the Haram platform... (p700ff)
The name al-Masdjid al-Aksa was used throughout the early period for the whole Haram area in Jerusalem, later partly for it and partly for the building in its southern part.(p651)
The first of those was written by Oleg Grabar, an acknowledged expert who Iskandar323 cited earlier. Grabar is supported by another expert Michael Burgoyne (Mamluk Jerusalem, 1989):
Tradition also claimed that Jerusalem was the starting-point for Muhammad’s visit to Heaven, his ‘ascension’ (Mi raj). Originally the whole area of the Haram, the sacred precinct where formerly the Temple had stood, was referred to as the Masjid al-Aqsa, but this name came to identify in particular the mosque on the south edge of the Haram area. All these associations were gathered together in a series of works on the ‘Excellencies of Jerusalem’, which had its beginnings early in the eleventh century. (p58).
But let's also cite Yitzhak Reiter, who Onceinawhile likes to quote:
Within the wall of the Haram there are several holy buildings which were constructed mainly to commemorate religious events. The most significant of these are al-Aqsa Mosque, the Dome of the Rock, and al-Buraq. ("Between Divine and Human: The Complexity of Holy Places in Jerusalem", in Moshe Ma"oz and Sari Nusseibeh (eds.); Jerusalem: Points of Friction—and Beyond, pp. 99-153. (2000)
Another expert Amikam Elad (Medieval Jerusalem and Islamic Worship, Brill, 1999), notes that writers like Mujir used "al-Masjid al-Aqsa" for the whole compound but uses it himself for the building, and he also cites several traditions from the pre-crusader period which list al-Masjid al-Aqsa as just one of the holy places in the Haram. The geographer al-Makdisi wrote "Abd al-Malik wanted to build the Dome of the Rock and al-Masjid al-Aqsa to protect people from cold and heat", which makes no sense if the Dome of the Rock is inside the Masjid (A. El-Khatib, Jerusalem in the Quran, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 28 (2001) 25–53.) In conclusion, the name is ambiguous both historically and more recently, both in Islamic writing and other writing. Zerotalk15:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Zero, all good points. I do think you have the wrong end of the stick though. Noone has ever disputed the core of the points you make above throughout the two and a half month discussion. Both Iskandar and I began this discussion proposing Al Aqsa Mosque with brackets as the alternate name. It was two other editors who proposed Qibli.
@Zero0000: re Masjid / Jami, I am not sure if we are in disagreement. In fact, I can't figure out where we disagree on any of this. I was about to write a paragraph to respond to the above, and then I realized you had pretty much written what I was about to write all the way back in 2018.
Re the sources above which state in passing that "the words" were used for the southern building, I believe they were writing loosely - i.e. they meant "Al Aqsa" and "Mosque of Al Aqsa" was used for the southern building, not necessarily that "Masjid" was used for the southern building. Because of the firm mosque=masjid equation that we agree on, I think these authors felt within their rights to make that shortcut.
@Onceinawhile: You have repeatedly written of "right" and "wrong" sources in black and white terms. You need to stop doing that. Also, please stop inventing theories like the one about the junior clerk and the one about Catherwood that you have no evidence for. Wilson told us why he used the name he did on the building, and it wasn't because he copied someone else: "Haram-es-Sherif is the name now commonly applied to the sacred enclosure of the Moslems at Jerusalem, which, besides containing the buildings of the Dome of the Rock and Aksa, has always been supposed to include within its area the site of the Jewish Temple. Mejr-ed-din, as quoted by Williams, gives Mesjid-el-Aksa as the correct name of the enclosure, but this is now exclusively applied to the mosque proper." (Ordnance Survey of Jerusalem, p23) There's no reason to doubt that he was reporting what he was told at the time. (You might like to wonder why the new name Haram esh-Sharif came into use, around the 14th century if I recall, if there was already a fully-accepted name for the same thing.) Next, "masjid" is Arabic and "mosque" is by far the most common English translation of it. Tons of fully-roofed mosque buildings are called Masjid, so there is nothing inherently less ambiguous about it. The only difference in our case is that "al-Masjid al-Aqsa" is a special phrase because it is in the Quran. Zerotalk05:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, to address a few more of your other points:
My emerging view re Catherwood was explicitly stated as such, my view. If it is wrong, I would be delighted to learn more and enhance my view. It is not based on no evidence, but on the work I have done over the last few years on the cartographic history of the city. I can't find a single map using the Islamic terminology in any form prior to Catherwood, and I can't find a single literary source using Aksa only for the southern building prior to that time either. And Catherwood's subsequent influence is well documented. This is an argumentum ex silentio at the moment, but one I intend to keep an eye on - if it can be dated further back in time, then great.
Re the 1936 name list, do you have a secondary source explaining how it was compiled?
I hold detailed analyses of the terminology - such as those in Palmer and Le Strange - above sources which discuss it only in passing
Surely you agree that Palmer's 1871 paper was likely intended as a clarification / correction of Wilson's 1865 comment?
Re why Haram came into usage, Reiter says "the supporters of Jerusalem's importance (apparently after its liberation from Crusader control) succeeded in attributing... the status of haram that had been accorded to the sacred compound." I'm not sure where he got this Crusades connection from, but it makes for an elegant story, so would be interesting to go a level deeper.
On the "only difference" being that MAA is a Quranic term, that is the fundamental basis of this whole thing. All detailed scholarly assessments of the terminology say so. Islamic sources say that MAA was used in the Quran to refer to the Jewish holy area. In other words Quranic MAA = Temple Mount.
Also, Onceinawhile, you wrote of NJ Johnson "She doesn't seem to have published any other articles in her entire scholarly career" but if you search for "NJ Johnson" together with "Islamic" at Scholar you will find at least half a dozen archaeological reports. Since Johnson is presumably still alive, you should go back and strike your comment. Zerotalk07:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Zero, good spot. I believe that 100% of her subsequent papers refer to Tall Jawa. My earlier comment was made in a now-closed discussion so I cannot modify it. But if I could, I would not strike it but instead add the word "relevant" between the words "other articles". Onceinawhile (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Zero, just to state the obvious, and I agree with his It is a complete waste of time to keep reporting sources that apply the name to the whole compound. Nobody here is denying it is used that way. The problem is flat-out denial that the name is used in any other way, which is simply false. Which is honestly a bit disappointing, because I know at least some of the people arguing against him know Zero doesnt make arguments that are not well-founded, but they keep dismissing them anyway. I dont get why Onceinawhile seems so adamant in saying that the terms, both Masjid al-Aqsa and al-Aqsa Mosque, do not also, regularly, refer to the building itself. You keep trying to prove that it is wrong to do so, but that is, as it has always been on Wikipedia, an irrelevant argument. You arent getting any argument against the ambiguity. You just seem to be refusing to acknowledge that it is ambiguous, instead demanding that it can only mean the entire compound. nableezy - 13:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. We shall be getting close to WP:Bludgeon if this argufying persists. The positions have been exhaustively laid out, and if few of us are persuaded, one drops it, even if convinced one is right. All of the longterm editors here have experienced that kind of frustration but that is the way wiki works, and one learns to desist and move on.Nishidani (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Since I already wrote this reply to Once, I'll post it, but I have already told him off-line that I will probably not continue this thread.) (1) The most relevant thing about NJ Johnson is that she had spent several years studying the history of the Dome of the Rock, also part of the al-Aqsa compound, so to pronounce her ignorant was a poor excuse to ignore what she wrote. And despite the claim she was not a student at the time. (2) As for right and wrong, it isn't those words in particular but your black and white words like "mistake" and "correct" that you apply to things in accordance with your beliefs. I have provided more than enough evidence that the "truth" is more nuanced than that. (3) Robinson refers to "earlier Arabian writers" for the footnote you quote and himself uses mosk el-Aksa a large number of times for the building. This attests to the contemporary usage. Guérin, who visited in 1852, tells much the same story in his book Jerusalem, though sometimes using the name Djami-el-Aksa. (4) Catherwood visited the mosque in person with local guides, and I don't see justification for believing he used a name different from what he was told. (5) Regarding the name list, the Arabic handwriting seems to be the same on page 31 and the summary list on page 74. If I'm correct it probably means, but doesn't prove, that both the English and Arabic spellings were given to the Supreme Muslim Council for checking. Given how zealously they defended their role as guardians of the Haram, this plus the publication of theirs that I quoted, is strong evidence that they were happy with the name used on official maps throughout the mandate period. It doesn't mean that they were unaware of the wider usage. An anecdote from Kupferschmidt, The Supreme Muslim Council, Brill 1987, p130, might illustrate the picture, though unfortunately it is about the other edifice: Ronald Storrs asked the then mufti Kamil al-Husayni in 1920 if "Dome of the Rock" was the correct designation. Al Husayni concurred, saying that the Quranic designation was Al Aqsa but there was no objection to "Dome of the Rock". Zerotalk15:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It says that the complex is called al-Aqsa Mosque -- when that in itself is a separate page. I feel that this should be linked in order to prevent confusion. Thank you! 你好... (talk/討論頁) 23:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Temple Mount prohibition
The claim that " the Ottoman authorities continued the policy of prohibiting non-Muslims from setting foot on the Temple Mount until the early 19th century, when non-Muslims were again permitted to visit the site" and "Jews were not allowed to visit for approximately one thousand years" has no good source and is contradicted by other sources. For example: "Jewish fortunes were reversed again following the conquest of Sultan Suleyman I in 1516 and the ascendence of the Ottoman Empire. Jews were prohibited from visiting the Temple Mount, but, in 1546, an earthquake devastated the region, damaging the Temple Mount and the surrounding area. Suleyman ordered the rubble of homes adjacent to the Western Wall to be cleared for a prayer site for the Jews. Suleyman issued a firman (decree) that Jews had the right to pray there for all times. This decree remained in force and was honored by his successors for more than 400 years" (https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-temple-mount)
And "Toward the end of the Mamluk period, there is evidence from the chief rabbi of Jerusalem, David ben Shlomo Ibn Zimra (1479-1573), who wrote that the city's Jews regularly went to the Temple Mount in order to view the entire temple ruins and pray there. He added that "we have not heard or seen anyone object to this." https://www.meforum.org/3556/temple-mount#_ftnref35
The real prohibition (aside from the fact that the site was mostly ruins for this time) was a religious edict by certain JEWISH authorities: "Rabbi Yosef Di'Trani, who visited Jerusalem during the 1590s, noted that there were locations on the southern and eastern sides of the Temple Mount where Jews could walk freely without any concern of entering a prohibited area, but he ruled that Jews should, nonetheless, avoid going there because they were not ritually clean. In the nineteenth century, students of the rabbinical giant, the Vilna Gaon, arrived in Jerusalem and became the prototype of today's ultra-Orthodox haredi community. The leader of this group, Rabbi Yisrael of Shklov (d. 1839), held that though there were areas on the Temple Mount that they were allowed to enter, Jews were, nevertheless, forbidden to ascend as the exact location of these permitted areas was in some doubt.[49] This ruling became the normative position of the Orthodox world for the next 150 years. Despite rabbinical decrees prohibiting access to the mountain and the death penalty threat for any Jew caught on the mountain, the deep-seated Jewish attachment to the Temple Mount remained strong. An unknown number of Jews ascended the mountain surreptitiously during these centuries. No records were kept of these visits because of their clandestine nature, but occasional references in Muslim court records and travelers' accounts give evidence of their occurrence" https://www.meforum.org/3556/temple-mount#_ftnref35
Reiter is not a bad source even if the publisher is a bit iffy. JVL is not reliable and meforum is not that great either, maybe check the sources used by those articles or if the writers can be considered experts with attribution. If you can identify good sources to add, of course we should do that. I remember some discussion about rabbinical prohibition earlier, maybe it is in the archives, it is also mentioned in the third para of the lead as being still current at least for some part of the community. Selfstudier (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first quotation is about the Western Wall, not the Temple Mount. So is the second one (see the longer description of Rabbi Zimra's writing in Meir Ben Dov, Mordecai Naor, and Zeev Aner, The Western Wall, p125). But anyway JVL is thoroughly unreliable and MEF/MEQ routinely publishes lies. What seems to be true (but can't be stated in this way without a source that does) is that the Jewish authorities were perfectly happy with the Islamic restrictions re the Temple Mount platform because it conformed to their own restrictions. Zerotalk00:12, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Religious Significance : Judaism : The Temple -- Missing Verb
I noticed a line under the subheading "The Temple" that is missing a verb:
David subsequently ___ the site for a future temple to replace the Tabernacle and house the Ark of the Covenant; God forbade him from building it, however, because he had "shed much blood".
Unsure of the correct verb to use here (perhaps "saved" or "designated", although I haven't found any source to cite definitively), plus I'm new to editing so I can't change it myself, but I just thought I'd point it out :) Atca Da (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
