Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:07, 13 September 2015

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months

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 Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information 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. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: Interfaith This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages'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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Islam High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Israel Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Judaism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Palestine High‑importance 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Middle Ages: Crusades This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Misplaced Pages. 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Crusades task force.

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)

The Temple Mount is the holiest site in Judaism, in which it is regarded as the place where God's divine presence is manifested most frequently. In Christianity, it is held to have been the location of both Solomon's Temple and the Second Temple. Sunni Muslims consider the Mount the third holiest site in Islam, associating it with Muhammad's journey to Jerusalem and ascent to heaven. Owing to its importance to these religions, claims over the Mount have been heavily contested.Photograph: Andrew Shiva

Statu quo

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)#Religious and communal issues
• 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. Zero 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. Zero 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" 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. Zero 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. Zero 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. 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."

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. Zero 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)

Nishidani 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. Zero 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)

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. 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)

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)

References

1. Cite error: The named reference Gonen was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

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)

Active Shabbat

Hello everybody. Wow, lots of changes of this Shabbat. Will be happy to but in. Have made one technical edit, removed the text Nishidani added about the sign at the entrance (with an explanation in the edit summary), and added half a sentence so far. All the rest is more or less fine with me.Debresser (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hope you had a fine Shabbat, Dovid. As explained above, in the balancing act of NPOV, the secular court decision was both misrepresented from the source, and lacked a balancing statement, which I added. It was not quite thrown into the soup as balancing the prior statement. As it now is after your edit, in my view it is, it is unbalanced. I think all of this should be collected in one section and not be dispersed in several places, and written synthetically, and my point was to that end, in the eventuality we can collate the disiecta membra in NPOV fashion. I look forward to your collaboration on this.Nishidani (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

In case you have 'missed' it. 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) 20:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Nishidani, and nice to meet you again.

The question whether it is allowed by halakha for Jews to ascend there, or to be more precise, where precisely one is allowed to go, has many points of view. The sign you mentioned, was put up by the rabbinate for two reasons, as I see things: 1. To make sure no Jew would go where it is not allowed, by forbidding ascend altogether (a usual step of rabbis, to be stricter than the law, in order to prevent its desecration). 2. As a result of political pressure, in the form of an official request, trying to minimize the Jewish presence on the Temple Mount as much as possible, precisely in order to acquiesce the Arabs. Both these reasons I mention can be sourced.

Please also notice that if halakha forbids Jews to ascend there, ascend of non-Jews is even more forbidden by the halakha, which the sign is considerate (or political) enough not to mention directly. Debresser (talk) 22:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Re the second point, I don't have the impression that the rabbinate fusses on this, though I may be wrong. I don't see my evidence that the kind of remark we associate with the extremist national-religious viewpoint on halakha is shared there. I am reminded by your use of 'desecration' of Baruch ben-Yosef's ’every Jew is obliged to go up (to the Temple Mount) in order to nullify the desecration of God’s name that has been created by Arab access and control of the site.’ Marshall J. Breger,Yitzhak Reiter,Leonard Hammer (eds.) Sacred Space in Israel and Palestine: Religion and Politics, Routledge, 2013 p.2. Note that 'Arabs' are the object of halakhic outrage, but the author is careful not to offend the Western goyim in his blanket dismissal. Nishidani (talk) 10:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

By the way, Dovid. As you know, I recognize that you have a certain impatience that at times tempts you to ignore the rather strict rules here and assuming good faith by a good editor I don't mechanically report the infractions, other than just dropping you a note. You broke 1R last night, and I think you are obliged to revert back in the deletion of the list of incidents.

(1st revert) Sign may be relevant, but shouldn't be thrown into the soup reverts (with some reason) my edit here

(2)(a) is a partial revert of my subsequent edit introducing a list of incidents that you consider ‘not noteworthy, and seems indiscriminate’

(b). as does this.

These edits are interrupted by my own edits, and therefore break 1R. I will explain why the list is necessary I n my view presently.Nishidani (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Contradictory History

The lead section states that the site remained undeveloped from 70CE to the Arab Conquest (complete with source, which is followed largely verbatim). It is generally attested that a temple to Jupiter was in fact constructed on the site, and archaeological evidence indicates a subsequent Christian structure, both of which are covered within the article with appropriate sources. I would have amended the header accordingly, but don't know what wikipedia policy is regarding contradicting or dissing previously quoted sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.150.238 (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• Unknown-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• B-Class Islam-related articles
• High-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles
• B-Class Israel-related articles
• Top-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• B-Class Judaism articles
• Top-importance Judaism articles
• B-Class Palestine-related articles
• High-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• B-Class Middle Ages articles
• Unknown-importance Middle Ages articles
• B-Class history articles
• All WikiProject Middle Ages pages