Talk:Temple Mount
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Temple Mount article. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
||
| Archives: 1, 2 | |||
|
|
|||
| WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES
The article Temple Mount, along with other articles relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict, is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, as laid out during a 2008 Arbitration case, and supplemented by community consensus in November 2010. The current restrictions are:
|
| This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 3 months may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived. |
Contents |
Israeli Period [edit]
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 [edit]
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 [edit]
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 • contribs • info • 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 (talk · contribs), Wilson44691 (talk · contribs) and Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs), 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 • contribs • info • WHOIS) and 71firebird (talk · contribs) 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 [edit]
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 [edit]
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)
- B-Class Religion articles
- Unknown-importance Religion articles
- B-Class Interfaith articles
- Unknown-importance Interfaith articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- B-Class Islam-related articles
- High-importance Islam-related 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
- Crusades task force articles
- B-Class history articles