Jump to content

Talk:Al-Aqsa Mosque/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Move review closed

I've just closed the move review discussion [1], which resulted in a rather clearcut "overturn to no consensus" decision. As I said, the page title should be restored to Al-Aqsa Mosque since that was the status quo ante and there is no other obvious compromise title. Before I do that, do you guys think you need more time for traffic assessment? I intend to thoroughly read the above discussion, but from a quick skim it seems that we already have a decent amount of data collected for the 3 weeks it has been a disambiguation page. On the other hand, how to interpret those data is again an open question. No such user (talk) 09:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Article traffic assessment for redirect pages from the Wikipedia page "Al-Aqsa Mosque (disambiguation)", as at 4 Aug 2022
Thanks No such user. Pinging Drsmoo, Srnec, Andrewa, Selfstudier, Drsmoo, Iskandar323, Tombah, Necrothesp, Nableezy, Number 57, Vpab15, Dan Palraz, Mellohi!, StellarNerd, Vice regent, Al Ameer son, gidonb, Khestwol, Nishidani, PrisonerB, Eladkarmel, Atbannett, Paine Ellsworth, חוקרת, Zero0000, Apaugasma, Kj cheetham, R Prazeres.
Please could all interested parties review the traffic assessment statistics (latest output in image at right, with the five phases of the disambiguation page shown below at #Current status and phases of the disambiguation traffic assessment).
To recap: the goal is to help assess WP:PTOPIC as to usage for "Al Aqsa Mosque", which the guideline defines as "if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." The disambiguation page has been receiving around 400 daily views, making it a high profile disambiguation page.[2] This has continued, even though all the incoming links have been removed - readers are likely coming to the page because it is the first hit on google when searching for "aqsa mosque" or "aqsa". Those 400 daily views result in about 200 daily clicks onto the outbound links.
The question for all interested editors now is: are there any further versions of the disambiguation page we could test which you believe may result in a different outcome? I would note that one editor has questioned the possibility of manipulation, which rightly cannot be discounted in either direction given that this has only been going on for three weeks. However, I do not believe any manipulation can reduce the number of clicks on a link, so the real question we should focus on is - why are the 400 daily views translating into only c.50 daily clicks on the southern building / Qibli article?
Onceinawhile (talk) 10:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
I would have thought another week or so would be enough for data collection and analysis, the principal issue around disambiguation still needs addressing.(Not sure why this section is out of order on the page, is that deliberate?) Selfstudier (talk) 10:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
@No such user: The traffic assessment on Wikipedia is close to meaningless, the topic anyway has a commonname in sources. It is also affected by Onceinawhile disruptively modifying hundreds of links while the review's result was obvious to be overturned. Please move it back promptly to Al-Aqsa Mosque. This experiment runs afoul of the Wikipedia is not a laboratory policy.PrisonerB (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
WP:PTOPIC ≠ WP:COMMONNAME.
Resolving WP:DPL is the opposite of disruptive, and was carried out collaboratively and following requests from experienced editors.
Do you have a better way of assessing PTOPIC? See the thread #Relative frequency via sources, still unreplied to.
Onceinawhile (talk) 11:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
That was the opposite of disruptive, fixing dab links to point to the target instead of the dab page is what is supposed to happen. nableezy - 13:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I still believe that given the confused and confusing state of things, looking at dab page traffic is going to be of very limited value. However, I also still believe that we are spending far too much time on this, and that since this article being the PTOPIC is at least questionable, there is no harm in moving it to a disambiguated title. Especially since all these links have already been disambiguated (as an aside, the only correct way to apply WP:MOSAR's basic transcription to الجامع is al-jami': with "al-" and with final ayn written as a straight apostrophe '; there also is no "-a" at the end as there is in جامعة, jami'a, 'university'), we may just as well keep the dab page. I say open a RfC proposing a few alternatives: Qibli Mosque, al-Aqsa Mosque (congregational mosque), and al-Aqsa Mosque (building). Does anyone disagree that we have the rough consensus about the mosque building not being PTOPIC for al-Aqsa Mosque which is needed to open this RfC? If so, please state this explicitly below this comment. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
    I would perhaps phrase it more as there being no clear PTOPIC at all (at least demonstrably) in terms of the overall preponderance of sources, but yes. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
    @Apaugasma: I disagree. This article is the primary topic for Al-Aqsa Mosque, and the current title, that prior to the RM, should be an option in the RfC.PrisonerB (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
    @Nableezy: suggested an RFC about the ambiguity first, there are editors who believe there is no or little ambiguity, the consensus needs to be clearly established there first. Selfstudier (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  • The traffic stats so far support that there's significant ambiguity. Enough evidence had already been presented to make the case that neither the congregational mosque nor the wider site was the primary topic and that disambiguation was necessary. For the record (as before), I still do not agree that Qibli Mosque, or its variants, is a suitable alternative for our name for the congregational mosque, and that the best solution is to preserve al-Aqsa Mosque but with a dab term in parentheses. Al Ameer (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  • My view matches Al Ameer. I don't think any topic satisfies PTOPIC as that requires not just a simple majority but a stronger preference, as indicated by the phrases "highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic" and "substantially greater enduring notability" (my emphasis). Incidentally, it seems that half the people who visit Al-Aqsa Mosque (disambiguation) don't click on either of the two links. I remain sceptical that the experiment proves much, since we don't know why and how people get to the dab page. [Added: the popularity of Temple Mount, which is far greater than the popularity of any of the Al-Aqsa topics, raises the possibility that many people who make it to the dab page (via Google or whatever) are actually wanting Temple Mount.] In summary: (1) Qibli Mosque is not a proper article title, (2) "Al-Aqsa Mosque" can be qualified in parentheses. Zerotalk 04:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I largely agree with Zero and al Ameer. nableezy - 04:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Alright, since there's not much appetite for continuing the experiment, I restored the old title Al-Aqsa Mosque (without prejudice); in such contested situations, I think it's prudent to follow the proper procedure as closely as possible. I understand that the traffic monitoring results (as uncertain as they are) and the overall consensus lean towards some form of disambiguation, but I think a new formal RM would be in order. Of course, it would be good if the editors could agree in advance about one or a couple best options on the table, so that we don't again have a messy multi-choice RM like the last time. No such user (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  • In my opinion the current title is fine. It is the primary topic. There are many sources on Al-Aqsa, many, that a small minority use the term in another meaning is not signficant enough to change the normal English language use.Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 07:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Sounding out new disambiguated names

So, there are a few options for alternative disambiguation. I originally suggested "Al-Aqsa Mosque (congregational mosque)", but I have gone off the tautologous repeat of the word 'mosque'. My preference now, with parentheses, might be something more like "Al-Aqsa Mosque (prayer hall)" or "Al-Aqsa Mosque (congregational prayer hall)". I've seen "Al-Aqsa Mosque (building)" suggested, but this does a poor job of disambiguating, because the mosque compound is also conceptually a "building", making it just as vague as the original "mosque". Another suggestion is simply "Jami' al-Aqsa" - the directly transliterated Arabic title does away with the need for parentheses and is also a relatively natural form of disambiguator, but, in this instance, with the "al-Aqsa" still there and so more similar to the disambiguated term than "Qibli Mosque". Also, unlike Qibli Mosque, "Jami' al-Aqsa" has a substantiated literary presence, see ngrams, and a pretty decent presence as a term online (with 122,000 results to Qibli's 7,000). Iskandar323 (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Leaving the title as is plus new article for the Haram (some duplication with TM admittedly) plus appropriate hatnotes and altnames is still my preference. No dratted brackets. Selfstudier (talk) 18:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
A discussion worth having, but, for me, that still wouldn't eliminate the imperative to disambiguate this page, the "Jami' al-Aqsa", from "Al-Masjid al-Aqsa". Iskandar323 (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Per the move closure, there is no consensus that disambiguation is needed at all. My understanding was that there would be an RFC. Drsmoo (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

That is just not true. nableezy - 18:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2022 July - "Overturned to no consensus. No consensus has been achieved in the RM and MR as to whether disambiguation is needed at all, and what the best form would be." Drsmoo (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Somewhat up in the air. As noted by No such user above, there's a lean towards some form of disambiguation. But some people may prefer to start an RFC. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The article on the building should obey COMMONNAME. In my opinion there is no name that comes within a mile of "Al-Aqsa Mosque" in terms of usage and recognition, including "Jami' al-Aqsa". So we should either use that or a qualified version. (I don't agree the compound is a "building", btw.) Zerotalk 07:27, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  • I support a broad-concept article at Masjid al-Aqsa. The title al-Aqsa Mosque could point there or be the dab page. I am not entirely convinced that the congregational mosque isn't the primary topic per RS, but I admit that a great deal of confusion may be caused for readers who are not the target audience of the RS (e.g., L2 speakers who read English online but would never seek out OUP reference works). Srnec (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • In my opinion the current title is fine. It is the primary topic. There are many sources on Al-Aqsa, many, that a small minority use the term in another meaning is not signficant enough to change the normal English language use.Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 07:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, current title is fine. Clear primary topic. This whole thing has been a needless complication. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I really dont understand that view, I think it has been clearly been established that al-Aqsa Mosque also often refers to the entire Temple Mount. How is a term often used for two things have a "clear" primary topic as one of those things? nableezy - 13:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Nor do I. In two and a half months of discussion, no evidence has been brought to substantiate the claim that the building is the primary topic as defined by our PTOPIC guideline. There is a reason for this – per #Relative frequency via sources it is actually very difficult to assess. So every editor making this claim is doing so based on no more than gut instinct. It would help find a resolution here if they could be open about this weakness in their position.
On the other hand, there is now hard evidence that Temple Mount is the PTOPIC for Al Aqsa Mosque, per the disambiguation traffic assessment. We can debate the relevance of the statistics, but it remains the only hard evidence anyone has provided in two and a half months.
Of course, no editor is advocating for Temple Mount to become the PTOPIC here, only a reasonable compromise position that there is no PTOPIC. This is substantiated by the various forms of natural disambiguation taken by all media outlets.
In summary, this is a plea for editors continuing to claim that the building is the PTOPIC to be transparent about the lack of evidence that their claim stands upon.
Onceinawhile (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
The MR closer wrote above: Of course, it would be good if the editors could agree in advance about one or a couple best options on the table, so that we don't again have a messy multi-choice RM like the last time. Well this is getting messy again, given a number of the oppose !voters have come to this side discussion about alternative names only to repeat their votes, again without evidence.
I feel strongly that we should wait to open an RfC / RM until we have given these PTOPIC-based oppose voters a final opportunity to provide actual evidence that in their view it is highly likely — much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined — that the southern building is the topic sought when a reader searches for that term Al Aqsa Mosque.
If they are unable to provide this evidence within a reasonable period (two weeks?), we move on to an RM / RfC asking that any votes basing their rationale on the claim that the southern building is the PTOPIC be ignored by the closer as unsubstantiated.
Onceinawhile (talk) 08:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
This is textbook bludgeoning and Sealioning. "No one is obligated to satisfy you". I recommend you strike this, learn to respect consensus, and stop sealioning and harassing editors. Drsmoo (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
It feels like something about holding up a mirror, psychological projection or something similar is warranted here. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
To editor Onceinawhile: You have not provided strong evidence for your viewpoint. Only a brief defective experiment based on a fraction of the traffic. So I don't think you can justify an assertion that your view prevails unless someone can provide strong proof to the contrary. Zerotalk 15:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree. The status quo reflects the established consensus. The burden of proof is on those trying to change that. Vpab15 (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
@Vpab15: you are right that the burden of proof to create consensus for change is with those seeking to make it. It is equally true that when editors make assertions in their comments or votes they are expected to provide supporting evidence. A meaningful number of editors have made firm assertions about PTOPIC here with no evidence or analysis at all, appearing to base their judgement on their personal experience, and sometimes confusing the guideline with COMMONNAME. When challenged, not one of these editors has been willing to provide evidence relating to the PTOPIC guideline. These repeated unsupported assertions have resulted in an obfuscated discussion. To be clear, I have no objection to editors stating a negative view such as “more evidence is needed to confirm there is no primary topic” or similar without providing evidence of their own, I only object to the positive statement that “xxx is the primary topic” without evidence. Onceinawhile (talk) 02:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Zero, the traffic assessment suggesting Temple Mount is intended in c.66% of clicks is only the most recent example of the evidence provided. A selection of the other evidence provided over the last two and a half months is as follows:
  • (2) Multiple detailed scholarly explanations - both modern and historical - explicitly stating that the dual-use of the term has caused frequent confusion
  • (3) Dozens of individual example citations (most recent examples here) which use Al Aqsa Mosque for the whole compound
  • (4) A particular very high prevalence of Al Aqsa Mosque being used for the whole compound in English-language Muslim sources, particularly relevant since 25% of the world’s English speakers are Muslim,[3] and this is a highly relevant topic for Muslims
  • (5) A qualitative summary of the different reasons our readers might search for Al Aqsa Mosque,[4] showing two out of three macro-topics focused refer to the Temple Mount. In retrospect, I could have added Crusader scholarship (where the southern building has a unique focus), which would make it 50:50 by macro-topic
  • (6) A series of “reader comments” on our talk page here over the years, proving that a meaningful number of readers felt they were directed to the wrong place[5] (I could have gone further back in the archives and brought many more). This has relevance because PTOPIC is specifically about "the topic sought [by] a reader"
  • (7) A proposed structure for a source-based assessment of PTOPIC, asserting that whilst the name is has much greater internal frequency within scholarly works about the southern building versus its internal frequency within scholarly works about the complex, this is counter-balanced by the fact that overall scholarly discussions of the complex are materially more frequent than overall scholarly discussions of the building.[6]
  • (8) A summary of my assessment of the first ten hits for "al aqsa mosque" in Google Scholar, which gave 60% about the compound[7]
These eight pieces of evidence are not strong enough on their own, but together they show a clear pattern. I am sure we could debate these individually, but the picture would not change as the bar to show there is no PTOPIC is so much lower than the reverse. It simply requires the Temple Mount to be the intended subject in approximately 5-20% of cases (our guidance says PTOPIC needs to be “highly likely” which surveys suggest implies 80-95%). The figures in the quantitative assessments above are well above the required threshold.
And, no I do not assert that "[my] view prevails unless someone can provide strong proof to the contrary". The evidence above can stand in a vacuum, but it doesn't mean it prevails. I simply wish it to be clear to all that the evidence above stands in a vacuum, because no evidence to the contrary has been provided in two and a half months.
Onceinawhile (talk) 02:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile: Nobody is arguing that "Al-Aqsa Mosque" doesn't have dual meaning. And PTOPIC is about what a typical reader will be looking for, not about proportions in the scholarly literature. But anyway when I look at the first 10 hits in Scholar and discount the one about the library and the PhD thesis, I get 5 for the building and 3 for the compound. (We don't necessarily get the same hits of course.) (7) is not evidence but just a proposal and as someone with expertise in statistics I can see major flaws. (6) people who complained about getting to the wrong place have to be weighed against those who didn't complain because they got to the right place; that is impossible so it's not evidence either. (5) has no quantitative value. (2) is agreed, and (3) can be done in reverse as well. In summary all of this is a waste of time. I've stated my support for disambiguated titles, if that doesn't satisfy you then you should explain why. It is pretty clear that you will not get consensus for any article on the building that doesn't have "Al-Aqsa Mosque" as at least part of the title. Zerotalk 04:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
@Zero0000: I believe we are in agreement - your points are all valid, and we can debate the nuances but the overall picture remains clear.
I would like to return to my earlier concern - how to proceed with a form of consensus building "vote" if some editors persist in repeating assertions that the southern building is the PTOPIC without any evidence or assessment of their own?
Onceinawhile (talk) 04:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Second warning to stop Sealioning and making false claims that assessments/evidence haven't been presented. Drsmoo (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
They're responding to a comment directed at them. Leave off with the disparaging buzzwords. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Since this building is the clear major theme for Al-Aqsa Mosque in the *English language*, I vote status quo. Tombah (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Leave this article as is, create a more widely scoped article at Masjid al-Aqsa/Haram al-Sharif/al-Aqsa Mosque Compound. Drsmoo (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • It might be helpful to split sources that mention both the congregational mosque and whole compound into two groups and see which is most common:
A) Sources that use "Al-Aqsa Mosque" to refer to the congregational mosque and use other term for the whole compound (Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, Temple Mount, etc.)
B) Sources that use "Al-Aqsa Mosque" to refer to the compound and use other term for the congregational mosque (Qibli, Jami' al-Aqsa, etc.)
In order to claim there is no primary topic, it need to be shown that the number of sources in groups A and B is roughly equivalent. The way I see it, that hasn't been done. Sources on group A seem to significantly outnumber those on group B. Vpab15 (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Not what this thread is actually about, and simple numerical counting isn't going to get you very far, but sure, happy counting. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree that this is unfortunately not possible, because there are just too many (thousands?) of sources covering these topics. Also, Vpab15's "it need to be shown that... is roughly equivalent" [i.e. 50:50] is not a correct reflection of WP:PTOPIC, which states that the test is "highly likely — much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined". The phrase "highly likely... much more likely" means well above 50:50. Onceinawhile (talk) 03:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Correcting an error about a living person

In a closed section above, it is written "The [Encyclopaedia of the Quran] article was published by an Islamic Art student - Nola Jeanette Johnson - in 2001, the same year she published her PhD.[8] She doesn't seem to have published any other articles in her entire scholarly career." In fact, Dr Johnson was not a student but had finished her PhD three years earlier. Moreover, she later published a series of articles in archaeology. Zerotalk 15:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting the record. "Nola Jeanette Johnson" only showed her PhD in GoogleScholar; one has to search for "NJ Johnson + Islamic" to find other publications. As far as I can tell, all her other academic publications related to the excavations at Tall Jawa. On the "three years earlier", her PhD was completed in 1998 but I referred to when it was published - 2001 according to that link - which is the same year of the EQ article. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Block quotes in citations in ‘Definition’

@Oncenawhile: Any opposition to removing or substantially reducing the large block quotes in the citations? The actual prose does the job very well on its own and the quotes are overkill. —Al Ameer (talk) 05:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest removing them only where the citations link to readily accessible, open sources and the correct page numbers are provided - otherwise, if necessary, I would advocate just reducing anything overly lengthy to the most pertinent parts, or converting them into notes. But I think the main reason why a lot of long quotes exist is that some of them only make sense with a lot of surrounding context, because they are complex explanations that are not readily explained in brief. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Al Ameer, good question. I agree with Iskandar. Perhaps we could also move them into the notes section, per Balfour Declaration and Palestinian enclaves? We have consensus in the FA / GA reviews of those articles that short citation quotations for sensitive, or complex or nuanced matters should be kept. Any copyrighted text should be kept to a paragraph. I have found it significantly improves article stability at difficult articles over a long period of time. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Let us try Iskandar's suggestion and other ways. I of course have no issue with quotes being moved to Notes if they offer necessary context to the main text. It definitely would be 'cleaner' than the current format. Further, I think some of the material in these block quotes could be moved to the main text in a more concise form. What I am more concerned about is excessiveness, repeating essentially the same point but from different scholars' perspectives throughout history. Also not sure if it makes sense to include the block quotes in French since these do not help the reader much without also providing the accurate English translation, which would of course make them even more excessive. Will try to sort these with care and in due time, and encourage the same. --Al Ameer (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Image of al aqsa

Change the image by a drone view of whole al aqsa compound , not only al qibli mosque, it just a part of it. Tousif.15 (talk) 12:08, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 November 2022

Delete the sentence "Rohan was a member of an evangelical Christian sect known as the Worldwide Church of God."

This is false. In a personal letter published Oct. 1969 (link below), the church stated that Rohan was not on any of their exhaustive member lists, and had never attended any church services. This is more accurately qualified on other related Wikipedia pages, which do not make the assertion that Rohan was a member of the church.

http://www.herbert-armstrong.org/Plain%20Truth%201960s/Plain%20Truth%201969%20(Prelim%20No%2010)%20Oct.pdf Críostóir Breheny 13:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

He appears to have been a subscriber to their magazine. In any case, it was somewhat tangential information. It's removed now. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

According to islamic sources their prophet Muhammad lived from 570 to 632 AD. Surah 17:1 claims that Muhammad has visited the al-aqsa mosque on a nightly journey. The al-aqsa-mosque has been begun to be build in 690 and finished in 705 AD. Problem: How can Muhammad have visited a building that has been created decades after his death? 93.206.60.228 (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

This isnt a forum. nableezy - 18:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

It omitts the violence against Muslims during Ramadan

I didn't spot any views on the violence against Muslims during the Holy month. I believe it is vital that the article should be concluded with that information as the Zionist continuously do it on every Ramadan. Rimshaan Ahmed (talk) 05:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Which al-Maqdisi?

"The 10th-century Jerusalemite scholar al-Mutahhar ibn Tahir al-Maqdisi claims Mu'awiya built a mosque on the Haram." Source: Elad (1999), p. 33.

The scholar most probably meant is Al-Maqdisi. al-Mutahhar ibn Tahir is an unusual set of names for him, it must be checked, possibly modified, and probably linked to Al-Maqdisi/Muqadassi. Arminden (talk) 06:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Appears to a totally separate chap also known as Abu Nasr, a historiographer, see here. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, and I checked the source. Zerotalk 09:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Al-Aqsa Mosque compound

I have taken the long overdue step of creating an Al-Aqsa Mosque compound page to encompass the full architectural history of Al-Aqsa all in one place. This was not done previously, with there being separate articles for the Dome of the Rock, Al-Aqsa Mosque and Minarets of the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, etc., but no single page drawing them all together historically and architecturally. The temple mount page provides some architectural overview, but it is so bound up in narrating the full history of the site and is substructure (so much so that it uses the 'mountain' infobox template, not the 'religious building' one) that it has never done full credit to the actual superstructure. Now there is a page that ties it all together. @Al Ameer son: A shout out to you, as the one responsible for much of the material on the page (some copied). In a previous move discussion here, it came to light that when the page was originally created that some details also got tangled up between the congregational prayer hall that is the focus of this page and the wider compound. With the new page, the two are now properly disambiguated. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

In the same vein I have simplified the title of the compound page to its commonname. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
The claim that it is the commonname has not been established. Note also that WP:COMMONNAME tells us to use the common English name, so even if was true that Al-Aqsa is the common name of the compound in Arabic that would be worth noting but not relevant to the title. Zerotalk 10:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Given the overlapping terminology, I would put this one down more to a matter of natural disambiguation, per WP:NCDAB, then to common name, per se. There are plenty of alt names. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
@Iskandar323: Sorry I don't understand. Using "al-Aqsa" for just one of its two common meanings is the opposite of disambiguation. "Al-Aqsa compound" or "Al-Aqsa Mosque compound", your first choice, is disambiguation. I think your choice of names was good and it should go back. Zerotalk 11:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Well I thought I was playing it safe, yes. However, I do also think that the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of "Al-Aqsa" is unambiguously the whole compound, rather than just the prayer hall. We have this clearly stated in scholarship from as early as the 15th century, and confirmed in modern scholarship. It also appears, abridged, in titular form in other scholarly instances, such as here, where it is presented as equivalent to the whole space. Given the present-day ambiguity of "Al-Aqsa Mosque", but the seemingly ongoing acceptance that "Al-Aqsa" alone is short for the whole space, I don't see a major problem in falling back on this as the title. Are there sources that use "Al-Aqsa" alone in the narrow sense of just the prayer hall? Iskandar323 (talk) 11:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
The ambiguity of "Al-Aqsa Mosque" is not "present day" but at least 1000 years old. "Al-Aqsa" by itself in modern discourse is usually intended as an abbreviated form of "Al-Aqsa Mosque". Of course it is also true that it can be used for the compound, and probably that usage is increasing. The source you give is about a political decision, not really a historical one. It quotes Mujir ad-Din's opinion, but it doesn't quote his admission that his opinion was contrary to the popular opinion of his day, as I showed above on this page. Zerotalk 15:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
probably that usage is increasing Seems to be. Haaretz says
"The clashing sides don’t even agree on what to call this holy place. Hebrew-speakers usually refer to the mosque as Al-Aqsa, while Palestinians call it Al-Qibli. This difference highlights the gap between Israeli and Palestinian perceptions of the Temple Mount. The difference in nomenclature is significant. Over the last decades, the Palestinian outlook has been that the entire compound is a mosque, and is called Al-Aqsa." Selfstudier (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Aqsa_Mosque/Archive_8&oldid=1221479378"