Talk:Temple Mount entry restrictions

Translated from Hebrew wikipedia --Midrashah (talk) 12:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Wording

'Muslims are free to pray on Temple Mount, however.'

Regardless of history, this is odd. 'Jews are free to pray at the Wailing Wall' 'Catholics are free to pray at St.Peter's in the Vatican.'

'Free to' implies some sort of authority concedes permission. Like it or not, Muslims have prayed there continuously for 1,300 years, and the religious structures there are only Islamic.Nishidani (talk) 12:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The law states that only Muslim prayer services can take place there. I think that it makes sense that they are free to. No matter how long they have consistently been doing it for. You could argue that Jews prayed there consistently for hundreds of years as well. - Galatz^Talk 13:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Which law? Nishidani (talk) 14:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Its mentioned plenty on Temple Mount. "In an attempt to keep the status quo, the Israeli government enforces a controversial ban on prayer by non-Muslims." Perhaps not law, but definitely enforced by police to maintain status quo. Jews attempting to pray will be arrested. - Galatz^Talk 14:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

That presumably refers to a ruling by Moshe Dayan in, from memory, September 1976, which was never written down, and never endorsed. It reflects Israeli exercise of security controls on the site. The structure of the whole Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount site is completely the result of Muslim architectural work. What remains of the temple structures barbarously destroyed by Titus were used for fill, using what little rubble remained on the site in Byzantine times. By the customary logic used here, Christians have claims because both Jesus and St Paul (Acts 21:26ff.) prayed there. The reaction of Muslims after 1,300 years is identical to those sects of Judaism which strove to drive the latter from the Temple for polluting it by his presence. Dayan knew his history, and that it tends to repeat itself.Nishidani (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

False claim about armistice agreement

A common claim is that the Israel-Jordan Armistice agreement requires Jordan to allow Israelis to visit the "holy places". This is a false claim. The armistice agreement actually says:

1. A Special Committee, composed of two representatives of each Party designated by the respective Governments, shall be established for the purpose of formulating agreed plans and arrangements designed to enlarge the scope of this Agreement and to effect improvements in ts application.

2. The Special Committee shall be organized immediately following the coming into effect of this Agreement and shall direct its attention to the formulation of agreed plans and arrangements for such matters as either Party may submit to it, which, in any case, shall include the following, on which agreement in principle already exists: free movement of traffic on vital roads, including the Bethlehem and Latrun-Jerusalem roads; resumption of the normal functioning of the cultural and humanitarian institutions on Mount Scopus and free access thereto; free access to the Holy Places and cultural institutions and use of the cemetery on the Mount of Olives; resumption of operation of the Latrun pumping station; provision of electricity for the Old City; and resumption of operation of the railroad to Jerusalem.

Agreeing to form a committee to "[formulate] agreed plans and arrangements for such matters as" something is not at all the same as agreeing to the arrangements that such a committee might hypothetically come up with. In fact Jordan did not violate any arrangements for Israelis to visit East Jerusalem (not just Jews—Israeli Muslims couldn't visit either and Christians had some limited access) for the simple reason that this "Special Committee" was never formed and so no such arrangements were made. (According to another source, the committee was formed but dissolved before an agreement was reached.) One can step back and ask why no arrangement was never made, and nobody will be surprised to learn that Jordan and Israel each blamed the other. There is some academic work around that question which can be cited, but we shouldn't fill the article with claims that are just echos of the Israeli position. Zero^talk 02:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

On sources, it is obvious that one can find any number of sources that support Israel's claims on anything at all. On Wikipedia we are required to make a balanced selection of sources. Here is a look at what Epson Salts provided: (1) Molinari says "The Jordanian claim is ... subject to much dispute" (Epson Salts didn't mention that; I wonder if there is a kind interpretation); (2) Moore: the text cited is an address by Moshe Dayan to the UN (Epson Salts didn't tell us that; why not?); (3) Tucker (ed.) supports the text but it is a tertiary source like we are generally supposed to avoid and the author of that page (James Wald) is not known as an expert on this subject—no Wikipedia page and almost no mention in academic literature. (4) The book by Israeli diplomat Yehuda Zvi Blum is an unapologetic polemic, fails WP:RS except for an attributed explanation of the Israeli position. Zero^talk 02:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Another way it is misleading is that the restriction was on Israelis entering Jordan. It wasn't a specific restriction on the Temple Mount so it is even dubious whether it belongs in this article. Zero^talk 03:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Neither I, nor any other wikipedia editor is interested in your personal analysis of primary source material, which is original research. Over here, we go by sources. The sources I have provided are high quality academic sources, by experts on the topic, published by academic presses of the highest respect - Princeton University Press, Sussex Academic Press, and Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Yehuda Zvi Blum , in addition to being an Israeli diplomat, is an internationally acclaimed professor of International Law, the holder of an endowed chair in international law, and his book published by an academic press (Zero000 didn't tell us that; why not?) . They explictly support the exact formulation I used. Epson Salts (talk) 04:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

So you think that adding a quote from Moshe Dayan without mentioning who you are quoting is being a good editor? I think it is a step towards your topic ban. Zero^talk 05:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

So you think that removing a quote from the article on the grounds that it comes from an "Israeli diplomat"" without mentioning that he is also an acclaimed expert on International Law is being a good editor? I think it is a step towards your topic ban. See how easy it is to play these childish games? Epson Salts (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

But, anyway, this is all irrelevant. The article is about access to the Temple Mount platform, not to the Western Wall or other holy places. As far as I can tell, not a single one of those sources says that Israel wanted access to the platform. Of course, any claim no matter how counterfactual can be found by searching with the right keywords; one should look for the most detailed and knowledgeable sources. More importantly, Israel presented a list of places that they wanted Jews to have access to, derived from the British regulations. It had the Western Wall, the Mount of Olives cemetery, Rachel's tomb, and several other places, but not the Temple Mount platform. This is hardly surprising, since it was (and still is, by a majority of religious authorities) regarded as forbidden for Jews to ascend the mount. So all of this stuff doesn't belong in the article at all. Zero^talk 15:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

There have been numerous cases over my wiki lifetime of academic, authoritativee sources being introduced, with flawed data. The works meet all criteria of WP:RS, but on key points completely get a fact wrong. Walter Laqueur was used regarding the Qur'an and anti-Semitism, I recall. A check of the Primary source showed he had completely confused two distinct passages. Many sources still carelessly retain the figure of 254 Arab dead at Deir Yassin. When, as Zero points out, we find on checking that the primary source nowhere states what is said of it in a secondary source, then we don't just press for inclusion of the latter because it is RS. While Wikipedia is not about the truth, it is forgotten that we do not knowingly include tendentious meme replications that are demonstrably errant. The RS policy should refer to such cases as Quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus, and explain what we do when 'Homer' (any authority) nods off, which is less frequent than what happens to editors reading these threads, but still occurs quite often. Nishidani (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm yet to find the perfect source on this question. It would need to have the details of the negotiations between Israel and Jordan, both in secret and openly at the UN, during this period, as only a professional analysis of those could set the record straight. Unfortunately the book of Raphael Israeli which is entirely about this period has almost no references to relevant documents on the negotiations and has some bizarre phrases like "visiting the Jewish shrines on the Temple Mount" (could only be a translation error, no?). Regarding the Armistice Agreements, someone knowledgeable in law (such as Prof. Peled, who at the time he published his book was one of Israel's chief negotiators) could opine that Jordan was in breach of them, but that can obviously only be presented as an attribution opinion. But, as I said, I think it is off-topic for this article anyway. Zero^talk 01:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. The first sentence of this article says "the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, which is a holy place for both Jews and Muslims." The numerous cites I've provided clearly state that Jordan was violating is armistice obligations by denying Jews access to their holy sites, so this belongs in the article. Israel may or may not have requested access to that site, but Israel is not the arbiter of what is and is not a Jewish Holy site, so that piece of original research is irrelevant. Epson Salts (talk) 02:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

That's a fallacious argument. The entire article except those few sentences is about access into the Temple Mount compound. Those sentences are not, ergo they are off-topic. You also reinserted those citations that you know for a fact to be misleading, for shame. As for logic, if Israel didn't ask for access to the compound, how could lack of access be a violation of Israel's agreement with Jordan? Zero^talk 03:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

It is not fallacious, it is straight-forward logic. I'll fix the citations momentarily. The obligation Jordan had was to allow -anyone- access to the holy sites under their control - Israel has no part in that obligation. Epson Salts (talk) 03:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

You are just making it up. Zero^talk 06:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay. This is a scholarly source that deals specifically with the negotiations between Jordan and Israel in 1940 and article VIII which all the other sources mechanically, and it would appear, deceptively misquote.

Lior Lehrs ‘Political Holiness: negotiating holy places in Eretz Israel/Palestine, 1937-2003’ in Marshall J. Breger, Yitzhak Reiter, Leonard Hammer (eds.)Sacred Space in Israel and Palestine: Religion and Politics, Routledge, 2013 pp.228-250 p.233 reads:

Ultimately, as reflected in Article VIII of the Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement, the two sides agreed on the establishment of a “special committee,” to be composed of two representatives of each party, whose task would be to formulate ”agreed plans and arrangements” on a number of issues, including those on which “agreement in principle” already existed, such as “free access to the Holy Places and cultural institutions and use of the cemetery on the Mount of Olives. . .The article refers to “Holy Places” in general, but it should be noted that during negotiations, Israel’s demands focused only on the Western Wall and on the cemetery on the Mount of Olives. No mention was made of additional sacred sites other than those in the instructions issued to the Israeli delegation prior to the negotiations.

In the view of Menachem Klein and Moti Golani, the Zionist position during this period regarded access to Mount Scopus as more important than access to the holy places. This order of priorities was reflected in the negotiations themselves and in the deliberations of the Special Committee.

At the first meeting of the Special Committee, in April 1949, Israel submitted to Jordan a list of holy places to which it wanted free access, but the issue remained marginal to the Committee’s deliberations., The list included 14 holy sites, most of them located within Jerusalem’s Holy basin(for example, the Western Wall, synagogues in the Old City, the Tower of David, with only two sites located outside Jerusalem, Rachel’s Tomb and Nabi Samuel. It is interesting to note that a year later, in May 1950, the Israeli government issued a memorandum to the UN’s Trusteeship Council which mentions only three holy sites under Jordanian control to which Israel sought live access “under any international arrangement:” the Western Wall, Rachel’s Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs.

During the meetings, the Jordanian side also raised the issue of visiting “places sacred to Christians and Muslims” located on Israeli territory, while demanding free access to “religious and cultural centers” and mentioning, in this context, Nazareth as well as the Terra Sancta School and the Monastery of the Cross in Jerusalem. Due to fundamental and procedural differences that arose early on in the Special Committee meetings, the parties could not resolve the issues noted in Article VIII of the Armistice Agr4eement and by late 1950 the committee’s activity was frozen.’p.233

There is no mention absolutely, indeed to the contrary, there is a specific list that omits any mention of the Temple Mount. This story has always been weird. It is unimaginable that Israel in 1949, before international authorities, and in negotiating with Jordan, would have rationally set down a proposal for Jewish access to what was a Muslim religious site, with absolutely no trace of anything Jewish in its design or over its extension, particularly since access had always been forbidden. Their sole historic battle throughout the Mandate was to pray at the Western Wall.

So Zero is correct. This is meme circulation by secondary sources including a piece of confusion introduced by, probably, post 1967 habarists. Since Lehrs actually goes into the intricacies of that Armistice's article VIII, and specifies what Israel asked access to, with no mention of the Temple Mount, the several sources are shown to be contrafactual, and must be removed, and the passage with them, unless some topic specialist can be cited to contradict Lehrs.Nishidani (talk) 12:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

we already have numerous scholarly sources that say this was a Jordanian violation of the armistice agreements, and whether ir not Israel asked for access to a specific site is irrelevant - as your own source shows, Israel at different times asked for access to different sites, but the exclusion of a site from a list does not make it any less holy, and Jordan denied access to every single one. Epson Salts (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

That is WP:OR. The source in question actually examined the relevant archival and published documentation on access, and nowhere is denial of access to the Haram al Sharif mentioned. It was not an issue under the Mandate eithera, except for a picture circulating in the mid-20s, quickly suppressed, which had Herzl's face beaming on top of the Haram al Sharif. Throughout the Mandate the Jews requested only the right to the Western Wall, and when Jordan took over, that, according to Lehrs, is what they wanted. So that patchwork of aapparent crap, even in generally reliable sources, has no value. We do not include on Wikipedia, I repeat, information based on rumours discounted in the technical literature. You can find dozens of RS telling you that 254 people were massacred at Deir Yassin. We don't cite those books because this is known to be an overestimation. We cite the specialists who nailed down the probable, far lower, range for victims. So out it goes, unless archival evidence in RS shows the contrary.Nishidani (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

No, what is WP:PR is what you and zero are doing - substituting your personal analysis of primary sources for claims sourced to academic experts in the field. Epson Salts (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

You have not provided any sources that draw the conclusions that you are drawing. It is you who is doing personal analysis. If you find a reliable source that says "Jordan violated the armistice agreement by not allowing Jews access into the Temple Mount compound", we can include it as an attributed opinion. But you didn't present such a source, only sources which require your interpretation to reach such a conclusion. Contrary to that, Nishidani brought a source which cites the original documents that shows your personal interpretation to be wrong. You can't look at a legal document and decide for yourself what a phrase encompasses. Zero^talk 22:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I've provided multiple academic sources all stating Jordan violated the 1949 armistice by not allowing Israelis to visit their holy sites. You've provided a lengthy personal analysis of primary sources, which is WP:OR. Epson Salts (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

To repeat, this article is about restrictions on entry to the Temple mount and the text assumed that Jordan violated an undertaking in the Armistice Agreement to allow Israeli access to that site. Since there is disproof that Jordan undertook such an agreement, and disproof that Israel asked for Jewish access to the Temple Mount, any secondary sources which asserts the contrary is mistaken, and cannot be used. The paper by Lehrs nowhere mentions that Israel requested access to the Temple Mount, as opposed to the Western Wall, Rachel's Tom, etc. If you can come up with proof the Israelis requested access to the Haram, that Jordan promised to provide it, and reneged, then you have a case. Otherwise you just have the usual meme replication of a false inference.Nishidani (talk) 00:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

To repeat. there is no "disproof that Jordan undertook such an agreement" - on the contrary, there are multiple scholarly sources which say she did, explictly. On the other hand, we have lengthy analysis of primary sources by you and zero which attempts to disprove those high quality academic sources. Alas, such original research is not allowed. Epson Salts (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat a false statement. None of the quotes you brought mention the Temple Mount compound. It is entirely your assumption that "access to the Holy Sites" includes "entrance into the Temple Mount compound". These are two different things, even today. Where are the sources you claim to have? And why does your text, which doesn't belong here at all, continue to state as a fact something that is obviously an Israeli position, in clear violation of WP:NPOV? Zero^talk 05:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you need a basic lesson in logic - The temple mount compound and the holy sites are not "two different things" - the latter is a superset which includes the former. If Jordan denied access to the superset (as numerous reliable sources say) , it is obvious they denied access to every member of the set , and we don't need a source that calls out each and every site. My statement states as fact something which is supported by half a dozen reliable sources, most of them expert scholars published by academic presses. It does not get any clearer than this. If you doubt this, take it to the proper forum. Epson Salts (talk) 05:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

You claim "the latter is a superset which includes the former", but that is only your opinion. There have been many lists of Jewish holy sites in negotiations over Jerusalem and most did not include the interior of the compound (see the UN's list for 1949 for example). Not only do you not know whether "holy sites" in the armistice agreement included the compound, you don't even know if the claims of your sources include it. Since the superset here often does not include the Haram, your argument fails and I ask you again to provide sources supporting your text. Zero^talk 07:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

It is not my opinion- it is what this article says, in its very first sentence. If you need me to provide half a dozen academic sources that say the temple mount is a holy site, it is quite easy tood so. Epson Salts (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

This is an egregious WP:OR violation, so I have removed all sources on which this original research is made. 'Holy places' cannot be said automatically to mean 'The Haram al Sharif'. The insistence 'logic' means they do is an admission the editor is making an inference from sources, an admission he is engaged in WP:OR. As the issue stands we have a scholarly source which examined the Armistice Agreement, the sites mentioned by Israel as those to which it desired access, in which the Temple Mount does not figure. We also have evidence the talks which allegedly had Jordan making a formal undertaking were broken off without any such signed agreement, so sources suggesting at a minimum that Jordan broke an agreement appear to falsify the known history. As soon as we obtain, if we do manage to, a reliable source which states Jordan denied access to the Temple Mount to Jews (as opposed to not allowing Israeli Muslims access) we can add it. Arguing on bad eveidence gets us nowhere. Spending time trying to find the desired evidence is the obvious solution.Nishidani (talk) 08:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I just saw this new article: "There is no generally agreed list of places holy to the major communities of Jerusalem, though there are lists that are used as a reference. One of these lists dates from the time of the Mandate (1924), another one, which harks back to the first, was compiled in connection with the Israeli law for the protection of holy places of 1967. Neither of these lists refers to the Temple Mount as a Jewish holy place, whereas the 1924 British declaration mentions the Western Wall as a place holy to Jews, as well as to Muslims, though they refer to it as Al Buraq." Zero^talk 03:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Tagging

We are here to raise and solve issues. Putting a tag on a page without providing a list of reasons, per policy guidelines, justifying the tag, so that they can be addressed, is drive-by tagging, and can be removed on sight. So please list the POV issues in the section, so they can be analysed and addressed, and, if serious, resolved.Nishidani (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I've provided my reasons. above. Your little tag team outnumbers me, so I a not going to edit war over this, but until other editors provide some input, that tag is going to stay. Epson Salts (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 21 July 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Andrewa (talk) 23:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

---

Temple Mount entry restrictions → Temple Mount Status Quo –

Much more WP:COMMONNAME; a quick google search of the two names shows clearly (and press articles on the recent news illustrate well).

Also used in scholarly sources such as: Yitzhak Reiter (7 April 2017). Contested Holy Places in Israel–Palestine: Sharing and Conflict Resolution. Taylor & Francis. p. 23. ISBN 978-1-351-99885-7.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose not meaningful, and btw status quo capitalised means the band. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: can you explain what you mean by not meaningful? The term is meaningful in historical and political terms - see Status quo of Holy Land sites. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Status quo in this specific context doesn't describe anything. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose You might get more google hits searching one term over the other, but that is meaningless. These entry restrictions are only one of the items relating to the status quo. For example security cameras, if there is an article on all of the cameras that was talked about a lot over the past few years, you will see no mentions on entry restrictions. The types of prayers that are allowed there also dont involve the entry restrictions but are considered status quo. I would say you could almost create an article just on that stuff while leaving this article alone. - Galatz^Talk 13:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 August 2020

In the section "Halakhic restrictions", change [[Second Temple was]] to [[Second Temple]] was due to a formatting error. 68.38.19.88 (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Thjarkur (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 June 2023

In section "Halakhic restrictions" the hyperlink to "ritual purity" leads to the article about Islamic purity and should lead to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumah_and_taharah for Jewish ritual purity. Jbennett45 (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done lizthegrey (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)