" is known as the al'Buraq wall to Muslims. I do not doubt in any way that is is known by this name by many Muslims, particularly some Palestinian and Jordanian Muslims. However, from everything that I've read, the name is of rather recent provenance, and was never known as such among Muslims until the foundation of modern Israel. If memory serves, it didn't really have any circulation until the last two decades or so.  from the obscure claims of Mujir al'Din that the Buraq was left there when Mohammad ascended to paradise, which itself is a legend derived from Sahih al'Bukhari, the provenance of the hadith itself being regarded by some as an addition of a later editor; that's of little relevance here, though. I see this has been mentioned on the talk page already in passing, and I don't advocate any necessity of removing it. However, the attribution itself is sixteenth century, and actual naming of it as the ""al'Buraq wall"" is incredibly recent. I think we should at the very least clarify this, add another source aside from an obviously politically motivated fatwa for the name, and perhaps move it somewhere besides the lead so we can elaborate on all of this. I just skimmed it, but I'm not even sure the fatwa actually names it as such aside from the title (nevermind, it does). For all I know, it may itself be the origin of the name, with this article helping to disseminate it. Since this, like every Jerusalem-related article, is contentious, I thought it best to get some discussion before I did anything.   

Yes, its a point of contention. See above, it is discussed both in the ""Lead"" subsection of the ""POV Issues"" section and in the ""Rashid Khalidi"" section.  

Jordanian occupation 1948–1967
I was wondering, from whom did the Jordanian capture the old city of Al-Quds and the wall? and why was the Jordanian rule over it considered occupation, while Israeli rule is considered sovereignty? I don't find this neutral? This should be changed.   
The answer is in the article.  
It is referred to as the Jordanian Occupation, because their annexation of the site was not internationally recognised, hence occupation. And while Israel's presence is also not recognised, (the last UN resolution on the matter calls for Jerusalem to be internationalised), in reality, Israel excercises its sovreignty over the site. As this matter is disputed, I did want to add a section on the current legal status of the wall and suggestions mooted during peace negotiations relating to future ownership of the site, but I could not find any good sources.   
Jordan exercised its sovereignty over the wall for the period they controlled it, i think both should be changed to sovereignty or occupation. The Israeli rule is not internationally recognised either and if I'm not incorrect then the Western wall and old city were part of the West bank. Which is under occupation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.16.207   
Jerusalem is viewed differently from the West Bank. See Positions on Jerusalem and Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan. This subject matter is so extensive and there are so many diverse ""postions"" on the subject, I am not really qualified to determine the correct descriptions. But for the sake of neutrality, I believe Yamanam does have a valid point. Even though the artricle on Jordan's rule calls it occupation, I suggest changing both to ""rule"" which would hopefuly solve the problem.   
Yes i belive that could be an acceptable compromise. i would prefer it if you did it as edits by account members are more respectable.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.16.207   
I will. But why not become an editor yourself? It only takes a second!   

Catholic bishops
I'm not sure, but maybe the article could report about the famous incident that