Talk:Religious significance of Jerusalem

message: Lets file for mediation Shamir. Although the article is unprotected, I trust you, or anyone else will not edit until through the mediation the conflict is solved.Bless sins 23:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has the mediator read the above? --Shamir1 22:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As of now, there is no mediator.Bless sins 23:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ive taken the case and have familiarised myself with the basic dispute -Ste|vertigo 08:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree to create seperate articles for the the three religions, and keeping this article, with brief due weight given to each perspective. But I don't think this is a burning issue in the debate.Bless sins 16:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It may not be a "burning issue" but appropriate separation may be helpful. -Ste|vertigo 01:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Good or ill, Ive gone ahead and done the split. Am I correct in understanding that this will move any mediation issues to the Jerusalem and Islam article? -Ste|vertigo 01:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with what you have done, although there needs to be much formatting, referencing, editing and wikifying that needs to be done to make this article better.Bless sins 18:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If this split is accepted, I don't see how any future edits of mine will be disputed. Thus, you're probably right that the dispute should be moved.Bless sins 18:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Certainly any edits you make can be disputed! If the split allows you better focus on your writing, then that is of course a good thing. -Ste|vertigo 11:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I understand that they can be disputed. I mean my edits are not likely to be disputed. But why hasn't Shamir1 responded yet? We can't proceed without him/her.Bless sins 18:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not believe that the article should be split. Many of the historical and religious ties are connected or similar for each. We would not have to write extensively for a certain issue three times. It should be one article as it has been and seems much better organized.  Also, the moving the page issue is separate from the issue of edits. Moving the page does not make the edit issue or issue of POV or accuracy to subside. --Shamir1 21:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The split has been done prematurely and too many edits have been made before consensus. It does not help since it makes us, or at least me, a bit less familiar with the article and at times confusing. The articles should be merged back at least until the dispute subsides. --Shamir1 21:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: Forgive me for saying something about this article not related to the apparently raging debate.
It occurs to me, however, to mention that, under the Jerusalem in Judiasm heading, it states "Main article: Jerusalem in Judaism," but at the top of the Jerusalem in Judaism article appears the statement "Main Article: Religious significance of Jerusalem". They can't both be the "Main" article. This is true for every section, by the way, not just Judaism. 66.66.133.188 21:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Main Article" label 

message: The article said jerusalem being the third holiest islamic site is a mainstream islamic viewpoint, but this is clearly false. Shias consider Najaf the third holiest place. Salafis disassociate from any shrines. Destruction of sacred sites in Hijaz by the Saudis, initiated by Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab continues even today, to prevent, what some consider to be the practices of grave-worshipping and revering the deads and ask favors of the dead buried there. So there is no way any Salafi scholar calls Al Aqsa 'holy' considering islamic prophets are buried there. Plus, Quranists do not accept hadith so Quranists wouldn't accept Bukhari interpretations of Jerusalem being holy either as there are different opinions on 'Al-Aqsa'.
I think i have demonstrated that Jerusalem being the third holiest site is NOT the view of 3 major denominations of Islam.  Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See discussion at Talk:Jerusalem in Islam.  Zerotalk 03:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third holiest place 

message: It says in the first line of the article: "The city of Jerusalem, located in modern-day Israel," East Jerusalem is also Jerusalem, and it is not internationally recognized as Israel. Regarding West Jerusalem, it is not even clear if that part is internationally recognized as Israel either. Suggest we just remove "located in modern-day Israel," to correct this inaccuracy. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Changes of this type are likely to be controversial, as they are in most articles that involve the status of Jerusalem.  I would suggest you get clear consensus before making any changes to the lead sentence. -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡‎ 18:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

text: I would support a change to "occupied by Israel" since that would seem acceptable to both sides as it is a description of facts on the ground.93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non neutral lead 

message: Would not a more believable place for Jerusalem in this map be Constantinople/Byzantium?  The Byzantine Empire did directly touch Europe, Asia and Africa!  Makes sense to me!
I should have added, as did the Crusader Kingdom, and the Ottoman Empire!
Regards, 96.19.147.40 (talk) 23:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  1581 Bunting clover leaf map.jpg 

message: There is currently a request for comments open about the lead section of the Jerusalem article, and all editors are welcome to give their opinions. The dispute over the lead section is one of the oldest on Wikipedia, dating back to 2003, and focuses on whether or not it is neutral to say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The discussion was mandated by the Arbitration Committee, and its result will be binding for three years. The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem, and will be open until 22 June 2013 (UTC). — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jerusalem lead RfC 

message: The subject sub-heading "In Christianity" opens as follows:
"Christianity was born around the time period 1 AD, the time of Jesus Christ: the Son of God. From 1 AD and beyond is the time period of the New Testament in the Bible. Christians believe Jesus Christ was and is the Son of God. Jesus, himself, was raised Jewish. [7] The Temple Mount is also of importance to Christians because it was a place where Jesus Christ preached and healed, which created disturbances that lead to his Crucifixion.[8]"
As a budding scholar of religion I have to contend that "Christianity" was not born around the time 1 AD. It is contested whether or not Jesus was actually born in the year 1 AD; this is merely a belief held by Christians who adhere to the arbitrary convention introduced by the Church. It is for this reason (among others) that social sciences use the term "Common Era", or CE. It is believed by historians that Jesus may have lived and done his preaching work around 30-35 CE. Christianity as a religion would have been birthed at much later date, with early Christianity emerging and having dominance around the time of Paul (roughly 30-40 years later) and then later when the Nicene creed was declared.
The sentence "Jesus, himself, was raised Jewish," also seems (at least to me) to carry with it an implication that Jesus already stands above and beyond the Jewish faith. Since that is obviously a faith-based way of looking at Jesus, it might be better to leave the Jesus/Judaism link out of this discussion entirely. It is a hotly contested and controversial topic, with secular historians on one side of the debate and fervent religionists firmly on the other.
This section of writing needs to be reviewed and redacted by an actual scholar. I have little to no citations on me at this point and I apologize for this. I am writing this in the hope that another concerned WikiCitizen will perhaps see my point and dig out the appropriate links or provide further discussion on this point. I'm currently studying for an exam in the subject, so I apologize for being lazy and turning this part of the work over to the community. I am sure, however, that there are others out there who see the biased tone and blatant lack of research and belief-based statements in this opening paragraph (amongst other points in the section).
Thank you for reading and considering this for discussion and editing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.56.173 (talk) 02:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian bias detected. 

message: This article is really weak for 2 glarinf reasons:
:1 The section on Judaism, ignores the Second Temple and further details on the significance for Jews.
:2 The section on Islam is way to heavy, but leaves out the History of how the Jerusalem actually became a holy city in Islam only after a rival faction didn't have access to Mecca.Saxophonemn (talk) 10:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Problems 

message: Is this picture really necessary? It clashes in tone with the rest, doesn't seem super relevant - and given the protestant presence in jerusalem is afaik outnumbered even by much smaller christian denominations, it's probably better to get read of it ~~~ ΟυώρντΑρτ (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alabama- the heart of dixie