Talk:Temple Mount

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Edit request 27 January 2026

Description of suggested change: I propose to add this link to the external links: What is the temple mount? Chabad.org. It is the Jewish traditional view of the temple mount. Motteleh (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: The Chabad website is not a reliable source for general information about Judaism. Please stop adding links to it everywhere. You were previously warned about this on your talk page but are continuing with the same behavior. Day Creature (talk) 05:35, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Canaanite?

Regarding a recent reversion made to this article by User:ADeeperUnderstanding, see discussion at Talk:Yeho'ezer ben Hosh'ayahu seal#Language. Please comment there if any objections to a link being made in this and related articles to the article Canaanite and Aramaic seal inscriptions. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:56, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Edit request 23 March 2026

Description of suggested change: the hebrew transliteration is incorrect, it should read "Har Habayit" not "Har Hab-Bayit" the word Har means mountain and Bayit means house, with the prefix Ha meaning the, Hab doesnt mean anything. Sunshineshimmer (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

It's quite normal for the definite determiner in Semitic languages, ~like /ha/ in this case, to be separated from the following word by a dash during romanization, so the dash should remain unless there's an established practice on Wikipedia to do otherwise. But indeed I don't know why there's an extra "b" at the end of "Ha-". I'm not a speaker of Hebrew so I'll wait for now in case another knowledgeable editor knows a good reason why it's there; if not, then the first "b" should be removed. R Prazeres (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Partly done: Yeah I'm not gonna touch the dash but after checking it seems pretty obvious to me that "hab" is a typo; sources all give it as one B. I've changed it as I'm confident about this, but as I said I didn't touch the dash so I'm marking this as partly done. ―Maltazarian ^{(talk$\lor$investigate)} 14:29, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

It's not a typo. The bet has a dagesh indicating gemination of the consonant. The gemination can be transliterated using a second "b". The first "b" sound is pronounced at the back of the first syllable, and the second at the start of the second syllable, for hab-bayit.

Gemination of a begedkefet letter in Hebrew is not typically pronounced in this way today, so hab-bayit is not a phonetic transliteration of a modern accent, and it's arguably too technical for purpose. We don't have a style-guide for these transliterations, although I've tried to organize one several times. I'm reverting for now but if anyone understands this subject and still opposes the second "b" I'm happy to go along. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

This is not my area of expertise, I was not aware of there being an actual reasoning behind it, my apologies. That being said, I cannot see "Har hab-Bayiṯ" used anywhere, but also pretty much everywhere uses "HaBayit" rather than ha-Bayiṯ so I guess my version wasn't exactly compliant with that either. Honestly I'm completely certain you know more about this than me, considering you provided a technical description of why this transliteration was used and that you've tried to get a style guide on this before. Also you're literally called "GordonGlottal". All this is to say I've got no interest in fighting you on this one. I'm glad I did the bold edit though because at least we got ourselves an answer to this thing now. ―Maltazarian ^{(talk$\lor$investigate)} 18:17, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I second that sentiment. Thank you to all above for looking at this, thank you GordonGlottal for the explanation. No objection on my end. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

IIRC a lot of similar transliterations were added several years ago by the since-blocked @Zhomron. What we really need is a style guide. In the absence of one, I usually tell editors to use Charles Loder's hebrewtransliteration.app, which will almost always generate an accurate and consistent transliteration. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I still feel that Hab-Bayit is incorrect. Hebrew is a modern language as well as an ancient one, and hebrew speakers don't generally write out consonants like that, even stressed ones. Additionally the dagesh in the letter here doesn't necessarily double it, because the letter bet changes sound from a "v" to a "b" when it takes a dagesh. The use of the hyphen also makes it look like two separate words with fully pronounced “b” sounds, whereas the actual pronunciation is closer to “Ha-bbayit.” Sunshineshimmer (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

It's a Biblical Hebrew phrase though, not modern. The modern word wouldn't be worth mentioning in our lede. There are two different types of dagesh. The kind that distinguishes between v/b is called dagesh lene, while the kind that distinguishes b/bb is dagesh forte. Dagesh lene is usually not transcribed in academic contexts because it has no semantic value, but dagesh forte often does. Dagesh lene in bet (v/b) is pronounced in modern accents, but dagesh forte (b/bb) is not. Modern Hebrew speakers say "habayit", but a medieval Masorete would have said "Hab-bayit".

Personally my main concern with this scheme is that it camouflages the etymology to some readers, who would recognize the definite article "ha-" but have difficulty parsing "hab-bayit". Separating out the prefix with a dash is kind of defeated by it. But probably the same people can read Hebrew script. GordonGlottal (talk) 13:01, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Indicating gemination at the beginning of the word after definite article may be a technically correct idea, but virtually nobody does it. Even those who indicate gemination in the middle of the word write "haShabbat" and not "hashShabbat" or anything like this. Similarly, HaKotel HaMa'aravi and not hakKotel hamMa'aravi, Rosh Hashanah and not Rosh Hashshanah (both festival and Talmudic tractate etc. There's no reason to treat this transcription differently from these examples, hence "Har ha-Bayit" (of Har HaBayit, Har Habayit, whatever).--Shlomo (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

@GordonGlottal You got any input? –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 23:10, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I would definitely distinguish between ~Modern Hebrew phrases like "hakol hama'aravi" and classical phrases like "har habbayit", which it's reasonable to offer with reconstructed pronunciations. Even setting aside general rules, we know that the Secunda of Origen transliterates this exact word αββαιθ (Abbayith) with a double bet. And you can certainly find many other examples on wiki, like hašŠīrīm at Song of Songs or haq-Qŏḏāšim at Holy of Holies. I feel strongly that we shouldn't be influenced by modern pronunciations when we transliterate these phrases, but I don't have much of an opinion about how technical the reconstruction should be.

I think "Shabbat" is influenced by English phonetics; cf. the common use of "Hannukah" to indicate a long a vowel, which does not reflect gemination. GordonGlottal (talk) 00:30, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, I would definitely not distinguish between them. First, I see nothing reasonable in using “reconstructed” (which intrinsicly means theoretical and almost always disputed) pronunciation as a starting point for transcription of a language which exists and in spite of some devolopement, its main body of vocabulary has remained in use until today; to such an extent that school children can read thousands year old texts and generally understand their meaning. The present Hebrew has a well documented pronunciation and even some widely accepted standards for transliteration to English. Of course the article can contain a section about history and etymology of the name, where different transcriptions can be presented; the introductory section though is not an appropriate place for presentation of infrequent or confusing name forms.

Second, I don't understand how would you distinguish a “Modern Hebrew phrase” from a “classical” one. Both “bayit” and “kotel” have been used for centuries, in fact, you can find both of them side by side in one Mishnah (Oholot 3:1 and then again 6:1). What renders one of them classic and the other one modern? What about Rosh HaShanah, Chol HaMoed, Birkat HaGomel, Eleazer HaKohen, Yehudah HaLevi etc. – are they classical or modern?

Occurences on Wikipedia can hardly serve as an argument, because there are other (and more) examples whitout doubling the first letter, and Wikipedia is not a reliable source anyway… I agree that such examples can be found outside, but they are waste minority and mostly in specialized texts on linguistics or textual critics, rarely in general descriptions.

I sincerely don't understand your point in the “Hannukah” argument: Which vowel should be long, how is it indicated, and how does it relate to the current discussion? Anyway, the transcription “Hannukah” doesn't make much sense; I assume it is a typo from “Hanukkah” (like: I remember some letter should be doubled and I guess it is the n…), the same for “Hannukkah”, which you can also find quite often. Shlomo (talk) 09:55, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

There's no reason to include an alternative Modern Hebrew name in this wiki lede. We include הר הבית only because of its status as historic/original. We should therefore offer a historic/original transliteration. By contrast, phrases which are included because of their importance/origin in Modern Hebrew should receive modern-accent transliterations. GordonGlottal (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Hebrew should be placed before Arabic.

The Hebrew name should be put before the Arabic name, because the site is an original Jewish site and is the original and older name, the Arabic name is newer so it should be placed second also because it is a derived from the Hebrew name. The person who also put the Arabic name first has been warned for also changing names on other pages under the guise of alphabetical order but has done it for political activism and not following Wikipedia’s NPOV (see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Prosnu#h-Avoiding_activism-20250329030900) They are the ones who made this edit too. NPOV violations under the guise of alphabetical ordering for activist purposes shouldn’t be tolerated. It was also a long standing policy of Wikipedia to have the Hebrew name before the Arabic name. ~2026-41498-53 (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done Regioncalifornia (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

NY Wrong reason!

Neither historical antiquity ("who was here first") nor current administrative control ("who administers the site today") determines name ordering under WP:NPOV. Wikipedia does not rank languages to validate theological claims or political control.

The reason the Hebrew gloss appears alongside "Temple Mount" is simply structural under MOS:LEADALT: the English title of this article is "Temple Mount" (which translates Har HaBayit). When both prominent names are presented in the lead:

The Temple Mount or al-Haram al-Sharif (Biblical Hebrew: הַר הַבַּיִת, romanized: Har hab-Bayiṯ, Arabic: الحَرَم الشَّرِيف, romanized: al-Ḥaram aš-Šarīf or الأَقْصَى, al-Aqṣā) …

the native terms mirror the bolded English terms in sequence. Both Hebrew and Arabic designations are granted full, neutral prominence reflecting their equal significance in reliable academic sources and the living traditions of both faiths. Saippuakauppias ⇄ 01:02, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 12 September 2026 : Temple Mount → Haram al-Sharif

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. The opening argument was clearly written by an LLM, and there hasn't been any support for the proposal after nearly a week. Therefore, I think it's safe to close this per WP:HATGPT and WP:SNOW. Of course, the original proposer or any other editor is free to start a new move request so long as they do not use AI to write the opening argument. - ZLEA ^TǀC 03:06, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

---

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Temple Mount → ? – I propose moving this page from Temple Mount to Haram al-Sharif (or alternatively, adopting the dual designation Haram al-Sharif / Temple Mount), retaining all appropriate redirects.

While "Temple Mount" has long served as the title, evaluating the article against Wikipedia's official title criteria (WP:CRITERIA)—specifically WP:NPOVNAME, precision, and its preponderance in contemporary academic literature—strongly supports a move.

1. Physical Scope and Historical Reality As the article's contents demonstrate, the vast majority of the text details the architectural, religious, administrative, and political history of the 35-acre walled esplanade from the 7th century CE to the present day. The physical monuments standing on the site, the Dome of the Rock, the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the Ottoman fountains, Mamluk madrasas, and gates, constitute the living Islamic sanctuary known historically and administratively as al-Haram al-Sharif (or the *al-Aqsa compound*).

The ancient Jewish sanctuaries destroyed in antiquity already have dedicated, comprehensive articles (Solomon's Temple and Second Temple). Titling the overarching article for the physical plateau "Temple Mount" defines an active, 1,300-year-old architectural complex exclusively by an ancient structure that has not physically existed there for nearly two millennia.

2. Academic Sourcing and Neutrality (WP:NPOVNAME and WP:RS) In contemporary peer-reviewed scholarship across geography, art history, and Middle Eastern studies (e.g., works by Michael Dumper, Vincent Lemire, Nazmi al-Jubeh, and Oleg Grabar), the site is consistently treated under the designation al-Haram al-Sharif or through the neutral dual designation Haram al-Sharif / Temple Mount.

Per WP:NPOVNAME, Wikipedia seeks titles that convey a neutral point of view rather than adopting a designation that implies exclusive historical or religious continuity for one group. The title "Temple Mount" directly translates the Hebrew Har HaBayit, privileging the Jewish historical narrative over an active site that has served as a central Islamic holy place under Waqf custody for centuries.

3. Administrative and International Precedent The esplanade is administratively governed by the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf under Hashemite Custodianship, recognized in the 1994 Israel–Jordan peace treaty. In international diplomatic and cultural heritage contexts, including the UNESCO World Heritage Committee documentation for the Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls, the precinct is formally registered and referenced as Al-Haram ash-Sharif or Al-Aqsa Mosque / Al-Haram Al-Sharif.

4. Addressing Common Name (WP:COMMONNAME) While "Temple Mount" is prevalent in Western media coverage, WP:COMMONNAME does not mandate selecting a term that undermines WP:NPOVNAME, geographical precision, or descriptive accuracy for contested global heritage sites. In academic literature on Islamic architecture, Ottoman Jerusalem, and Levant history, "Haram al-Sharif" is already the dominant, recognized terminology.

Renaming the lemma to Haram al-Sharif (or the balanced composite Haram al-Sharif / Temple Mount) aligns the title with the actual physical subject of the article and adheres more closely to Wikipedia's core neutrality policies. Saippuakauppias ⇄ 11:48, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Middle Ages has been notified of this discussion. —RMCD bot 12:16, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Oppose agree with nominator that Temple Mount is the common name. Given the odd formatting and understanding of titling guidelines, I also recommend they read WP:LLMTALK. Whether Al-Haram Al-sharif is used predominantly in three obscure academic fields is irrelevant considering almost everyone uses Temple Mount in English. 1brianm7 (talk) 04:02, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME: in English, "Temple Mount" is clearly the common name. Academic use of "Haram al-Sharif" in some fields does not override that for the article title. WP:NPOVNAME is not a reason to drop the common English name when both names can appear in the lead. There is also an article called Al Aqsa (same as Haram al-Sharif) which covers the Islamic platform on the Temple Mount. Finally, the nomination reads like LLM-generated text (structure, wording, double signature). See WP:AITALK, WP:HATGPT. Happy if an uninvolved editor collapses the opening statement or snow-closes if there is no support. Eliezer1987 (talk) 06:19, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Never heard of this place, and the title is super confusing. Its just temple mount spelled with capital initials (which for some reason redirects here?!). To me a temple mount is just a holy hill of any kind. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 23:39, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Oppose also llm af. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:46, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.