Bold textI have added some remarks to the Buy section about shops in the Christian quarters. The statements are based on my own personal observations and experience. Believe it or not, it is true.Template:Ablichfeldt
It is NOT the holiest site in Judaism. The area where the Dome of the Rock is today, is the holiest site is in Judaism - which is where the Temple once stood.
Calling it simply the Noble Sanctuary is offensive to most people in the world who see the place as important in any way. Any intellectually honest historian will say that the place was the site of the Jewish Temples before it was the third holiest site in Islam (which didn't even exist at the time of the temples). This is not to belittle its importance to Islam, but presenting it in that manner makes it seem primarily Muslim and only in a very minor way connected to Judaism (and by proxy, Christianity).
Furthermore, the compound is separate from any of the quarters. If you've ever actually been to Jerusalem, it is plainly obvious. The whole thing is separate by a wall from the rest of the Old City... --User:Israelish 02 May 2006 17:12 (UTC).
It's in the Muslim Quarter map, and only Muslims are currently allowed into it, which 'right now for the traveller (our perspective, I'd like to remind you) makes it a part of the Muslim Quarter and, yes, primarily Muslim. All the current tourist attractions on the site are Muslim, while the Temple Mount -- with the notable exception of the separately covered Western Wall -- has passed into history.
That "Muslim Quarter map" was prepared by an admitted AMATEUR, username "cybjorg". Based on the following TWO PROFESSIONAL sources I have removed cybjorg's map, removed the Temple Mount from being referred to as any part of ANY quarters of the Old City, and thus suggest it is you & cybjorg who are using biased propaganda here:
To also answer cybyorg's FALSE contentions below, in which he uses the word "official" in attempts to lend a false air of Islam having authority over the site: In order for Noble Sanctuary to be its supposedly "official" title (to quote cybjorg's contention that it's "official"), the Muslims would need a national sovereign (political power) in control of that land to "officiate" over it; they do not. There is no "official" title, only a religious title that is "official" in the minds of this-or-that religion's adherents, and the Oslo Accords or other international law has yet to determine whether Old City will become part of Israel (as more residents polled currently desire that), or part of the State of Palestine... or if it will remain (per the UN's original 1940's plans) some sort of "international zone" with foreign peacekeepers to police it (until of course the UN collapses like their predecessor [The League of Nations] and it gets settled, as it always was, via WAR ;-P ).
Until we have a finalised Peace Accord, it is now de facto under Israel's sovereignty but they honor requests of The Waqf (of Jordan now, since the Palestinian Waqf got caught desecrating archaeological remains) as Israeli Police control access to the Mount; just as Israel REMOVED the Palestinan Waqf and replaced them with Jordan's Waqf, Israel's Police thusly have the FINAL say, but they allow Muslim input, especially over the interior of the buildings (as this article already decently explains), but the Temple Mount/Noble Sanctuary is NOT the same as the interiors of the buildings and this article already correctly addresses/explains those interiors as a SEPARATE matter. Its "official" status has been in limbo, ever since the 1940's at which point the last party with LEGAL sovereignty over it, the UK (won from Ottomans in WW1 as spoils of war in a jus ad bellum [legal self-defence] action, just as Israel had jus ad bellum against Egypt & Jordan because the latter 2 nations made 3 Acts of War against Israel in 1966-67 before Israel retaliated), forfeited their own [the UK's] sovereignty and left it up to the UN, and the UN, in several resolutions, left it up to bilateral negotiations (e.g. read the MINUTES of the DRAFTING of US Res 242, including insofar as "negotiations" to settle who gets which part of the lands that the UK fofeited in the 1940's), culminating in the Oslo Accords which, as the most recent part of the peace process, has left the Old City's fate, still, unresolved. Historically, the Temple Mount was built SIMULTANEOUSLY with & was a part of the Jewish Quarter...it was ALL the Jewish Quarter until imperialists (Rome & Muhammad) invaded, but TODAY's it's, again, "in limbo" and treated as such by both the largest tourist guide, Frommers, and by Oxford's archaeology tome. 126.96.36.199 04:31, 12 April 2014 (EDT)
That's my PROFESSIONALLY SOURCED and "officially" sourced answer to the following utter NONSENSE (illogicisms, and zero sources, from cybjorn, who also is childishly (and hypocritically) as biased as he accuses (correctly) Israelish of...in contrast to my position of "giving" the Temple Mount to NEITHER of these 2 "quarters" of the Old City; for me to separate the Temple Mount from BOTH Quarters Of The Old City is the very definition of a "neutral" position rather than the "bias" of both cybjorn & Israelish):
As you seem to have considerable problems treating this subject fairly, I would suggest that you raise any issues you have here before you edit. Jpatokal 10:40, 2 May 2006 (EDT)
I understand your aversion to the title, but Noble Sanctuary is the official (really? Says who? What UNBIASED party says this?) current name of the location. While it is useful and necessary to touch on the historical significance of certain locations (which this article clearly does), the goal of the article is to provide current, reliable information to visitors.
Officially (and in spite of the wall), the site is classified with the Muslim Quarter (STATE YOUR UNBIASED SOURCES who "classify" it that way; I've justed stated 2 who classify it differently, cybjorg), especially considering it is currently under Muslim control (WRONG: entry is regulated by Israeli police [Mishteret Yisrael]; see above...at least you're CONSISTENT in your reliance upon false "facts" which anyone who's actually BEEN to J'lem recently knows are falsehoods; how did you get SO brainwashed that you descend into an even MORE ridiculous claim that even laypeople/non-experts can observe to be false? Sorry for interjecting comments in order to call out your FACTUALLY-BASELESS propaganda, but in this paragraph you're making a fuckin DISGRACE out of wikitravel). All but one of the entrances to the mount open to the Muslim Quarter, and non-Muslims are only allowed access by a single gate above the Western Wall (True, but again by ISRAELI police controlling access to at ALL gates to the Mount as well as policing all outdoor areas of the Temple Mount). For ease of classification, most guide books will group it with Muslim Quarter "attractions" (I just showed Frommer's, the biggest, and Oxford's archaeologist, saying the opposite; you have cited ZERO of these "guide books"). - Cybjorg 10:48, 2 May 2006 (EDT)
We document things as they appear today because that is what matters to the traveler -- and we have a policy, The traveller comes first. So if the signposts to the attraction say "Noble Sanctuary", or if "Noble Sanctuary" is what you need to say to locals to get directions, then that is what we use so the traveller can find the attraction. "Official" viewpoints and "the way things ought to be" carry no weight when they are in opposition to the facts on the ground. This is the same reasoning that leads us to call Jerusalem the capital of Israel -- because International Opinion is irrelevant when compared to the facts on the ground. (You are ignoring the actual "facts on the ground" which are that >95% of English-speakers [This is the "/en" part of Wikitravel last I checked...] when they visit this destination aren't going to be using the Muslim-only entrances (Muslim-only=apartheid, as Israeli Police voluntarily honor per the preferences of Muslim visitors), these English-speakers will nearly all use that "only entrance for non-Muslims" instead [thus a small note about calling it the "Noble Sanctuary" is ok, but mainly should be referred to as "Temple Mount" as that's what most English documents...including Frommers...mainly refer to it as, yet again documenting your usage of false "facts" by saying that "on the ground," most people reading this ENGLISH webpage will call it the hilariously esoteric "Noble Sanctuary" despite that Frommer's calls it "Temple Mount" as do most other MAINSTREAM...i.e. non-Muslim...travel guides]," and the Anglophones who USUALLY/mainly call it "Temple Mount" include most of Israel's police who have de facto control over the Mount and are who any tourists will deal with if they either cause trouble or are being victimised at this tourist-destination [THAT de-facto control=the "facts on the ground"].) See also Transnistria. -- Colin 11:26, 2 May 2006 (EDT)
Incorrect - more signs say הר הבית than anything else. And geographically (depsite any map someone has posted on here - it is more in the Jewish quarter than in the Muslim Quarter. AND more than one entrance is allowed for non-Muslims, for example the one IN the muslim quarter is open Sun-Thurs 9:30-11 and 12-13:30 (or something along those hours). Furthermore - who is allowed in does not determine what quarter it is in (IT IS NO QUARTER), that argument holds no water - JEWS are the ones deciding who and when is allowed in anyway. Lastly, if something is blatantly false, it should be corrected, not discussed with the person who was mistaken in the first place. --Israelish 18:38, 03 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but we do actually like to discuss things that are in contention. If things were really that clear, we wouldn't be having this little chat, right? It's kinda hard to argue that there's nothing to argue about ;-) It sounds like you have a lot of good first-hand information, we just want to make sure that what folks read here is going to be directly helpful for visitors. Thanks Majnoona 14:12, 3 May 2006 (EDT)
If you can prove that the other gates are opened at specific times of the week, feel free to edit the hours of operation. However, these times tend to change on a whim, so maintaining current facts are important. I verified the currently posted information a week ago. - Cybjorg 14:45, 3 May 2006 (EDT)
Also keep in mind that the information contained in the Western Wall section needs to relevantly relate to the Wall itself (with a brief explanation of its history) and not the history of the Temple Mount. - Cybjorg 14:49, 3 May 2006 (EDT)
The reason that the Temple Mount is a tourist attraction is BECAUSE of its history (both Jewish and otherwise) ~duhhhh~, so I again fail to see any logic in cybjorg's position, but rather what seems a deliberate attempt to "whitewash" anything relating to Jews having built the mount & the FACT that Judaism IS the original religion that spawned the other religions who, today, also revere the Mount. Unlike cybjorg, I'm unbiased enough to say it's ok to include the history of all religions (including Islam), so long as it RELATES to their activity at the Temple Mount which tourists might find interesting.188.8.131.52 04:46, 12 April 2014 (EDT)
The Western Wall is not a remnant of the Temple. It was never a part of the Temple itself - but of the containing wall of the compound otherwise known as Temple Mount. Also, Jews ARE allowed into Temple Mount. --Israelish
I clarified that the Wall is part of the Temple Mount and not the temple itself, although I doubt this would have been taken out of context by too many people. The following sentance expounds that it is part of the retaining wall for the site. Concerning Jews visiting the site, the only ones I know who are allowed are the ones guarding the gates. Either way, the point being made is that Jews are not allowed to worship on the site, so they have reverted to praying at the wall for logical reasons. - Cybjorg 14:41, 3 May 2006 (EDT)
I have replaced 'Israeli occupation of' with 'Israel assumed control of the Old City in.' Perhaps the first version reflects the view of many, nonetheless it is POV, and an extremely contentious matter.
I came to this and the other Jerusalem articles preparing for my second visit there, and find the scope of this one confusing. It rightly sets out the definition of the Old City as the bit within the walls, but then spends quite a significant part of the article discussing things that are outside it.
Some of this, e.g. The Garden Tomb should, to my mind, be in the East Jerusalem article, and the coverage in the Old City one may account for the stubbiness of the East Jerusalem one. However, the other big section is the Mount of Olives part. I'm not sure whether most people would see that as East Jerusalem or as a separate area in its own right. Given the 'traveller first' approach here, I would guess the latter?
Happy to 'plunge forward' and do some reordering, but am not up to creating a whole new entry based on a template if people agree the is what is needed for Mount of Olives.Matruman 08:30, 26 January 2012 (EST)