User:IZAK/Temple names motions

Building and destroying the Beit Hamikdash

Looking over the articles relating to the Temple in Jerusalem, there is lots of confusion, some stemming from opposing secular and religious scholarly outlooks, but more so from various editors making major contributions over the course of a decade and creating and running parallel articles about what should be one topic. This is the situation at the moment:

1. Temple in Jerusalem is the over-all article. So far so good, but it does not connect with so many other articles about its own subject matter, essentially the First and Second Temples. There should really be more about its name and place in Judaism over the millennia as the Beit Hamikdash - "House of Holiness" that was built for, functioned for, existed for, was destroyed for, and prayed for by the Jewish people.
2. The First Temple article is at Solomon's Temple which reads like a Christian exposition and not like the holiest Jewish house of worship and sanctity that it was, while the Second Temple article is at Second Temple of Jerusalem. This is inconsistent. In addition, there is also a separate and parallel article for the Second Temple at Herod's Temple since Herod's Temple was an extension of the Second Temple.
3. When trying to place the destruction of the First and Second Temples, which according to Judaism occurred on Tisha B'Av, with the general dates for their destruction in Jewish history conventionally given as 586 BCE and 70 CE, when one tries to look for the times relating to the destruction of the First Temple, there is no linkage to the subject matter of the Jewish version such as the build up from The Three Weeks and The Nine Days but rather the Solomon's Temple/First Temple article links to Siege of Jerusalem (597 BC) which cites "Babylonian chronicles" (published by Donald Wiseman in 1956) making no mention of the accepted Jewish chronology and observances relating to the same time-frame. In fact it uses the Jewish-sounding months in the non-Jewish Babylonian time-frame. (The names were originally from Babylonia, but not the actual concepts and months themselves which were of Mosaic origin in the Torah itself). With more articles like this from non-Torah sources each with their own POV of course.
4. The only "normally named" Temple is the Third Temple, which does not even exist! While the First Temple and Second Temple have still not earned the honor of a clear-cut and clearly identifiable name and articles for themselves.

This is a big job. But to start, please see how the article about the First Temple/Solomon's Temple can be improved by inserting into it more Jewishly relevant material about it's destruction that incorporates the timely themes of Seventeenth of Tammuz; The Three Weeks; The Nine Days; Tisha B'Av. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the First Temple is better known as Solomon's Temple in English. That explains the name and why First Temple redirects to it. Debresser (talk) 07:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

But not according to Judaism to which it belongs. It's about the Jewish First Temple not about how or what it's called according to an English or non-Jewish or secular POV. That's precisely my point. In Judaism, both temples are referred to as the Beit Hamikdash (or Bais Hamikdosh) collectively and more specifically as the Bayis Rishon -- "First Temple" (Bayis meaning "house" or "temple" of course) and Bayis Sheni -- Second Temple and the articles should reflect those facts and not what's "English" or what's imposed on it artificially. First Temple and Second Temple are also perfectly well-understood terms in English hence Second Temple of Jerusalem that should really suffice with Second Temple (Judaism) and nothing's wrong with First Temple (Judaism) or with Third Temple (Judaism) (for the Third Temple article). IZAK (talk) 07:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

In favor of changing to consistent names according to Judaism:

1. First Temple (Judaism) for all topics relating to this article.
2. Second Temple (Judaism) for all topics relating to this article.
3. Third Temple (Judaism) for all topics relating to this article.

That would make sense and be consistent. IZAK (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Why do we need to disambig here? Why not just First Temple? I also am leaning towards keeping Solomon's Temple. (It's common name in Hebrew does not dictate its common name in English...?) Chesdovi (talk) 09:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Chesdovi: Well I agree that "First Temple" is good, but to avoid any confusion, and to create clarity too, First Temple (Judaism) makes it 100% clear what the subject is. This is not about a mere "disambig" either -- it's about consistent naming. And it's not just about the outward names and labels "Solomon's Temple" versus "First Temple" alone because there are many connecting topics here that bolster the usage of "First Temple" over "Solomon's Temple". Let's look at Google. While there seems to be near parity between 334,000 hits for Solomons Temple (bolstered by the fact that many sites are using Wikipedia's article!) there are 294,000 hits for First Temple making them almost equal on this scale. Now, if you look at the subject in its proper context, not just as a "Solomonic production" but as the core and symbol of an entire era, then the name of "First Temple" is bolstered and backed up by the fact that the predominant term used is by far "First Temple" over anything else: 151,000 hits for First Temple Era (with only 2 hits for Solomon's Temple era I kid thee not!) and while there are 23,100 hits for First Temple period there are just 4 hits for Solomon's Temple period!; there are an astounding 442,000 hits for Destruction of the First Temple and more such as 44,800 hits for Destruction of the First Temple in Jerusalem, (while in comparison there are only 36,700 hits for Destruction of Solomon's Temple); and there are 144,000 hits for Building of the First Temple while there are 179,000 hits for Building King Solomon's Temple many that dwell on secular perspectives such as the Masons and whatnot and nothing to do with Judaism. Bottom line, these few example show that while on a few occasions there is parity, especially when talking about the structure itself, but when the focus is on the broader symbolic. religious and historical role then First Temple is the leading term not just in Judaism but has a broader acceptance. IZAK (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not about Hebrew names, or we'd be speaking about First House and Second House, it's about applying the names that Jews use, which are more logical since they use them much more, to the generality, to avoid confusion, as the proposal said. It's as good an idea as the one to pick neutral names for disputed geographical regions. --ACogloc 11:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

In favor:

• IZAK (talk) 08:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
• I grew up speaking English and don't ever remember hearing the first Temple called Solomon's Templae - I am sure I heard the phrase or read it, I just do not remember. My memory, and what I am used to today, is people just calling it "The Temple" if people are speaking generally, or "the First Temple" when in the context of a larger discussion of the Second Temple. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
• Agree. "Solomon's Temple" is probably more used in academia, but it is certainly Bayis Rishon and Bayis Sheini for believing Jews. Let's make a redirect for Solomon's Temple to First Temple (Judaism). Yoninah (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
• Agree, almost. Since there are those who, unlike myself, deny that it was built by Solomon, it does not make sense to call it Solomon's Temple. I am unsure about "Third Temple". I guess that would be all right, if the first paragraph points out that it is more of a concept than a number. Depending how you count, one could say there were several "second temples"; one may still yet be built. I am also unsure about putting Judaism in parentheses - it makes it sound like this article is only for Jewish viewpoints. Perhaps Holy Temple in Jerusalem (First). (I would prefer Original, Rebuilt, and Future, but I doubt anyone would go along with that.)Mzk1 (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Hi Mzk: Firstly there already is one over-all article for all the temples at Temple in Jerusalem that should really serve as a kind of summation page as does the Judaism article for example. Secondly, the Solomon's Temple article as it stands now is a confusing hodge-podge of conflicting data that obscures what the subject in fact is. It mixes terminology and comes of sounding like a dialogue rather than something encyclopedic and definitive. Thirdly, the point of having "Judaism" in parenthesis would be to deal with the vast amounts of Jewish information first about this Jewish temple central to both ancient and later Judaism. Finally, there can be other articles such as Christian views of the Temples in Jerusalem or Islamic views of the Temples in Jerusalem if need be since those religions do deal with that subject, but Wikipedia should not be trying to compact mountains of conflicting information into one or two articles causing confusion. IZAK (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
    • If that's the plan, I have no problem with it.Mzk1 (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• One question: Even if one accepts the Greek Chronology, does the year 586, as opposed, say, to 590, have any historical meaning, or is it entirely based on Christian interpretations of Daniel?Mzk1 (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The dating I mention here is not final, there are debates and differences even among Jewish Torah scholars. But the "586 BCE" and the "70 CE" dates are the ones in popular use, while not being the final word and not claiming to be. IZAK (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
    • 586 BCE is a scholarly date based not on Christian interpretation but analysis of extra-Biblical records such as those of the Babylonians. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
      • What I mean is 586 versus, say, 590. The date seems too specific to have any meaning; the Roman calender was certainly messed up for many years. Does anyone have a source explaining who and how this very specific date came about? I would love to be proven wrong.Mzk1 (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• Agree As there were no other major Judeo-Christian religions for the entirety of the first temple and 98% of the second temple, it makes sense to follow the Jewish tradition in naming the article. -- Avi (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• Agree to rename to First Temple. Adding (Judaism) looks tacky and is quite frankly unnecesary. I also suggest merging Herods Temple and Second Temple. Chesdovi (talk) 16:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• I agree that Solomon's Temple should be moved to First Temple and Second Temple of Jerusalem should be moved to Second Temple. I think Herod's Temple is too long to be merged into Second Temple and should stay where it is (although its lede should mention the Second Temple). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Hi Malik: Herod's Temple is just another name for a time period in the Second Temple. Like Solomon's Temple its name implies that it is somehow of, for and by "Herod" when basically what Herod did, and received great acclaim from the Jewish sages of his time (even though he was of questionable Jewish background himself) was to improve, beautify and build up the Second Temple. In modern terminology he gave the Second Temple a huge face-lift and massive upgrade. After all the Second Temple was authorized and even financed by Persia's Cyrus the Great who allowed the prophet Ezra to return to the Land of Israel (Judea) and rebuild it. Yet the common name for the Second Temple is neither Ezra's Temple nor Herod's Temple, although a very small number of sources do refer to the Second Temple and its start as "Ezra's Temple" (1,890 Google hits for Ezra's Temple). Therefore, a way should be found to subsume "Herod's" Temple (as a sub-heading) to the Second Temple (the main article for this this topic) as a clear-cut sub-section and sub-topic, such as Second Temple and Herod or Herod and the rebuilding of the Second Temple to which the Herod's Temple articles should be redirected. IZAK (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Hi IZAK. I respectfully disagree. Herod rebuilt the Second Temple and greatly expanded the Temple Mount, he didn't just refurbish the existing Temple. The new structure is frequently referred to in English as Herod's Temple to distinguish it from the Second Temple that had existed since the time of Ezra. In my opinion, Herod's Temple is long enough that merging it into Second Temple would unbalance that article. But my view seems to be a minority opinion here. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Malik: Let me clarify myself. I agree with you that the material in the Herod's Temple article is too great to fit into one Second Temple article and I am not suggesting that such an attempt should be made. But I disagree with you that Herod's Temple is divorced from the reality and notion of the Second Temple. The problem here is that while in classical Judaism and its sources Herod is given credit and praise for his refurbishment and expansion of the Second Temple, the more secular and Christian sources tend to talk in terms of Herod's Temple because he was so close to the Roman era on the eve of the birth of Jesus and is described by Josephus' historical records. So this needs to be treated carefully. The first paragraph in his article at Herod the Great already tries to bridge the names of "Herod's Temple" with "Second Temple": "He is also known for his colossal building projects in Jerusalem and other parts of the ancient world, including the rebuilding of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, sometimes referred to as Herod's Temple." In any case in classical Judaism throughout the last two millennia the Second Temple is called just that, the "Bayit Sheni" almost without exception, and this is after all the Jewish Second Temple. IZAK (talk) 06:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Agree to rename it to First Temple. As a Jew, I have never used the name of Solomon's Temple, it's just a popular name for Indiana Jones movies, as is coke for the respective brands. You can never speak of the two Temples at the same time, it has to be clarified which it is. --ACogloc 11:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• Provisionally agree I certainly agree that First Temple is not more used in scholarly literature. However, before the switch is made, is there an place where you could check with active Christians who edit? These are pages children in Christian schools use, to write reports and stuff. We don't want to cause unnecessary resentments and I am not certain how pious Christians will react to the change, because the Temple of Solomon is certainly how this building has been discussed in English Lo these many centuries. Ever since Tyndale.AMuseo (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Disagree:

• We should have only one article about each of the templates, and that can only be a general article, not a "Jewish" or "Christian" article. Therefore we can not use a stricly "Jewish" name as "The First Temple" instead of the better know "Solomon's Temple". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs) [1]
  • "Templates" or "Temples"? What are you talking about? The First and Second Temples were only Jewish temples, were they not? Christians did not worship there. They did not even exist! And Certainly not Muslims! The Babylonians and Romans, who were pagan people and had all manner of deities and beliefs now long forgotten, and who destroyed both temples should then have their views about the temples put in in parity with the Jewish views to interpret what the Temples were, which would be absurd. Like having the Nazis give a long treatise about the correctness of The Holocaust and the Auschwitz (you do agree that the destruction of the two temples and the butchery and exile of the Jewish people by the Babylonians and then by the Romans was proportionally and quantitatively on a par with the Nazis or perhaps even worse don't you? If not, check the historical facts.) Likewise, no one in their right minds says that the Vatican (center and holiest place in Catholicism) and the Kaaba (center and holiest place in Islam) "must" have the views of Judaism crammed into their articles and no doubt many Jewish scholars have lots to say about both the Vatican and the Kaaba. So first things first and everything in its right place, and while all views do have their place SOMEWHERE, the starting point for any subject must be what it primarily was and is in its original context and in this case the First and Second Temples were of and for and by the Jewish people as part of their Judaism mandated by their observance of the Torah and its 613 Mitzvot (almost a third dealing with the sacrificial offerings in the temple/s and other observances in them over a span of 800+ years that they stood). Christians and Muslims and other faiths do not claim that the Jewish Temples were "theirs" or "holy" on the contrary, Christianity asserts that Jesus was "the last sacrificial offering" and that there is no further need for a "Temple" of any kind and that the Pope rules as his "vicar of Christ" from the Vatican in the heart of Rome in Italy, while Islam has it first and second holy places in Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia. Only Jews and Judaism fervently cling to the original and ongoing beliefs and religious precepts that there was a First and Second Temple and pray for a Third with the coming of the true Jewish messiah. IZAK (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Against voting:

• I do not think it is proper to start voting about things right away. Wikipedia is for discussion and consensus, and relies on those rather than on voting. This is a Wikipedia guideline! Debresser (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Calm down, take it easy. We are not "polling" because this is obviously very much a discussion that has only begun that also allows for a summation of editors' views. As the song says, "We've only just begun"! These are necessary steps in building and adhering to WP:CONSENSUS before anything is done with such major topics and articles. ("Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making" from WP:CONSENSUS in a nutshell.) IZAK (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Entire section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/WikiProject Judaism pagemoves to save space on the WP:ANI page and to centralize discussion. Additionally, at 186KB, it doesn't make sense to place in a numbered archive page. –MuZemike 17:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Pagemove consensus formed on Wikiproject page

Perhaps there is nothing wrong with this, but I think the normal procedures have been circumvented. A page about something connected to Judaism (but also to classical antiquity and Christianity) being moved to a more Jew-centric article title with a discussion on Wikiproject:Judaism (Here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#Building_and_destroying_the_Beit_Hamikdash) instead of on the talkpage through the normal "requested moves" process.

I left a comment here: Talk:Second_Temple_(Judaism)#Page_move and notified the mover, but would appreciate some admin feedback.

This appears to affect multiple pages.

Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why they did that, WikiProjects don't own article or decide their names. Feel free to list it at WP:RM to get a discussion beyond a single WikiProject. Fences&Windows 23:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Is that the only way to handle it? It would reverse the burden of proof, so that if there is no consensus it stays at the new address. --FormerIP (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the page move should be undone, and proper discussion to take place. The discussion and a vote was started at pretty much the same time, and the person who started the discussion decided the outcome. Apart from the temple articles, it was only judaism related pages that were notified, and I do not know why this wasn't listed at WP:RM. Quantpole (talk) 08:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Quantpole: It is only logical and correct to assume that a subject that primarily concerns Judaism and is critically important to it should be centralized at that subject's main project talk page as was done. Every religion's project talk page need not have been notified. Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc etc etc do not identify Judaism editors when holding serious discussions about topics that are central to their religions. Otherwise it would have become a real spam fest to notify dozens of pages when already ten had been. WP:RM need also not have been notified because at the outset the redirects and page moves could have been done by anyone in any case because at the time First Temple (Judaism), Second Temple (Judaism), Third Temple (Judaism) were all empty red links. (They have now been trimmed to the more neutral sounding, but still objectively correct First Temple, Second Temple, Third Temple.) "Proper discussion" as you call it did take place starting over two weeks ago and it was quite comprehensive. The outcome was decided by the consensus and the votes were a clear-cut and precise way of measuring and recording the outcome as each user either commented or voted or both. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, there's no point really going repeatedly over what should or shouldn't have been done (apart from that I encourage you to read WP:VOTE). However, now that there are concerns, the correct thing to do should be to reopen discussion to properly achieve consensus. To avoid a fait accompli in case consensus is not achieved, the old titles should be kept for now. Quantpole (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi again Quantpole: So far you and user FormerIP have that position that flies in the face of legitimate discussions and a clarifying vote that reached consensus and that even admin Fram (see below) has not done what you think based it seems more on WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT than anything else, which is not good enough. Admin Fram has been more reasonable and made the most neutral changes that everyone can agree to at this time. User FormerIP expressed some concerns and at that he mis-stated them when he said that there had been "no discussion" which has been proven to be false. Not only were there lengthy discussions but it was also proven and cited in the discussions that based on Google hits the terms First Temple, Second Temple and Third Temple are the most commonly and frequently used, and that one lone user's weak and unfounded complaint cannot be a basis for overturning the learned opinions of multiple users who supported and agreed to the changes, namely:

1. Slrubenstein,
2. Yoninah,
3. Mzk1,
4. Avraham,
5. Chesdovi,
6. Malik Shabazz,
7. ACogloc,
8. AMuseo

The above provided more than adequate consensus and it would be horrendous to call their votes into question. IZAK (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• All I am saying is now that the process you used has been called into question, the discussion should be reopened so that users outside of judaism related topics have the opportunity to comment. I am not calling anyone's opinion into question, and have not even expressed an opinion on the subject matter (I'd have to do some research first). Quantpole (talk) 07:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Quantpole: I have gone to great lengths to explain the background to these moves, something that the one complaining was not even aware of when he started his complaint. While at least eight users have agreed to the moves, only one has raised some questions now. We have gone back and forth and an admin has already made a useful decision, (see Fram's decision below) with good changes that are certainly very agreeable, reasonable and meet all aspects of WP:NPOV. That seems like a good way to end the matter for now. You are standing on the sidelines, admitting that you need to do more research, so why not go and do the research first and then come back when you are ready and your views will be gladly welcomed, but for now it serves no purpose. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
    • This is going nowhere, and you are not getting the point at all. The next step will be to list them at WP:RM. Quantpole (talk) 10:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
      • No it won't because an admin (Fram, below) has already reviewed the entire case and made the requisite WP:NPOV adjustments already. You are veering into WP:POINT territory and as far as I am concerned you are violating WP:AGF with me. IZAK (talk) 04:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
        • My moves were just a correction of the most basic errors with your moves. They do not mean that discussion has to end, and I have no objection whatsoever to a discussion at RM, or to the re-moval of these pages to other titles (as long as they follow the basics of the MoS, like no disambiguation when none is needed). If people prefer these pages at Second Temple of Jerusalem, Second Jewish Temple, Temple of Jerusalem (date build - date destroyed), or whatever is the most common name in the English literature about them, that's all fine by me. Please don't use my moves as a reason to end all discussion on this. Fram (talk) 07:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Fram, my moves were not "in error" they followed a lenghthy discussion to attain WP:CONSENSUS. Obviously the discussion is not over, it's been going on for 3,000 years. For some odd reason the Jewish temples seem to be subject to undue attention from non-Jewish sources as to what they should be, even if they should be built, exist or be destroyed, or what their names are or should be. It is logical to assume that the terms used in Judaism and by Jews should be the preferred ones for Jewish topics. Until now you had not clarified yourself, thanks for doing so now. In fact your moves were perfect and are supported by the research using Google that uses the terms "First Temple", "Second Temple", "Third Temple", more than any others. IZAK (talk) 09:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Apart from the fact that you did a copy-paste move instead of an actual move, that you didn't follow the Manual of style in your names, and that it is debated whether the method and location of the move suggestion debate was correct, you are right, your moves were not in error... And please don't bring in utterly irrelevant things like "it's been going on for 3,000 years". We are discussing the page names of some pages on Wikipedia, not the actual buildings and locations. You are incorrect in your assumption that the terms used by Jews or Judaism should be preferred. The most common terms in English should be used, no more, no less. Whether these names coincide with the preferences of Jews, Christians, atheist scholars of Antiquity, or any other group is not important and should not be taken into consideration. Please don't drag the religion of editors or the actual history of the buildings into this debate any longer, it is not helpful at all and only works to antagonize editors (by e.g. giving the impression that the opinion of non-Jews is irrelevant for this discussion). Fram (talk) 09:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Fram: As you can see from the very comprehensive discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Building and destroying the Beit Hamikdash you will see that it was proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that the terms "First Temple", "Second Temple", "Third Temple" are the more frequent terms based on hundreds of thousands of Google hits, so it is not just about choosing some marginal Jewish terms. In any case, this is a subject central to Judaism so there is no way really to "split hairs" and say that it should be kept out of WP:JUDAISM discussions where everything is up for discussion and very often editorial, naming and move decisions, actually nothing is excluded in the many years the Wikiproject has been in existence. In any case, anyone monitoring those pages could read the notices about the centralized discussion I placed on each one of them and was free to join the discussion so that no one was excluded on any grounds. The objections only started after the open-ended lengthy discussions, and after WP:CONSENSUS was clearly reached, and only after moves were made without any prior involvement in the discussions themselves by subsequent objectors. IZAK (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

All talk pages, and more, were notified about the discussions and proposed moves

Hi: The above depiction by User:Former IP is not correct. Firstly, there most definitely was a very lengthy centralized discussion open to all users for the sake of orderliness and reaching consensus was at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Building and destroying the Beit Hamikdash since 14 July 2010. Secondly, all users, no matter what "projects" they do or don't belong to, were notified on the relevant talk pages as well as a few other talk pages of effected articles were notified about the proposed redirect, also on 14 July 2010, (at a cost of being accused of "spamming" which it was not for this purpose), see:

1. Talk:Temple in Jerusalem#Correct names for the First and Second Temples
2. Talk:First_Temple,
3. Talk:Second_Temple,
4. Talk:Herod's_Temple,
5. Talk:Third_Temple,
6. Talk:Jerusalem, as well as at
7. Talk:Judaism,
8. Talk:The_Three_Weeks,
9. Talk:The_Nine_Days,
10. Talk:Tisha_B'Av

So relevant talk pages were fully notified and editors were given enough time to respond, as a decent amount did, but now with the "corrected" redirects for some pages, some of these older displaced histories may be not showing up for some odd reason, even though I have located them and they are still there in their original places. Therefore, users who still have or had (for the four articles moved) these pages on their watch lists had more than two weeks to partake, share their views and make comments and suggestions. Those editors who did were mostly reliable Judaic editors who are trustworthy and responsible. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I moved the three Temple pages to the undisambiguated version (i.e. without (Judaism) added to it). Pages shouldn't be at a disambiguated title when there is no need to disambiguate at all. The page move discussion was indeed mentioned on the talk page of the article, but it was very unclear that this was actually a discussion about a page move. Looking at the move discussion, there was clear support for having the pages at first temple and second temple, but much less support for moving them to the (Judaism) disambiguation as well. Fram (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Fram: This is very fair and equatable move by you and will lead to more coherence and result in less confusion stemming from conflicting names. IZAK (talk) 11:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

IMO, there isn't validity to the discussion at Wikiproject:Judaism, because it isn't an appropriate forum for discussion of a page move. As IZAK points out, it is technically true that this was open to all editors, but I think it is also clear that any discussion on the talk page of a Wikiproject is likely to be slanted towards the views of its members. Plus, WP has a process for page moves which was not followed. So I think, strictly speaking, the page should be moved back to where it was and a new discussion launched if needed. I think "Second Temple" even without the bracketed "Judaism" still reflects a Jewish POV and is insufficiently descriptive (v. recent porposal to move Second Amendment to the United States Constitution to Second Amendment).

Thanks, though, Fram. I should probably mention that you forgot to move the talk page. --FormerIP (talk) 11:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Think the views of a few admins as to what is best in the circumstance outlined would be useful. If admins would prefer to leave things as they are, I won't start a campaign over it, but I don't think it would set a good precedent. --FormerIP (talk) 11:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Former IP: You go too far when you allege and complain that "Second Temple" is a "Jewish POV" when the subject itself is part and parcel of Judaism and was for its entire history. The Two past destroyed Temples and the desire for a rebuilt Third Temple are central to Judaism and the Hebrew Bible and to the spiritual goals of all Jews throughout the millennia. To set the record straight the discussion was not just about a mere few page moves, as anyone can clearly see, it was about creating cohesiveness and uniformity in the entire subject starting with the names of the First, Second and Third Temples, even though they have alternate names, but the discussions showed that there are more Google hits from a number of directions for the First Temple, Second Temple and Third Temple names, and also starting discussions how to subsequently streamline this entire subject of the Three Jewish Temples and hopefully you do agree that they were and are Jewish Temples and that it is logical and reasonable to expect that they should be known by their Jewish names (in any case there is no problem with calling them First, Second, Third in English directly translated from Hebrew usages over the ages) and not by subsequent names thrust on them albeit in usage in some circles. As for your point that "Second Temple" alone is "insufficiently descriptive" that is precisely why naming it Second Temple (Judaism) is the perfect and accurate name for it that would take care of those kind of concerns, but evidently you feel that the Jewish Temples must be "de-Judaized" and detached and reformulated as entities not belonging to either the Jews or to Judaism, as implied in the criticism not to take it to the Judaism project talk page and your grumbling about the Temples' basic names. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean, IZAK. How does the word "Jerusalem" constitute "de-Judaizing"? In any event, the main issue here is process. --FormerIP (talk) 12:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

FormerIP: Not sure what you're talking about. While the first two Temples may have been physically located in Jerusalem as will the third one according to Judaism, their real over-arching and fundamental importance and position within Judaism are immeasurably far greater than any mere finite geographic locale or structural building, even if it is in as important a place as Jerusalem. Judaism and Jews have remained attached at the hip through their beliefs, prayers and studies to both the notions of the Temples and to Jerusalem as spiritual holy centers for millennia even though they have had neither a temple nor access to Jerusalem for (most of) the last 2,000 years. IZAK (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That's probably nice for them, but I don't understand why you think it means you don't have to follow the normal WP procedure for moving a page. --FormerIP (talk) 02:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

FormerIP: As I have clarified, once the discussions reached a consensus I could have easily moved the pages to "First Temple (Judaism)", "Second Temple (Judaism)", "Third Temple (Judaism)" which were empty, open unused red link pages that I had created. There would have been no problem with that. I made a technical error by not moving the pages with the move buttons on "Solomon's Temple", "Second Temple in Jerusalem" and "Third Temple" without any problems. My mistake, and it was only a mistake, was to cut and paste instead of making the easier moves (the reason I did that is that I was working quickly and I was a little rusty about making pages moves), but I then asked User Avraham to iron out my oversight, which he did do. So please do not make a mountain out of a mole hill when nothing untoward has happened. Thank you for your understanding. IZAK (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem isn't to do with the actual mechanics of the page moves (I'm not aware you did anything wrong there), it is that the move requests were not listed at WP:RM and the discussions about moving the page was held in a forum where a particular POV was likely to prevail. You even opened the disucssion by talking about "confusion...stemming from opposing secular and religious scholarly outlooks" and suggesting that certain articles should be renames on the basis that they "belong" to Judaism. This, I think, is out of line with the normal spirit of inclusiveness and NPOV on WP. --FormerIP (talk) 09:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The topic is about the Jewish temples not about Christian or another religion's ones. Jewish articles carry far more secular content than would be allowed or accepted in regular topics. There is and will always be room for lots of different views in the Jewish Temple articles, in fact there is not a huge amount in them from a purely Jewish POV in them and all I was proposing, or requesting, was to create the correct balance but so far absolutely nothing has happened. You are misunderstanding and misusing the policies of POV by claiming the absurd, that a key subject that is inherent to a project should "not" be discussed there. That would like saying that no discussions or decisions about medical topics should be made at WP:MEDICINE unless they are first discussed somewhere else where they don't deal with medicine. Nothing wrong happened. I should hope you understand the analogy. IZAK (talk) 04:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it would be like saying that no pages relating to medical topics should be moved solely on the basis of a discussion at WP:MEDICINE, which AFAICT is the case. --FormerIP (talk) 11:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

For the record, no one was excluded from the discussions because all relevant talk pages were told about the centralized discussion. IZAK (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The most important thing is discussions at the article talk page. It seems to me that notification was placed on all the relevant talk pages, so anyone watching the article knew about the discussion. That is our standard. That said, calling it "the Second Temple" seems to me to follow the conventions among historians and is the most common name for it, so it ought to be the title. If people call it other names, and I have no doubt that they do, we handle that through redirects, so there is never any fear of someone not finding the article. But this is the most common name. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that the standard is listing at RM, templating the pages and holding a discussion about each one individually, normally on their respective talk pages, Sluberstein. The notice on the Second Temple page disappeared (though I am not saying this is IZAK's fault). In any event, launching the discussion (that you were involved in) on the Judaism project talkpage with an intro effectively saying "let's do something about the non-Jewish bias on these articles" is not an appropraite way to go about it. --FormerIP (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It makes no sense to say that the articles had a "non-Jewish bias" (your words) and then oppose the discussion from taking place at WP:JUDAISM. IZAK (talk) 09:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake! Note where the quote-marks are in the last sentence of my post. I am not saying that the article has a non-Jewish bias, by any means. --FormerIP (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

@FormerIP: You write, "My understanding is that the standard is listing at RM," and I have no idea how this could be your interpretation of the following clause taken from the intro to the policy: "There is no obligation to list such move requests here;" you are right that there should be notification on the article talk page - but IZAK did just that, he left a message on the talk page, so anyone watching it new about the proposal and had an opportunity to weigh in.

Why is is inappropriate to discuss an article of central importance to Judaism on the project Judaism talk page? It is not like anyone is banned from contributing to that discussion - did you post a comment which someone deleted? Isn't this article categorized under Wikiproject:Judaism? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

That same page, WP:RM, goes on to say that "Discussions about retitling of an article (page move) can always be carried out at the article's talk page without adding an entry here." It doesn't mention project pages. However, in general, I don't think there is a problem with discussing page moves on a project page, certainly not when (like here) multiple pages are involved and some consistency between them is wanted. The problem arises when the project is chosen to give one particular point of view preference. Even if it is a relevant PoV like here, this violates WP:NPOV and is a form of canvassing. See the comments by IZAK (who proposed the move, determined the consensus and performed the move) above: "It is logical to assume that the terms used in Judaism and by Jews should be the preferred ones for Jewish topics." This is incorrect: we don't use the terms preferred by the involved groups. Myanmar is here described in the article Burma, because that is the term most used in the English literature. Another incorrect factor in that statement, that the temple (certainly the second one) is not only a Jewish topic but also a Christian one (and all of them are general historical and archaeological ones) is therefor not relevant for a naming discussion. Fram (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that the title of the article should follow the conventions of 1st century historians. And the most common designation is "the Second Temple." That is why I think he article should be named "the Second Temple." Slrubenstein | Talk 11:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? The conventions of 1st century historians? Why should we follow those? Fram (talk) 11:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Fram: Everything was done in conformity with WP:NPOV -- you are dealing with highly experienced editors here and if you can show me where I have ever edited in violation of WP:NPOV I will eat my proverbial hat. PLEASE re-read every word at the very comprehensive discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Building and destroying the Beit Hamikdash where I WP:CITE beyond any shadow of a doubt that the terms "First Temple", "Second Temple", "Third Temple" are the more frequent terms based on hundreds of thousands of Google hits, so you need to WP:AGF. This is a subject central to Judaism so there is no way really to "split hairs" and say that it should be kept out of WP:JUDAISM discussions where everything relating to Jews and Judaism is up for discussion and very often editorial, naming and move decisions are made and this helps Wikipedia grow and move along. Many admins have belonged to and participated in WP:JUDAISM discussions and they are fully aware of WP policies. Nothing related to Jews or Judaism even marginally is excluded in the many years the Wikiproject has been in existence and it has only helped Wikipedia. In any case, as User Slrubenstein points out anyone monitoring those pages could read the notices about the centralized discussion I placed on each one of them and was free to join the discussion so that no one was excluded on any grounds. The objections only started after the open-ended lengthy discussions, and after WP:CONSENSUS was clearly reached, and only after moves were made without any prior involvement in the discussions themselves by subsequent objectors. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You posted the same text twice for some reason, I'll reply only once. Your POV ic very clear, when you state in that discussion: "But not according to Judaism to which it belongs. It's about the Jewish First Temple not about how or what it's called according to an English or non-Jewish or secular POV." You are totally wrong here, what it's called from an English language PoV is the only thing that matters, not what it is called in the Torah (like your other comment there: "With more articles like this from non-Torah sources each with their own POV of course."). You are also incorrect that "The objections only started after the open-ended lengthy discussions, and after WP:CONSENSUS was clearly reached,", as Debresser objected from the very start, and Chesdovi also said "(It's common name in Hebrew does not dictate its common name in English...?)" So you have shown a clear POV based reason for your moves, and have ignored Wikipedia policies and the oposition that was stated from the very start of the discussion. Whether that is standard practive at the Project, or only your standard practice, I don't know, but it has to change in either case. Subjects related to Jews or Judaism will not be named or treated in accordance with the Torah, but in acordance with reliable independent sources (and for the naming in accordance with English language reliable independent sources). The argument (not by you) that ""Solomon's Temple" is probably more used in academia, but it is certainly Bayis Rishon and Bayis Sheini for believing Jews." is irrelevant and if an independent editor had reviewed the move discussion, instead of you, he would have discounted said argument as being not policy based. Oh, and replying to an opposer with among other comments the utterly irrelevant "you do agree that the destruction of the two temples and the butchery and exile of the Jewish people by the Babylonians and then by the Romans was proportionally and quantitatively on a par with the Nazis or perhaps even worse don't you?" is a very poor tactic as well. The majority of your replies and arguments on that page are religion based, which is the completely wrong argument to defend or oppose any article name, even for a subject that is central to a religion. Fram (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Which is why we have WP:Article title. We don't use 'this group uses this name' as a reason to ignore our guidlines. NPOV is often a red herring in discussion of article titles. Dougweller (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

This was not a case of doing what one group does, this is a case of a name that's used universally as proven by Google hits, see below. IZAK (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Earlier, I said that the title should be "Snd Temple" because that is the convention among 1st century historians. Fram asks why. What can I say? I think that the title of an article should refelect two things: the contents of the title and the nomenclature most common in academe. The second Temple period is the subjust of a great deal of scholarly research. Four about five hundred years, it is the object of research of almost exclusively historians of Jews and Judaism. During some of this time Judea was Persian Occupied, the Greek Occupied, and then independent (Jewish) but under Hellenic influcence. For the last 120 years or so it continued unbder Roman Occupation. So there is lots of scholarship about it it is not just of interest to Jews. And those historians - of Persian and Greek and Hasmonean and Roman occupied Judea, 70 years of the Temple's history extending into the first century, the convention is to call it the Second Temple. Why not follow standard current academic practice? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I think this was just a simple misunderstanding. When you mentioend "1st century historians", I thought you meant people like Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian. I now realise that you probably meant 20th and 21st century historians specialized in the first century. If that is the case, my reply was obviously not correct, and I agree that we should follow the current name as used by the scientific literature in English. Fram (talk) 08:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Fram: The following is an inter-linear response to your above response, my responses start with "IZAK": "You posted the same text twice for some reason, I'll reply only once." IZAK: There were similarities but they were different (read them for yourself), so let's keep one thread here. "Your POV ic very clear, when you state in that discussion: "But not according to Judaism to which it belongs. It's about the Jewish First Temple not about how or what it's called according to an English or non-Jewish or secular POV." IZAK: Sorry, but the subject is about the Jewish First, Second and Third Temples and they are central notions to Judaism. That is not a "POV" it's a fact. So it is therefore logical to deal with the Temples as Jewish topics in a NPOV manner and then add on how other POVs and perspectives view them. "You are totally wrong here, what it's called from an English language PoV is the only thing that matters, not what it is called in the Torah (like your other comment there: "With more articles like this from non-Torah sources each with their own POV of course.")." IZAK: Where have I ever said what the Torah says is "NPOV" please do not bring in or attribute to me things I never said. NPOV is a WP policy that I have always followed. One can quote Torah or anything else as long as it's factual and NPOV because WP is not anti-Torah either. It is how the articles are written in NPOV style that is important for WP and not what we believe in our private lives that WP does not care about. An editor may be secular, etheist and anti-religious but WP does not care about privately-held views as long as editing and writing is done in a NPOV manner. "You are also incorrect that "The objections only started after the open-ended lengthy discussions, and after WP:CONSENSUS was clearly reached,", as Debresser objected from the very start, and Chesdovi also said "(It's common name in Hebrew does not dictate its common name in English...?)" So you have shown a clear POV based reason for your moves, and have ignored Wikipedia policies and the oposition that was stated from the very start of the discussion." IZAK: You are focusing on one lone objector who was outvoted. At the time of the discussions there was only one objector who was outvoted by 9 others (including me), how else to get consensus, that is more than sufficient for WP:CONSENSUS. The articles need help to become accurate. That's obvious to any reader who knows this subject. My suggestion was to strive for clarity and specificity, to clarify that these were temples related to Judaism. That is a fact that no one can deny. "Whether that is standard practive at the Project, or only your standard practice, I don't know, but it has to change in either case. Subjects related to Jews or Judaism will not be named or treated in accordance with the Torah, but in acordance with reliable independent sources (and for the naming in accordance with English language reliable independent sources)." IZAK: All editors work in accordance with WP policies. In fact it is time to call in some of the main editors some admins who can have their say, and we can hear what they have to say. "The argument (not by you) that ""Solomon's Temple" is probably more used in academia, but it is certainly Bayis Rishon and Bayis Sheini for believing Jews." is irrelevant and if an independent editor had reviewed the move discussion, instead of you, he would have discounted said argument as being not policy based." IZAK: Every single one of my arguments was based on neutral Google hits that prove beyond a doubt that the most common terms are First Temple, Second Temple and Third Temple that has nothing to do with any POV. That is why I had to clarify it to you in my second post above. I agree with you and I thank you again for making the corrections that reflect that. "Oh, and replying to an opposer with among other comments the utterly irrelevant "you do agree that the destruction of the two temples and the butchery and exile of the Jewish people by the Babylonians and then by the Romans was proportionally and quantitatively on a par with the Nazis or perhaps even worse don't you?" is a very poor tactic as well." IZAK: The destruction of the two temples is considered a tragedy on the par of the Nazi Holocaust among serious Jewish and secular scholars, historians and theologians, that's a matter of fact and it's legitimate to point that out in a discussion about that subject. There is absolutely no question about that. "The majority of your replies and arguments on that page are religion based, which is the completely wrong argument to defend or oppose any article name, even for a subject that is central to a religion." IZAK: It is illogical and irrational to claim that a subject related to and central to a religion cannot be presented from that religion's perspectives that are not "POV" since they are part and parcel of that religion that cannot be understood or described or explained with recourse to that religion first followed by other POVs and explanations. That does not mean that other views are excluded either. WP is not in the business of being anti-religion either it includes all POVs and that's not a red herring argument either, WP is after all NPOV. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 07:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• I can only conclude from this reply taht you don't understand what POV and NPOV mean. Just one example: "The destruction of the two temples is considered a tragedy on the par of the Nazi Holocaust among serious Jewish and secular scholars, historians and theologians, that's a matter of fact and it's legitimate to point that out in a discussion about that subject. There is absolutely no question about that." The "subject" being the name of the temple articles, not the history of the temples or the tragedies of the Jewish people. Could you please clarify why you felt that this argument had any relevance whatsoever to the naming debate? How does the history of the temple and whether it is comparable to the Holocaust have any link to what this article should be called on the English Wikipedia? Fram (talk) 08:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
  • You took a quote out of context, I was trying to make a point to Debresser who has stated in past discussions that he is a Chabad rabbi and he would be quite familiar with what I was saying even though it may sound strange to you. IZAK (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
    • It doesn't sound strange to me, it simply has nothing to do with the whole move discussion, which was the context. As long as you believe that a statement like "It is logical to assume that the terms used in Judaism and by Jews should be the preferred ones for Jewish topics." is the correct way of deciding move discussions on Wikipedia, you have no business closing any more naming disputes, and should leave that to more objective uninvolved editors without your clear bias. Fram (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
      • How about refuting what I saying according to logic. Wikipedia is not in the business of making up its own reality it welcomes input from editors who display a good knowledge in their fields of editing. That is not called "POV" it is called expertise. You seem to be confusing the two. The fact remains and you can jump up and down on your head and scream as loud as you like, but sorry, the subject here is primarily a Judaism topic first and foremost, while other POV's about it come in later. That's fact and not "POV" anything. IZAK (talk) 10:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi again Fram: In reference to your comment above i.e. "Whether that is standard practive [sic] at the Project, or only your standard practice, I don't know, but it has to change in either case. Subjects related to Jews or Judaism will not be named or treated in accordance with the Torah, but in acordance [sic] with reliable independent sources (and for the naming in accordance with English language reliable independent sources)" which I regard as a serious false allegation that clearly violates WP:AGF, and definitely borders on WP:NPA, I have asked 5 admins (Users Avraham (talk · contribs); Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs); Jfdwolff (talk · contribs); Jayjg (talk · contribs); TShilo12 (talk · contribs)), who also have had experience with WP:JUDAISM for their input, hopefully they will have time to respond, in addition to User:Slrubenstein who is both an admin and long-time participant in the Judaism WikiProject. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

IZAK asked me to comment here. When we discussed the question of page names at WT:JUDAISM, IZAK had posted notices on the Talk pages of the affected articles. I thought using WT:JUDAISM for a centralized discussion of the subject seemed appropriate. I felt, and still feel, disappointed that the discussion didn't attract many contributors who aren't WP:JUDAISM "regulars".

While a few contributors may have made their decisions based on the Hebrew terms used by "believing Jews", my impression is that most arguments were based on WP:COMMONNAME.

In short, I don't think there was anything inappropriate about using WT:JUDAISM as a forum for a centralized discussion concerning three articles within the WikiProject's purview. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I only noticed this while making an edit at Malik's page. I don't intend to get into the discussion, which I have only heard of now. But millions of Christians visit what they call the Holy Land, take the Old Testament as an article of faith, and customarily refer to Solomon's Temple. 'First Temple' as opposed to Second Temple, simply, as far as my ear goes from 6 decades of hearing religious Christians speak (I'm not a Christian), does not ring a bell, unless one is a specialist. I think from what I have read that a very simple mistake is being made here, that looks, as phrased by Izak, highly appropriative. It's as as Nazareth were soon to be shifted to Natzrat , the name privileged in Israel, much to the confusion of visiting Christian pilgrims. This kind of thing deserves very wide input and discussion on pages most editors visit.Nishidani (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

IZAK asked me to comment here. I'm not keen on seeing discussions like these take place on wikiprojects, because it excludes people who don't have the project pages on their watchlists. A link to the page-move discussion on the article's talk page can be added to the wikiproject to inform people, if done neutrally and if posted elsewhere too.

As for the title, we should use whichever is more common in English—not in Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, but in English—because this is the English Wikipedia. That's likely to be the name more common in one of the religions, but that should be a byproduct of our decision, not the reason for it. The article was at Solomon's Temple from its creation in 2002 until the recent move, so perhaps the thing to do is move it back temporarily, then hold a requested-move discussion on the article's talk page. I should add that I hope no one will support the old title just to make the point that it shouldn't have been moved. I also want to add that IZAK's motivation here is to produce a set of consistently titled articles that people can find easily and that are easy to cross-reference, and he should be applauded for that, so whether we agree or disagree with the page move, he's clearly acting in good faith. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to stress again and again that I supported my proposals at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Building and destroying the Beit Hamikdash on the English-language names of "First Temple", "Second Temple", Third Temple" on the fact that they receive more Google hits than any other names. In addition, I would also like to point out that in any case, the English Wikipedia does allow and even welcomes, the use of naming from other languages, cultures and nationalities in the way those languages, cultures and nationalities use terms and concepts and they are NEVER unjustly accused of being in "violation" of "POVs", see the scope of what goes on in Category:Words and phrases by language with 73 sub-categories, with Category:Hebrew words and phrases being one of the biggest that include thousands of names for articles using Hebrew words and phrases. Nevertheless, I had not proposed using Hebrew names at all in this case, just the commonly used English-language terms "First Temple", "Second Temple", Third Temple". Thank you, IZAK (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

IZAK. I checked 13 of the other wikis whose languages I can read with varying degrees of comprehension. The preferred title is the one each language recognizes most readily. Only the Russian wiki gives 'First Temple' (Первый Храм) glossed however by 'First Jerusalem temple' (Первый Иерусалимский храм), The Temple of Solomon (Храм Соломона) and lastly 'The Jerusalem Temple (Иерусали́мский Храм). The rest, Greek, Latin, Italian, French, Catalan, Dutch, Danish, Norwegian, Czech, Portuguese, Romanian and Chinese give their 'Solomon's Temple', and provide the 'First Temple' as a gloss as often as not, to explain Hebraic usage (Latin adds 'in religione Iudaica appellatione "Primum Templum") and the Chinese glosses 所羅門聖殿, where the first three characters spell out Solomon and the last two mean 'Temple', with the first temple 第一聖殿. There is no Japanese article but the Japanese usually refer to it as the 'Jerusalem Temple' (エルサレム神殿) Curious that German is lacking, but, as a recent German guide to it remarks, 'Salomons Tempel ist ein Zauberwort,' (Othmar Keel, Ernst Axel Knauf, Thomas Staubli, Salomons Tempel, Saint-Paul, 2004 p.6)i.e. 'Solomon's Temple is a magical word', which, I suggest 'First Temple' to most Western ears, and certainly anglophone ears, is not. I asked my wife, and my uncle, respectively in their mother tongues, Italian and French, what 'first temple' meant to them, and it meant nothing, until I rephrased it mentioning Solomon, which immediately woke their recognition. I don't think this is coincidental, and the reason why it is thus known is evidently due to Christianity, which has determined in most cases, the way each language thinks of the first temple. It is the historic bias of a culture inflecting standard speech, and in English the standard idiom is 'Solomon's temple'.Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nishidani. Nice work but somewhat not to the point because they are behind the information curve. Let me re-iterate again, that it's about consistent naming. And it's not just about the outward names and labels "Solomon's Temple" versus "First Temple" alone because there are many connecting topics here that bolster the usage of "First Temple" over "Solomon's Temple". Let's look at Google. While there seems to be near parity between 336,000 hits for Solomons Temple (bolstered by the fact that many sites are using Wikipedia's article!) there are 283,000 hits for First Temple making them almost equal on this scale. Now, if you look at the subject in its proper context, not just as a "Solomonic production" but as the core and symbol of an entire era, then the name of "First Temple" is bolstered and backed up by the fact that the predominant term used is by far "First Temple" over anything else: 144,000 hits for First Temple Era (with only 5 hits for Solomon's Temple era I kid thee not!) and while there are 23,100 hits for First Temple period there are just 5 hits for Solomon's Temple period!; there are an astounding 453,000 hits for Destruction of the First Temple and more such as 44,800 hits for Destruction of the First Temple in Jerusalem, (while in comparison there are only 36,700 hits for Destruction of Solomon's Temple); and there are 144,000 hits for Building of the First Temple while there are 179,000 hits for Building King Solomon's Temple many that dwell on secular perspectives such as the Masons and whatnot and nothing to do with Judaism. Bottom line, these few example show that while on a few occasions there is parity, especially when talking about the structure itself, but when the focus is on the broader symbolic. religious and historical role then First Temple is the leading term not just in Judaism but has a broader acceptance. IZAK (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Just an interim query, IZAK. You are, if I understand your arguments for the change correctly, setting a precedent in Wikipedia. On the premises you have given, the Cave of the Patriarchs article should be retitled 'The cave of the double tombs' or 'the Cave of Machpelah', the term which is standard in Hebrew, with a redirect for the term that is standard in English. That site plays a larger role in the traditions of Judaism than it does in Christian thought, which however customarily refers to it as 'Cave of the Patriarchs'. Am I correct? Nishidani (talk) 12:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't be silly. I wasn't even suggesting Hebrew names, for that see Category:Hebrew words and phrases that are plentiful and even welcomed and that no one questions. Nobody uses the terms "cave of double tombs" which is raw literal translation. I did not suggest that the articles be called "First House", "Second House" from the Hebrew names for the temples "bayit rishon", "bayit sheini". You are wrong about the way Wikipedia functions as an encyclopedia because it does quite often convey terms as used in the culture or language it belongs to. Thus, the Jewish Sabbath is Shabbat, Jewish New Year is Rosh Hashanah and of so much more. The real way Wikipedia is inclusive of all terms is by the workings of WP:REDIRECTS, since only one name can be used at one time, that lead to the main name. The beautiful thing about Wikipedia is that it is forward looking and is enlightening and educating people as it reliably records information. So no, not only are you not correct but you are also dead wrong! IZAK (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

IZAK, I also looked up "First Temple" on Google with a view to posting the results here, but there are too many not about that first temple, so the results are meaningless. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Slim: It's actually a two-way street because then the larger number of hits for Solomon's Temple would also be discounted. But such is the nature of the beast when using Google, it's a general prognostication and a start, and it's definitely not "meaningless" when one considers the clear disparity between 144,000 hits for "First Temple Era" versus only 5 hits for "Solomon's Temple era" or 23,100 hits for "First Temple period" versus 5 hits for "Solomon's Temple period" as well as 47,000+ hits for "Destruction of the First Temple in Jerusalem" versus 33,000+ hits for "Destruction of Solomon's Temple" none of which can be dismissed off the cuff as "meaningless". IZAK (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Slim: In addition, add in the fact that the article about the Second Temple was originally called Second Temple of Jerusalem and not Ezra's Temple or "Zerubabel's Temple" as it's also referred to, and the Third Temple article was named just that and not Ezekiel's Temple as it's sometimes referred to. So the naming was not consistent. As you correctly noted above one of my chief objectives is to create uniformity in the naming that also fits with history and the best and most clear-cut way is to go by the First Temple, Second Temple, Third Temple names that just so happens to be the way that classical Jewish as well as many secular scholars and not just Christian POV theology also names them. IZAK (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting but, for ANI (ahem!), off-topic discussions like this are the exact reason why there should be a proper inclusive debate before deciding what the best names for the pages are. --FormerIP (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi FormerIP: It was because you had incorrectly claimed that there wasn't enough of a discussion that the discussions here have grown retroactively. But the fact of the matter remains that it was held at as good a place as any at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Building and destroying the Beit Hamikdash that anyone was welcome to join. You came along later and complained "#Pagemove consensus formed on Wikiproject page" about the location of the fair and square discussions that you admit reached consensus, but have not contributed to the substance of the topic or the discussions. So let's stop going around in circles. IZAK (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

We may be going round in circles, IZAK, but have you noticed that this is happening without me saying very much? --FormerIP (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That's because the Jewish Temples are a fascinating topic and everyone thinks they are "experts" when it comes to Judaism. This never happens when it comes to Christian or Islamic topics where users are much too cautious and afraid to pipe in, and Judaic editors would never do this to a topic central to Christianity or Islam such as the Vatican or Mecca even though Judaism is the mother-religion of those two religions and there is lots of scholarship from a Jewish perspective on those topics. Nothing to gloat about I would say. The bottom line from my end, is that (a) a proper, full and thorough discussion was held with an attendant vote to clarify. (b) Google hits support my position. (c) Nine users agreed that the pages should be moved, with one objection. (d) There was therefore adequate WP:CONSENSUS. (e) All effected pages were notified on their talk pages about the centralized discussion. (f) Admin Fram, albeit conditionally, actually moved the pages to acceptable streamlined and consistent neutral English-language titles of First Temple; Second Temple, Third Temple, minus their qualifying (Judaism) suffixes in their titles. This was a wise move and I agree with it. (g) Several users, including so far, admins Slrubenstein and Malik Shabaz have concurred with me in this discussion, they together with admin Avraham agreed with the logic and reasonableness for the proposed moves as well, and they are very knowledgeable Judaic editors with long experience who would not do anything against NPOV. (h) The names First Temple, Second Temple and Third Temple are fully NPOV because in any case two out of the three articles in question originally used this "naming by numbers" of "Second" and "Third", namely: Second Temple of Jerusalem and Third Temple the last requires no change and is not even in question and bolsters my case. (i) You were a jonny-come-lately who arrived after the discussions who did not even have his facts right at the beginning, falsely alleging that notification was not given, and claiming that WP:JUDAISM was not a suitable venue, even though this is about a major topic central to Judaism. (j) Nothing has been "proven" whether there is an absolute requirement of any kind that this sort of discussion "must" be held at only WP:RM. IZAK (talk) 05:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

IZAK asked me to comment here, but I'm sorry, I don't understand what the current issue is. There apparently was some discussion of the page moves prior to discussion, and there is no (and there never has been a) requirement that editors post all proposed page moves at WP:RM. Do people object to the current names, First Temple, Second Temple, and Third Temple, which apparently were not the names IZAK moved them to, but to which he has no objection? If so, wouldn't the correct place to discuss this be on the article Talk: pages, or perhaps at WP:RM? What is this issue still doing here? Jayjg ^(talk) 07:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The principle objection I have is that when questioned about it, the response has been to defend the moves rather than say, "OK, lets discuss it further". I have concerns with how the discussion was phrased and advertised but that has been discussed in much depth above already. Quantpole (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, how the pages should be named should be discussed through WP:RM, if anyone feels the need. This discussion is more about how the previous move discussion was handled. Everyone's actions and positions are quite clear by now, and while some people feel that some things were handled badly (and others disagree), nothing actionable has happened in the end, and this discussion has probably come to an end. Fram (talk) 08:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is clear whether or not there is anything actionable, and a consensus about that it what's needed to bring the dicussion to a close. AFAICT, there is a consensus (excepting the views of involved editors) that the page move was wrongly done. I think the next question is whether we say "ok, but no harm done" or whether it is appropriate to move the page back to where it was. --FormerIP (talk) 12:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You keep on ignoring that the page moves were done according to all procedural requirements and nothing "wrong" was done even though you falsely keep alleging the opposite when it's proven otherwise to you a few times already. IZAK (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Talking of ignoring. Like I said above in reply to you already: "Apart from the fact that you did a copy-paste move instead of an actual move, that you didn't follow the Manual of style in your names, and that it is debated whether the method and location of the move suggestion debate was correct, you are right, your moves were not in error... " I forgot one thing though, that you, having a clear bias and PoV in this debate, shouldn't have been the one to close the discussion and perform the moves either. That is about the total of all things "wrong" with these moves. Fram (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

And you keep ignoring what I have already responded to these accusations of yours, that I asked User Avraham to correct the cut and paste moves (I was working in a bit of haste and it was an oversight) that he did gladly. There is nothing wrong in the way I named the topics, it's done all the time to have a ( ) to define what a topic is about. You are mistaking my interest in this topic with "POV" -- I have an excellent record of keeping to NPOV over the course of my long life on Wikipedia. And there was nothing wrong with me making the moves or "closing" the debate (it's not "closed" in any case, it is ongoing as you see here yourself, and anyone can restart it because it's not a formal AfD) it was informal and it attained its main goal of WP:CONSENSUS. It was not an official AfD or something like that. Nothing wrong unless you are now determined to violate WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL against me which is wrong. IZAK (talk) 10:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That an error was corrected afterwards doesn't mean that no error was made. There is much wrong in the way that you named the topics: we don't disambiguate pages when there is no article at the undisambiguated page. And I have no opinion on your previous record wrt POV, but in this debate, you have shown that you let your poV influence your comments and actions repeatedly. You continue to deny it. Fine, that is a disagreement on your edits and what influenced them. But as long s you use arguments like "Obviously the discussion is not over, it's been going on for 3,000 years. For some odd reason the Jewish temples seem to be subject to undue attention from non-Jewish sources as to what they should be, even if they should be built, exist or be destroyed, or what their names are or should be. It is logical to assume that the terms used in Judaism and by Jews should be the preferred ones for Jewish topics." (from this page), then it is no AGF or CIVIL violation to conclude that you let your POV influence your suggested move and your reading of the consensus (where there were multiple people objecting to the use of (Judaism)). Fram (talk) 11:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Fram: Violations of POV can only be based or proven on actual edits in the body of articles. People say all sorts of things on discussion pages, that never land up in articles. I have learned a lot about your views for example, of your hostilities and prejudices to certain things, but that's not of any consequences as long as it does interfere with actual editing in articles. And by the way, I have already agreed with you and commended you for the wisdom of removing the (Judaism) suffixes even though I would have preferred them, but your moves were wise in and of themselves. At least give me credit for complimenting you and agreeing with your helpful moves. IZAK (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you honestly believe that PoV violations can only be found in the body of articles, and not in e.g. the title of them? The why does Wikipedia:Neutral point of view have a section on "Article naming", with things like "Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources"? You acted on your PoV, you didn't only show it in the discussion (before the moves, and again here). Apart from that, I have shown a hostility to PoV pushing. If any other hostilities or prejudices are apparent from my posts here, please list them with diffs (here or on my talk page), so I can work on them. Fram (talk) 07:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Hi all. It seems like there is a mishmash of procedural and nomenclature issues being discussed here. I am not so familiar with Wiki procedures, so I will leave that to others. Regarding the nomenclature issue, I think the terms "First Temple" and "Second Temple" are perfectly acceptable as article titles, as these are the most common terms used both popularly and academically (just check any Jewish History text). Placement of a parenthetical clarifying term such as "Judaism" would also be helpful. Regarding "Third Temple", I am not as familiar with the sources that discuss it, but certainly the discussion exists, and I cannot think of a more neutral term than "Third Temple". Are there any competing suggestions? —Dfass (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not about 'Jewish history text' usage. It is about English usage, where it is almost certainly not 'the most common term popularly or academically'. Perhaps, the repetition of this confusion on this page, based on a false premise that the world of the OT is somehow peculiar to Judaism and not a foundational text also for Western civilization generally, is sufficient evidence that the whole question requires far wider discussion by wiki editors, including a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity, to begin with. As admins have said, nothing actionable here. But the move creates a strong precedent (see above) for changing names in a good many articles into forms quite familiar in Judaism, but unfamiliar, or less recognizable for hundreds of millions of English readers of wiki.Nishidani (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, those so-called "questionable moves" already exist for a long time, see Category:Hebrew words and phrases, and Jewish scholarship connected as it is so often to academic scholarship cannot be belittled in this way. There is nothing against the English language that itself is a combination of Germanic Anglo-Saxon (itself an admixture) and Latin and many other layers of languages. It just so happens to be that the Hebrew language is the language of the Hebrew Bible. Not so long ago it was required that all serious scholars of the classics study Latin, Greek and Hebrew and it befits an encyclopedia of the stature of Wikipedia to honor Hebrew or in this case Hebraic and Judaic originating terms especially if they have majority circulation in English on modern day search engines like Google. The English language itself is not a closed book and constantly evolving, both shedding older terminology and adapting to and taking on newer terminology that is its great strength, and it is made up of many languages and accepts into itself many other words, like Mazel Tov and Bris and terms from any language that in turn become Anglicized and hence are English. In any case, "First Temple", "Second Temple", "Third Temple" are only English terms and have become the most widely used terms based on what Google hits indicate as proven above. IZAK (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you have ever addressed the nub of the question. You appear to think that everything to do with the Old Testament is exclusively Jewish. I like millions of people was raised on the OT, having its history, stories and mythology drummed into me on a daily basis, and it is as much a part of Western culture as it is of Jewish culture. Christians in Europe generally refer to it as 'Solomon's Temple', which is the standard term in English endorsed by Western tradition. The proper thing to do was to notify the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity board and ask them for input. As it stands, you are engineering, unilaterally, a novelty and a precedent, in order to 'honour Hebrew'. You twice persist in the untruth, against all native intuitions about customary usage in English, that this is a case of a 'Hebrew and Judaic originating term' having 'majority circulation in English.' Not only myself, but others, have tested this, and found your google methodology lacunose and misleading. You then say it is a case of the English language 'constantly evolving and shedding older terminology and adapting to and taking on newer terminology' which sounds like an implicit admission that the 'old term' (i.e. i.e. what current users habitually use) should be buried in order to honour 'Hebrew' on the English wikipedia. All this is making native-speakers, who query this odd engineering of minority terms, appear to be people with some axe to grind, perhaps people who secretly work to impede the English wikipedia from 'honouring' Hebrew. That is, as people here often say, a strawman argument. You are simply asking that a minority term (the mot juste for Jewish people) be promoted against the customary English word because, for you, Hebrew originating terms should replace the standard terms in Western languages, in order to show respect for Judaism. That principle, as I suggested, sets a precedent that will affect many other articles, such as the 'Cave of the Patriarchs', which in Hebrew is 'Cave of Machpelah'. If you want this, fine, but if you wish to use wikipedia for these ends, you'd better ask, on each occasion, people who are native speakers, or who are Christians and share much of your biblical heritage, for their views. There is absolutely no malice in raising these questions. It is simple a matter, to use your own semantic allusion, of 'respect' for native speakers of English, for the defined rules of wikipedia, and for Christians. I belong only to the former category, and insist, as a linguist, that tradition determine usage, not partisan meddling. Nishidani (talk) 07:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nishidani, always good to discuss with you. Let me quote you and respond interlinearly beginning with "IZAK": "I don't think you have ever addressed the nub of the question." IZAK: You are creating your own nub here because it's not my intention to upset you in the way you are responding. "You appear to think that everything to do with the Old Testament is exclusively Jewish." IZAK Wrong! Wikipedia has developed two tracks, even multiple tracks, to allow both Christian and Jewish interpretations, often interfaith. By the way, long-ago it was agreed between many editors that the term "Old Testament" was to be avoided because it's offensive to Jews who do not believe in the New Testament and the preferred neutral term is Hebrew Bible on Wikipedia. "I like millions of people was raised on the OT, having its history, stories and mythology drummed into me on a daily basis, and it is as much a part of Western culture as it is of Jewish culture." IZAK: Fine. To many Jews it's not "mythology" by the way, that is a clear POV. "Christians in Europe generally refer to it as 'Solomon's Temple', which is the standard term in English endorsed by Western tradition." IZAK: And here is the real nub as you would say, because by now that term has been replaced if you take into account that there are not one but three temples in this discussion. One is clearly called the Third Temple (no dispute about calling it that) while the other was called Second Temple of Jerusalem (Second Temple as part of its title), therefore since Solomon's Temple is also even better known as the First Temple based on current Google hits, it is perfectly acceptable and NPOV to name it First Temple with Solomon's Temple becoming a redirect. The subject is greater than what people in Europe think, it involves another major religion like Judaism which regards that temple as a central notion which it is not in Christianity. "The proper thing to do was to notify the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity board and ask them for input." IZAK: Disagree, even though it would have been nice because a notification was placed on the article's page and anyone from anywhere could have come and partaken in the centralized discussion and had their say. "As it stands, you are engineering, unilaterally, a novelty and a precedent, in order to 'honour Hebrew'." IZAK I am not engineering anything. The name First Temple was in the lead sentence and I was reflecting a very reliable position. I was backed up by 8 others including three admins in that vote, Avraham, Malik Shabaz and Slrubenstein, they know the ropes and the rules better than I do. Hopefully you are not questioning their motives either. "You twice persist in the untruth," IZAK: This is a serious charge you are saying I am a liar, please withdraw the insult because you are violating WP:AGF. I may be determined but I am being truthful. "against all native intuitions about customary usage in English, that this is a case of a 'Hebrew and Judaic originating term' having 'majority circulation in English.' " IZAK: What are "native intuitions"? I am a full first class English speaker and intuiter. I majored in English. I taught it. I have several degrees in it, what are you carrying on about? This charge is utter nonsense in any case because Wikipidia has thousands of terms like this, see for yourself Category:Hebrew words and phrases (none made up by me by the way) and many others from other languages as well, and I am not imposing anything since I am not known for that. "Not only myself, but others, have tested this, and found your google methodology lacunose and misleading." IZAK: Ok, so prove it and show the exact Google diffs of your research the Wikipedia way as I did very carefully! I have done my share you do yours if you want to be credible. "You then say it is a case of the English language 'constantly evolving and shedding older terminology and adapting to and taking on newer terminology' which sounds like an implicit admission that the 'old term' (i.e. i.e. what current users habitually use) should be buried in order to honour 'Hebrew' on the English wikipedia." IZAK: Is that wrong? Have you ever studied the etymology and history of English over its long history? It is not a culturally or ethnically "pure" language its strengh is its ability to amalgamate and absorb from other languages. So again you are 100% wrong. In fact you disprove yourself! The name "Solomon" is also Hebrew, from the Hebrew root word "Shalom" which means "peace" (shalom) and/or "perfection" (shaleim) so that "Solomon" is a direct translation of the Hebrew name Shlomo which means "[man of] peace/perfection" so how come that Hebrew is good to you when "First Temple" is pure English? "All this is making native-speakers, who query this odd engineering of minority terms, appear to be people with some axe to grind, perhaps people who secretly work to impede the English wikipedia from 'honouring' Hebrew." IZAK: So are you going to accuse all the members who have added to the 73 sub-categories of Category:Words and phrases by language in all sorts of languages to "undermining Wikipedia?" This sounds paranoid and is most unhelpful. Besides I am a native speaker of English and so are almost all the editors who agree with me and edit in Judaism topics. I do know Hebrew but no way as proficiently as English, what are you carrying on about? Hebrew-speakers are not that comfortable on the English Wikipedia. So sorry, you are very off on this as well. "That is, as people here often say, a strawman argument. You are simply asking that a minority term (the mot juste for Jewish people) be promoted against the customary English word because, for you, Hebrew originating terms should replace the standard terms in Western languages, in order to show respect for Judaism." IZAK: I never said any of this at any time and you are extrapolating and expressing your fears and not any realities. Show me where I have done this please. I happen to prefer English terminology over Hebrew in articles and I have been often over-ruled by many other editors over the years. You are stigmatizing me for no good reason and I expect an apology. "That principle, as I suggested, sets a precedent that will affect many other articles, such as the 'Cave of the Patriarchs', which in Hebrew is 'Cave of Machpelah'." IZAK: Again, see above, you cited a bad example because no editors are that stupid to creat new terms, everyone knows the rules of WP:NEO and WP:NOTMADEUP! "If you want this, fine," IZAK: I don't, so what are you carrying on about? "but if you wish to use wikipedia for these ends, you'd better ask, on each occasion, people who are native speakers, or who are Christians and share much of your biblical heritage, for their views." IZAK: Utterly ridiculous because I am a native speaker of English that should be obvious and there is no such stipulation anywhere to ask permission beyond following WP guidelines and policies correctly. How can anyone know who is Christian or Jewish for that matter? You are imposing absurd censorship and violating WP:NOTCENSORED. What you are saying is overboard, an utter over-reaction, and you should retract it. How can you or anyone impose a Christian domination of Jewish topics? Who would go along with such crudeness? Would a Christian editor eccept such rules when writing about all the topics in Christianity that overlap with Judaism topics, starting with Jesus (his name is also from the Hebrew word Yeshu, possibly the short version for one or all of either Yeshua ("savior") or Yeshaya[yahu] ("Isaiah"), or Yehoshua ("Joshua"), so maybe Jesus should be called something else not from Hebrew words according to your incredibly silly and illogical theories, since Jesus was a Jew and lived and died as one in Judea the land of the Jews so any Jewish or Israeli editor should be free to say what they like about him according to your new "gospel" here, do you want me to start monitoring all the problems, do you see how absurd your lack of factual logic is and where it leads to? "There is absolutely no malice in raising these questions." IZAK: Could have fooled me. "It is simple a matter, to use your own semantic allusion, of 'respect' for native speakers of English, for the defined rules of wikipedia, and for Christians. I belong only to the former category, and insist, as a linguist, that tradition determine usage, not partisan meddling." IZAK: It's not simple and you are out of bounds. You should re-think what you have said here, it will clearly offend not just Judaism editors but could throw everything to do with religion on WP into turmoil. What you are saying is foolish and cannot be enforced. You will have to make a stronger case to impose such stupid strictures and prove that its ever been done to any editor that it's now a new "requirement" that an editor from another religion project must "ok" every edit that may not be in alliance with that other religion. You are also making a huge mistake of logic, theology, history and more by claiming that Judaism and Christianity agree on how to interpret the Bible. They are opposite and conflict religions in essence and you cannot impose "neutrality" that is not true NPOV either, by making me into your scapegoat. You are lecturing to me as if I just joined Wikipedia when I have been active since December of 2002 almost eight years and have learned and contributed a lot. Please, do not insult my or your or anyone's intelligence. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 10:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, cut the length of your responses down. If you can't say it in a few sentences then don't. No one will read what you have posted above, and going on at such length will not endear others to your position. Quantpole (talk) 10:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Speak for yourself. I know you do not listen to me. Please tell that to Nishidani as well. IZAK (talk) 11:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Come now Izak. Some years ago we exchanged, after strong but amicable discussion, a yiddish compliment, and now this?

Writing ‘it’s nice to discuss with you’ and then telling me that

• I call the Bible a mythology
• violate WP:AGF
• call you a liar (read again)
• question motives
• carry on
• make charges that are 'utter nonsense'
• feign to check google (I did, and got exactly the result SlimVirgin got)
• am ignorant of the history of English
• think English is a culturally or 'ethnically'(?) pure language
• do not know that Solomon is a Hebrew name, and not knowing that 'shalom' means 'peace'.
• that I am 'sounding paranoid'
• and create 'new terms' like the Cave of Machpelah
• impose 'absurd censorship'
• venture 'incredibly silly and illogical theories' (what theories?)
• impose a 'Christian domination on Jewish topics' (to repeat this is not a 'Jewish topic' but a topic shared by Jews and Christians)
• promote a new "gospel" (this is hardly 'good news', since I'm not a Christian)
• have 'an absurd lack of factual logic'.
• am 'out of bounds'.
• write with 'malice'
• 'offend Jewish editors'
• 'throw everything to do with religion on WP into turmoil’.
• try ‘to impose stupid strictures’
• make you a ‘scapegoat’
• insult your intelligence.

I'm sorry, but I can't reason when reactions to what I write are so intemperate, passionate and tediously uncomprehending. Evidently you are absolutely convinced you are right. Equally evidently, you are having great difficulty in understanding others who query your move on a variety of reasonable grounds. If Solomon's Temple is to become 'First Temple' (which doesn't resonate to English ears as does the former), then it will be perfectly logical to then argue that the Dead Sea should be called 'The Sea of Salt'(Yām Ha-Melaḥ), the Temple Mount be called 'Mount of the House' (Har haBayit), the Cave of the Patriarchs be called the 'Cave of Machpelah' (Me'arat HaMachpela). This is the precedent you are setting, in thorough defiance of established English usage, simply because you think these are exclusively Jewish things, and not intrinsically part and parcel, as they happen to be, of the cultural heritage of Western civilization.

I don't care for wikidrama, and never have, despite rumours, and can only insist you are absolutely wrong on English and Western usage, and defend myself with an opportune citation from a favorite author, Marcel Proust, whose absolute precision with 'le mot juste' can be relied on even here, and a good authority as both Jewish and intimately familiar with Western usage. He's describing a scene at the Grand-Hôtel in Balbeq, and watching the waiters and serving folk, which remind him of a 'Jewish-Christian tragedy' (he's thinking of Racine) reflects:

'ils menaient la même existence ecclésiastique que les lévites dans Athalie, et devant cette “troupe jeune et fidèle’” jouant aux pieds des degrés couverts de tapis magnifiques, je pouvais me demander si je pénétrer dans le Grand-Hôtel de Balbec ou dans le temple de Salomon. 'Sodome et Gomorrhe.’ (A la recherché du temps perdu, Pléiade, Gallimard 1987-9, vol. 3) p.I71

Nishidani (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Nishidani: I was already requested to be brief. But you are not fair. Now you switch to playing games while I am trying to be serious. I still enjoy discussing subjects with you, so don't turn around and use it against me. I took the trouble to analyze and comment upon your previous response in context with my frank comments, while you are just plucking disembodied terms out without responding to arguments. You persist in your untrue and unfounded allegation that I am in effect somehow violating WP:NEO when the opposite is true, I am carefully using the most modern utilities of Google, which you have dismissed. Consider the clear disparity between 144,000 hits for "First Temple Era" versus only 5 hits for "Solomon's Temple era" or 23,100 hits for "First Temple period" versus 5 hits for "Solomon's Temple period" as well as 47,000+ hits for "Destruction of the First Temple in Jerusalem" versus 33,000+ hits for "Destruction of Solomon's Temple" none of which can be dismissed off the cuff as "meaningless". Show me where I am "wrong" here and what results you get instead of just making unfounded claims. You also persist with the absurd claim that somehow this will lead to "Dead Sea" becoming "Sea of Salt", just how ridiculous is that, for a person who knows the mechanics of translation you are playing games to suit your own POV as expressed on your "now retired" user page. By the way, how come you are here if you are "retired"? Anyhow I will repeat for the umpteenth time, your "fears" already exist on Wikipedia, just see Category:Hebrew words and phrases and guess what I did not invent them or put them all in there. Finally, I do not speak French so why are you throwing in that curve ball? This is after all the English Wikipedia you know, as they all claim. At least provide clear translations for the non-French speakers among us otherwise we might suspect it's just a cheap order on a menu for frog's legs, French bread and wine from Bordeaux. IZAK (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

(a)Since you seem to question my motives, (it's becoming a chronic suspicion round here) my results were identical to SlimVirgin's checking both Google and Google Books. I defer on this to her results, since no one in his right mind would question her neutrality on this. 'First temple period' will get you all the results you like, because 'period' contextualizes immediately 'First Temple'. But 'First Temple' alone in English will not generally 'ring a bell'. 'Solomon's Temple' needs no contextualization: it immediately evokes the Bible and Jerusalem to non-Jewish ears, as 'first temple' doesn't. You consistently ignore the fact that this is as much a topic at the heart of Western civilization, to people raised on the Bible, as it is to Jewish people.

(b)I'm a linguist, and on these things I don't play games. I love languages, and have no Fichtean fear of foreign words being 'smuggled in', and no fear of 'contamination'. Civilization is constant hybridization. To any anglophone raised in a Jewish world, 'first temple' is obviously what they will hear, and that is exactly the result you got from mostly Jewish anglophones on the Wiki Project Judaism page, as one would expect. To any anglophone outside that area, raised on the Bible, in a religious household, or with a solid education 'Solomon's Temple' is indisputably the term that rings bells, and that is probably what you would have been told had you asked the same question on the WikiPorjkect Christianity page. You fail to see this. 'Solomon's Temple' is what Western non-Jewish people refer to as 'the first temple', and that is why it should be the default term on the English wiki.

(c)You have not given, apart from rhetorical dismissals, any reason to show why my analogy is wrong:

Standard English ----------Jewish/Hebrew Usage

Solomon's Temple-------------First temple ( Beit (ha'mikdash) ha'rishon)

Dead Sea----------------------The Sea of Salt (Yām Ha-Melaḥ)

Temple Mount---------------Mount of the House (Har haBayit)

Cave of the Patriarchs---Cave of Machpelah (Me'arat HaMachpela).

(d)'They led the same ecclesiastical life as the Levites in (Racine's) Athalie and in the presence of this young and faithful troupe who were playing at the foot of stairs covered with magnificent carpets, I was able to wonder whether I had made my way into the Balbec Grand Hotel or into the Temple of Solomon.' (Proust)Nishidani (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani old buddy: Firstly, SlimVirgin never cited any diffs whereas I did. You must cite the exact Google diffs you have to disprove mine that I explicitly cite, and not just say well, "she also said so." Also, the problems of "confusion" she mentions would be solved with the original suffix of First Temple (Judaism) that I preferred, but I have since agreed that First Temple is a wise enough change that works. Secondly, to push "Western non-Jewish people" is to push only one POV. Even though there are more Christians than Jews in the world, nevertheless Judaism and Christianity are at least co-equal as religions per se and if one considers that Judaism is the source and mother-religion of Christianity, in fact there could not be Christianity without the existence of Judaism, it is logical that the positions of Judaism are key in many Christian-Jewish situations, especially if backed up by Google hits. Thirdly, as to Hebrew usage on Wikipedia, for that matter any language's usage on WP, your contentions and worries hold no water because number one "First Temple" is English and it's not even a true translation of the Hebrew for "first temple" which should be rendered "First House" if it would be like you say. And number two, so many Judaism topics, and the First Temple is a key Judaism topic more than to any religion, there are hundreds of actual Hebrew words used for articles such as Sukkot (not "tabernacles" or "booths" which is archaic by now); Shavuot (not "pentecost"); Yom Hazikaron (not "remembrance day") and so many more, so your "fears" are totally misplaced and not called for. Finally, Proust is no proof of anything. Sure the Hebrew Bible with its attendant moral codes is Judaism's gift to humanity with all its nomenclature, ideas, and practices. Too many editors are just not cognicent of that and are making light of basic facts and truths. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 05:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Focusing on the listing at Wikiproject Judaism

After looking over things in this discussion and over at the vote at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Building and destroying the Beit Hamikdash, I personally feel that it was the wrong decision to list it there, because it certainly seems to have gotten voters that were focused more on the "what do believing Jews call it" angle, rather than "what do most English-speaking people call it", which is what all of the names on English Wikipedia should be based on. There is a distinct difference between the two.

Additionally, while the talk pages for the related articles, like Solomon's Temple, were indeed notified, they were just told that a discussion was taking place over on the Wikiproject page which, once again, is not the proper place to have such a discussion. I am quite perplexed why, conversely, this discussion was not had on the article talk page and the Wikiproject wasn't just being notified about it? This seems to have all been done rather backwards.

Going back to my initial point, while there should indeed be people involved who are able to vote and explain the Jewish viewpoint on the subject, it seems to me that no non-Wikiproject members were involved at all in the discussion. If we are going to be trying to figure out what the most common name is for English-speaking peoples, then, at least a few, of the voters involved should be un-involved (non-members of the Wikiproject) English-speaking users. With such users, the viewpoint of what they have heard as the most common term is given, so it is known, outside Jewish people, what the commonly recognized term is and whether this syncs with what the common name within Judaism is. It appears, in this case, the common name is not the same, wherein lies the problem.

And, thus, listing such a page move discussion at the Jewish wikiproject is, inevitably, going to focus only on one viewpoint and not consider outside viewpoints on the subject.

I feel that this discussion should be held once more and involve outside users as well. Silverseren^C 09:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for focussing back on the actual issue at hand. Silverseren hits the nail on the head. It is not the debate or reasoning that matters here (WP:ANI is not WP:RM), it is the decision to decide this move at a WikiProject that was mistaken. So please take that into account when discussing future moves. Fences&Windows 13:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

In agreement with F&W, but I'm unclear why administrator intervention is being called for. I will also say that Silver seren should probably refactor his comment to strike the word "(non-Jewish)" and insert "(non-members of that Wikiproject)" I am not a member of any WikiProject, but I rather doubt that membership in that WikiProject is limited to those of a certain religion, therefore term "Jewish Wikiproject" reads oddly and might be misinterpreted to indicate that it is entirely Jewish or limited to those who are Jewish. That should probably be refactored as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Intervention is being asked for because I am claiming that a number of pages were moved without propoer "full community" discussion, outside of normal WP processes. I'm asking that these pages be moved back to where they were (and the discussion re-run if editors wish to do that). --FormerIP (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Just remember that, if administrators do not take any action from this discussion, you yourself can always start a new discussion on the appropriate talk page and notify others users to make sure a discussion takes place that involves a more widespread Wiki population. Silverseren^C 15:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but that would put the onus the other way around, so that the old page names will not be able to re-establish themselves in the event of no consensus. --FormerIP (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Silverseren^C 15:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what's "done" could you elaborate please. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 01:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify: WP:JUDAISM has no criteria for membership and no one is questioned about their religion. Anyone can join. There is no requirement to be Jewish or anything for that matter to participate in discussions there. It is totally absurd to set up fake unenforceable "rules" here that will never work as to what members of any Wikiproject can or cannot discuss topics that are central to their project. Wikiprojects are often manned by experts based on their editing and comment history and they help Wikipedia grow as an enyclopedia while Admins per se are just Wiki-police-judges-executioners editors-at-large who enforce policies without doing much creative stuff the way Wikiprojects do, unless they roll up their sleeves and work on an equal basis with other grunt editors in the trenches. The complaints of FormerIP have been proven to be without merit and false. It is just his concern and he was welcome to join the discussion when it was ongoing yet he did not. He only complained here after moves were made based on WP:CONSENSUS. There are no rules of where to draw the line and how much input is needed to make changes as long as WP policies and procedures are followed and enough time is given for responses. If editors relating to atheism and Wikipedia:WikiProject Atheism wanted to debate that God does not exist and created articles and names and redirects for them about that topic they would not be obligated to inform every last Wikiproject and page relating to religions and faiths that presumably believe in some Deity, as long as they follow the basics of WP policies and procedures. That's just how Wikipedia works and FormerIP is just displaying a case of sour grapes. IZAK (talk) 01:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Question: Why is this discussion being started all over again when it has already gone through at least two incarnations above, not to mention the original discussion. Why are the goal posts being moved yet again??? IZAK (talk) 01:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is being "started over" as you put it, because the topic has drifted from the point of this ANI discussion. And your reply here is still not addressing the problem. The problem is that the vote for a name change should have never been held at the Wikiproject, but at the article page that was going to be renamed. The Wikiproject should have been notified, yes, but that is all. Holding the vote at Wikiproject Judaism means that it is much less likely for people outside of it to notice it going on, even if you notified other article pages.

Furthermore, my other point of contention is that almost all of the reasoning for the move votes were based around what the "most common name as according to Jewish people" would be, when this is not what the name of an article should be based on. As I stated above, the name should be the one that most English-speaking people recognize and know of. Since this is the English Wikipedia after all. I'm sure the Yiddish Wikipedia uses the name First Temple (Or it probably should if it doesn't) and it would be right to do so, since that Wikipedia is based around Judaism and Jewish people. But the English Wikipedia is not, so I believe that there should be a new page name discussion held on the article talk page and that outside viewpoints should be brought in to vote and discuss. Silverseren^C 05:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Silver seren: In answer to your points: (a) There is no easy way to deal with this complicated topic, but the responses here have been serious and helpful and do not deserve to be belittled. (b) There was nothing wrong where the original discussion was held. It's a topic central to Judaism. The notion of the Three Temples are not central to any other religion the way they are key to Judaism. That's a fact according to everyone. (c) The changes effected four articles not one so the place where the debate was held makes no substantive difference because all four talk pages were notified, even though you are dismissive for no good reason. (d) You should read the above discussions because you are just making the same false charges and claims not based on reality or on what is transpiring. (e) No one is denying that this is the English Wikipedia, nevertheless it seems you are not aware that WP allows and welcomes terminology from other cultures, languages and nationalities. Just take a look at Category:Hebrew words and phrases and its parent Category:Words and phrases by language with an astounding 73 sub-categories, are you also going to tell them to get lost and fly a kite, that the English Wikipedia is "only" pukka-pukka English when it never has been? Funnily, see Pukka: "Pukka (Hindi पक्का, Urdu پكّا pakkā) is a word of Hindi and Urdu origin, literally meaning 'cooked, ripe' and figuratively 'fully-formed, solid, permanent'. It may also refer to:..." (f) Your line about the Yiddish Wikipedia is ridiculous and offensive. It violates WP:CIVIL. Why not try reading over the entire discussion again, and don't create this uncalled-for distraction based on the exact same points of discussion that you are now quite obviously missing. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Dear IZAK You keep repeating an argument which is a non-sequitur. No one thinks English, or Hebrew, is not receptive to loan-words. It is simply that we do not arbitrarily substitute standard key terms which have been used consistently over several hundred years with foreign calques that are not familiar to native speakers. I repeat, 'first temple' means nothing to an English ear, unless one is particular about contextualizing it. 'Solomon's Temple' is redolent of the Bible, and resonates deeply in English. This is the English wikipedia. If in time, as with Willis Barnstone's new translation of the Gospels, a return to Hebraic roots catches on and Jesus is written Yeshua, Mary Miriam, and John the Baptist 'Yohanan the Dipper', then I'd be the last one to object. But wikipedia is not a legislator of language, in Shelley's sense, and does not innovate on usage. The usage as it exists is 'Solomon's Temple'.Nishidani (talk) 13:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • And you my friend Nishidani are obviously behind the times. We no longer rely on "hearing aids" from the past. There is a scientific measure called Google and its search engines that record hits from which we can extrapolate and deduce many obvious things that mere human ears no matter how delicate and old-fashioned cannot. To wit: Consider the clear disparity between 140,000+ hits for "First Temple Era" versus only 5 hits for "Solomon's Temple era" or 23,000+ hits for "First Temple period" versus 5 hits for "Solomon's Temple period" as well as 47,000+ hits for "Destruction of the First Temple in Jerusalem" versus 33,000+ hits for "Destruction of Solomon's Temple" none of which can be dismissed off the cuff as "meaningless". Please use Google to disprove me and none of your romantic longings for some long-gone past. In addition there were already two "temples by numbers" articles before all this began, i.e. Third Temple, no dispute over that, and Second Temple of Jerusalem where the Second Temple part is correct but the "of Jerusalem" is ambiguous and actually not accurate because Jerusalem is just a place while the temple was built by Ezra and re-built by Herod and yet it's known as the Second Temple. Thus, First, Second and First Temples are named perfectly logically and symmetrically. And to boot, it's first and foremost a subject more central to Judaism than to any other subject, even though it has other aliases. Nothing to do with your scare tactics over how this is a "creeping annexation" of the English Wikipedia by Hebrew terms which is just a pure fabrication. IZAK (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Please! This is isn't the place to discuss the correct naming of the page. --FormerIP (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Now you tell us! It's directly related, in spite of your cryptic attempts to derail fruitful discussions. What would you like to discuss? IZAK (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
        • • Something that requires Administrator intervention? That would be nice. Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
            • Although having said that, I must comment on Google. It's not particularly scientific. It shows up a lot of stuff based on Wikipedia articles, for a start, and that even applies to Google Books now that Wikipedia articles are being published by multiple publishers. A lot of nonsense shows up also. And results like Izaak's vary tremendously according to how you word your search, even the order of words. It can be useful, don't get me wrong, but it needs to be used judiciously and any editor insisting it's the only way to name an article is likely to come to grief. Dougweller (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
              • It's not scientific at all. The papers and articles cited at Wikipedia:Search engine test#References and Wikipedia:Search engine test#Further reading should put at stop to any Wikipedia editor thinking that hit counts measure anything, and the fallaciousness of argumentum ad Googlum, of which the above is an example. IZAK and others can read about this in Hebrew and in even in Hungarian. Science has actually rejected this methodology.

                Moreover, what one is shown by Google Books et al. varies drastically according to where one is in the world. Google is a tool for finding. (It is, after all, a search engine.) It's not a tool for counting. Counting Google hits is not research. Uncle G (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Please, no one is claiming that Google is the be all and end all and only factor. It is just a very handy tool provided by modern technology to arrive at decent rough measurements. None of us here has time to do research on a PhD level right now, and it is ridiculous to belittle the usefulness of Google when it's handled right. Can someone please explain how a 140,000 to 5 and a 23,000 to 5 count can be dismissed as "meaningless" when they reveal just the opposite? No one claims that each and every one of the 140,000 or 23,000 hits are all equal, even if you take away 90% or 95% of those hits they instantly and automatically and quite easily outweigh a mere 5 hits no matter which way you slice it. So let's stop venting about Google, it's not perfect and this is not MIT or the CIA doing evaluation of statistics, it's a good indicator, it's used all the time in AfDs and in all sorts of discussions. It's a universal tool and you have to know how to handle it, but it does work. IZAK (talk) 09:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Okay here is a restatement of what the issue raised is. It is not directly to do with what the correct naming of any WP pages is and google doesn't need to be referred to in order to consider it.--FormerIP (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• IZAK (and everyone else), for a discussion like this one, you shouldn't be using Google Hits, but Google Books hits and Google Scholar hits (and even then you obviously have to check whether most of the hits are relevant and reliable). These represent more of the kind of sources that we want, and avoid most of the blogs, fora, personal webpages, etcetera. This also may yield significantly different results from the one you used, e.g. "Destruction of the First Temple in Jerusalem" gets only 286 Google Books results[2] vs. "Destruction of Solomon's Temple" with 1700 results[3]. Like you say, "It's a universal tool and you have to know how to handle it". Fram (talk) 10:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Isn't it great to make up rules as you go along?! Google was used to bolster my arguments that WP itself confirmed in the "Third Temple" and "Second Temple of Jerusalem" (note "Second Temple") so that it's correct use "First temple" as well especially since it what's been for 2000+ years in Judaism, and in the process that no WP policies or guidelines were violated making the changes. You know next you gonna tell me that WP is not a reliable reference as is often argued off-wiki by lawyers. So quit the WP:LAWYERing. IZAK (talk) 10:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't make up rules as I go along, thank you. You need external arguments to show that two articles were correctly named, and one incorrect (why couldn't it e.g. have been the other way around?). You used Google to do this, when you should have been more correct when using Google Books or Scholar, since these contain a much higher percentage of reliable sources than simple Google hits return. Using reliable sources (in English) to decide a naming discussion on the English Wikipedia is a rule I have defended from the beginning of this discussion, not something I just made up. And again, "especially since it what's been for 2000+ years in Judaism" is a totally irrelevant PoV argument. Your PoV is that what is used in Judaism is decisive for the title of a Judaism-related subject, which goes against Wikipedia policy, as has been said by many editors by now. Fram (talk) 10:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
      • WP policy does NOT change reality, it describes and explains it. It's not "my POV" to point out CORRECTLY and VERY accurately that the two temples were and are central to Judaism much more for more than 3,000 years. Please do not participate in discussions, and certainly don't sit in judgment over them, if you display great ignorance about them and are proud of it. What don't you get about that? IZAK (talk) 10:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
        • "you display great ignorance about them and are proud of it." Please provide diffs or remove this personal attack. A correct statement can be a PoV argument. I have not claimed anywhere that the temples are not central to Judaism, nor that the names you prefer may not be the most often used ones in Judaism. I have claimed that these statements are irrelevant arguments for this discussion, and are only used because of your PoV, namely that whatever is correct in the context of Judaism, is the names that should be used on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Fram you are funny. You escalate things with rough attacks when you should be calming the waters, you certainly started out that way, but then for some odd reason you came back and with every comment you feel you have the right to attack me. Plenty of examples here. Finally when I give you a dose of your own medicine you react as if you are "innocent". Please stop your provocative and offensive comments to me and other Judaic editors right now. Thank you. Just look at all your words lately, starting here, your utterly false and untrue allegation that my "statements are irrelevant arguments for this discussion, and are only used because of your PoV, namely that whatever is correct in the context of Judaism, is the names that should be used on Wikipedia" --a total INSULT !!!! when I have been editing for over 7 years and never have I been cited for "POV" violations in my work. Check it out !!!! Yes, I speak bluntly, and I like to discuss more openly on talk pages ONLY, but when I edit, I do so in full conformity with WP:NPOV to the absolute best of my abilities. There was nothing "wrong" in labeling the temples of Judaism as being "First Temple (Judaism)" etc and that's not a POV either, it's an accurate and factual name for such an article. Or are you blind to your own wild allegations against me? And you expect me to sit quietly while you repeatedly attack me. I am tired of your antics. Go home and play with your ducky but please don't attack me at every turn and expect me to remain silent forever. Thank you IZAK (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I have not made any claims about whatever you have done or shown in your previous years of editing. In this discussion and in the moves, you have shown that you consider your PoV as more important than Wikipedia policies, and have acted upon it. I have always given quotes (plenty to choose from) to support this. All you have as defense for your personal attacks above is "you attacked me first!". You claim that I insult you when I make the "utterly false and untrue" (yes, utterly false and untrue!) allegation about "your PoV, namely that whatever is correct in the context of Judaism, is the names that should be used on Wikipedia". However, you stated early in the move discussion: "But not according to Judaism to which it belongs. It's about the Jewish First Temple not about how or what it's called according to an English or non-Jewish or secular POV. That's precisely my point."[4] Fram (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Restatement of what the issue originally raised is - please focus on this

Okay, the background to this discussion. Hope it is not too long, but I am trying to summarise quite a lot:

There was a discussion on the Wikiproject Judaism talkpage (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#Building_and_destroying_the_Beit_Hamikdash) where is was proposed to move the pages of a number of article pages. The proposer, User:IZAK, opens the discussion by proposing to address "lots of confusion, some stemming from opposing secular and religious scholarly outlooks". He says that the title of one of the articles (Solomon's Temple) should not be used, even though it had been pointed out that this was the most common English term, because it is not correct "according to Judaism to which it belongs" (my emphasis). The title of the section on the talkpage is also named in a way that many non-Jewish editors will find hard to connect with the topic being discussed.

It seems to me to be reasonable to interpret this as a discussion set up specifically for members of Wikiproject Judaism, inviting them to form a consensus in order to counter what is perceived as the non-Jewish bias of the community as a whole. I am not suggesting bad faith, but a lack of understanding about how WP is supposed to work. It is clear from the discussion that consideration of non-Jewish viewpoints on the naming of the articles in question has been actively discouraged.

The result of the discussion was a decision to move a number of pages, inlcuding Solomon's Temple to First Temple (Judaism) and Second Temple of Jerusalem to Second Temple (Judaism) (note: the "(Judaism)" suffixes have now been removed by User:Fram, who has stressed that this should not be taken as resolving the matter - in my view this action was helpful, but it still leaves the titles with names that are immediately understood within Judaism but less so outside Judaism).

The disucssion seems to have been closed and the pages moved by IZAK (the proposer) at a time when there doesn't even appear to have been a clear consensus amongst the project members about what exactly to do, and without actually declaring it closed.

My primary concern is that is was not appropriate to hold a discussion which seems to have been intended to stamp the articles as Jewish without involving editors who may have been inclined to a different view (for example that the articles should be named according to common English usage). It has been pointed out that any editor could have particpated. Whilst this is theoretically true, it seems to be clear that use of the Judaism talkpage as a forum slanted the discussion towards a Jewish POV. Jewish editors were more likely to find the discussion and more likely to understand from the title what was being disucssed.

Notices were left on several talkpages, but a number of editors have pointed out that these notices did not make it clear that the discussion was about proposed page moves. Also, the notice seems to have disappeared at some point from the the 2nd Temple of Jersusalem talkpage, although exactly when does not seem to be recorded in the talkpage history (I suspect a server glitch). (That was the only page I had on watch, hence I did not know about the discussion in order to participate in it).

The discussion was not included at WP:RM. It has been pointed out that guidance there says that disucssions "can always be carried out at the article's talk page without adding an entry here". But, in this case, the discussion was not on any article talkpage. It has been suggested that centralising a discussion may be appropriate where a number of pages are involved. Although policy does not seem to allow for this, I understand the logic of that position. However, it seems to me that holding a centralised discussion in a non-neurtal forum and framing the disucssion in a way that encourages non-neutral discourse is a different matter.

It has also been suggested that I or another editor could hold a further discussion about moving the pages back if we are not happy. But that would reverse the onus, so that the new titles would stick if there is no consensus. From the above discussion, it seems to me that there are a number of strongly held positions on the matter (which don't actually need to be discussed here), it's just that they weren't all represented in the discussion at Wikiproject Judaism. This means that "no consensus" can't ruled out by any means.

What I'm asking admins to consider is whether it is appropriate in this circumstance to move the pages in question back to their stable titles, on the grounds that the discussion held about moving them cannot be said to have produced a valid WP:CONSENSUS. New, properly inclusive, discussions can then be held if any editor is inclined to do that.

Please note: I do not think it is appropriate to discuss here what the correct naming should actually be, only whether the process by which a decision to move the pages was appropriate according to normal WP standards. And, although it may seem hypocritical given the length of this post, can I ask editors to refrain from making very long off-topic posts, which I think are making it hard for admins and other editors to get a handle on what the issue being raised actually is.

Thanks.--FormerIP (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Attempting to read thru this entire thread -- but failing at several points -- I find it is obvious that for one reason or another, a number of editors don't agree with moving one or more articles to the proposed new name. In short, there is no consensus to rename them, no matter was said or discussed before. Discussions & the ensuing agreements made in various subareas of Wikipedia only become consensus if they are accepted in the rest of Wikipedia. (This is a point which the regulars at WP:MOS continually fail to get; just because some matter is "officially" decided, it still is an open matter if there is obvious, wide-spread resistance to the decision.) The simplest solution would be to send this matter to WP:RM & see whether the objections raised here are simply over process, or if there are good reasons to revert back to the original names. (And please, nota bene: I have no dog in this fight. I'm certain that any concerns I have over the preferred names for these articles can be adequately addressed by either creating new redirects or using existing ones.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

OK: list the pages at WP:RM, making clear that there was no consensus to move in the first place (according to uninvolved admins on this thread), so there must be consensus to retain the present names or they will be moved back. Fences&Windows 21:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not clear that there was not a consensus. That seems to be a questionable characterization. This whole thread was a waste of all our time -- should never have been started as an AN/I thread in the first place. Finally, consensus -- in the proper forum -- is consensus of the editors involved, which IMHO we have. All that said, someone please move this thread out of here, as it is taking up space that could be filled by more interesting and heated disputes.  :) --Epeefleche (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess that leaves me to wash up. But I also guess I've invested enough already to carry on. A couple of things though. (1) Fences&Windows, would you be willing to be the closer on this basis, to avoid confusion at the end of the period? (2) To be clear, we are saying that "no consensus" will mean return the pages to their prior situations, not only if there is a two way split, but also if there turn out to be a range of views and perhaps new suggestions. If there is no cleat consensus to retain the new page names, they don't get retained. Correct? --FormerIP (talk) 23:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Objection! This would be a closing by an involved admin. Sorry FormerIP, they are citing the whole bible of WP that has nothing to do with the basics of this situation, because now any move of any page would be subject to all kinds of things that are just not relevant aside from your lengthy exposition which is not a definitive explanation, you can't be the "presenter" of the situation and it's effectice "closer" as well, even though respectable others have come here to disagree with you, including three admins, Avraham, Malik Shabazz and Slrubenstein who agree with me. They must be afforded an opportunity to agree or not to close, if you want unanimity, as you insist on dragging this matter out in spite of all the clarifications and testimony I have given here. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"you can't be the "presenter" of the situation and it's effectice "closer" as well" Isn't that exactly what you did? Fram (talk) 08:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No comparison. You are looking at things back to front, at best. What is taking place here at ANI is not the same as what took place at WP:JUDAISM, and FormerIP is the wrong man for the job here because he was welcome to join the centralized discussion over there at any time. He did not. He did not come to voice his concerns there and did not contact any editors from there. Nothing was "closed" to him. He only woke up after the moves and complains that WP:JUDAISM is the "wrong" place to hold a centralized vote central to Judaism that in any case was about moving 4 pages not one. Here he has put the entire WP:JUDAISM on trial and created a hostile environment to its editors making them seem like wrong-doers when all the requirements were met setting the stage for a move, which I did based on the clear mandate there. A long discussion was held. All effected pages were notified on their talk pages. And there was a clear-cut WP:CONSENSUS arrived at, a 9 to 1 majority voted for the moves. Now he and others are claiming that Jews and Judaism must be "monitored" by Christian editors. Is that fair or normal? What kind of harmony or respect for Jews and Judaism did he unleash? Don't you fear that might even be called antisemitism by some, and I know it's a tricky thing to say, but it has to be said, you can't trample on Judaism's editors as if they were "wrongdoers" and claim some sort of "wrongdoing" when every single requirement was met according to all WP policies and guidelines. I am surprised at you for being so petty when I have complimented you multiple times on the wisdom of you own editorial moves in this situation. Please stop your personal silly attacks against me that only increases the recriminations and bitterness rather than leading to reconciliation and acceptance of each other. IZAK (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

IZAK, you are continuing to make very wild claims about people. I suggest when you do so, you provide a link. Nothing you assert here about motives and effects (persecution, Christian monitoring, being put on trial) strikes me as reflecting what has been argued, and to continually evoke persecution and witchhunts by Christians is not conducive to tempered debate. Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 09:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani: You love this, it's obvious. You throw bombs and then you say why are people screaming, don't you? Do you ever read what you write yourself? because you are the main one making lots of the accusations and asking for punitive measures. I have tried to respond to your words with detailed responses, that just lead nowhere. All I can say to you is please stop your tactics of poisoning the well and then pleading "innocence". Thanks, IZAK (talk) 10:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

(Please don't do this. The last time I heard of bomb throwing in my family was when my father refused to pay a subscription at his local Celtic Club, for the IRA. If you prefer vituperation provide with due courtesy links to underline the grounds for what are inflammatory accusations. The danger is that the discussion will get unfocused and personal, and wikipedians will lose sight of what is, after all, a simple technical matter about naming conventions and moving protocols.Nishidani (talk) 11:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC))

You start about perceived antisemitism and then complain that others are poisoning the well? You make, like Nishidani said, pretty wild allegations. Backing them up with diffs and specific quotes would be helpful. Retracting the statements is always another good possibility of course. Fram (talk) 10:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that the pages should stay named what they are for now and be listed at WP:RM for moving back. FormerIP, if you are so certain that the move was not correct, then a consensus for the return should become clear. If there is no consensus to return the pages to the older names, then why shouldn't they stay as they are? -- Avi (talk) 05:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That's fait accompli logic, Avi. A term which, used absolutely, I've never heard in conversation all my life, in several Western languages, which you guys hear from childhood because it is the standard term within your faith, is not 'the standard term' in English. I am not surprised several of you might think this odd, because it's what you all heard. But Debresser said as much when this debate in that nook of wiki was opened. I'm not arguing for Christendom, as IZAK suggests, or full of fear, as he repeats. I'm arguing from what should be obvious to any native user of English not raised within Judaism. What is obvious to one group can be weird to another, and it is exasperating that ulterior motives are adduced to suggest there is something odd in expressing strong surprise that the English language and its linguistic preferences can be ignored in the way they were by users trusting in what it their own idiolect, to put it technically.Nishidani (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me that there was a discussion, a call for opinions, consensus and then an action. This may not have formed with the bureaucratic method currently in place, but it seems to have formed with a real consensus. I am unsure of what to do other than relist it for a move back. Basket of Puppies 08:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

However, the way the discussion was set up was such that the consensus formed would, inevitably, be biased in its decision. Silverseren^C 08:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The procedural errors are inadvertent, since the discussants were thinking of a different question from the one that is central to any such move on the English wikipedia, i.e., what is the default term in our community for this site, which has a peculiar potency for Judaism. Everyone was absolutely in good faith in the original move. It was a procedural error to think that a question of usage of the English language could be decided in a small forum where only, it appears, one constituency of users weighed the question. To most of them it was obvious. It is like asking a small group of Englishmen or Americans what is the proper word in English for the strip between houses and a road where people walk. Brits will concur 'pavement' or perhaps 'walkway', Americans will say 'sidewalk', and Australians will say 'footpath'. They all all in good faith, all assured they have it right. But for this very reason, linguistics distinguishes dialects, and idiolects from standard common speech. (2) Procedurally it was wrong because none of the participants appeared to realize they were setting a precedent. If words denominating places revered by several faiths are to be chosen according to who named them first, or which group has the oldest traditions, then much of the English language default terminology will be subject to challenge on historical proprietorial grounds. No one noticed this. It is an unintended consequence of the way this was done. This is a decision about English usage, not about religion or ethnic preferences, and obviously needed a wider constituency of wikipedians from all walks of life. The obvious only emerged to all when this was broached by people ignorant of what had taken place, and coming from different backgrounds. As it is, you have a 'consensus' on what Jewish usage prefers, but no consensus at all about what is the default term in English, familiar to people of all religious denominations. This is why the proper move would be to remove the name to the 'status ante quo', and then call on all to determine what is the most familiar term to English speakers.Nishidani (talk) 08:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Silver, consensus is by definition biased. It's the bias of a group of people for a preferred action. Basket of Puppies 08:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

And when detected, is usually corrected out of respect for WP:NPOV, the fundamental aim.Nishidani (talk) 09:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, please stop trying to re-frame the situation your way. The subject is not about a topic in the English language. The subject is about the subject itself! The subject was and is already called Third Temple (not "Ezekiel's Temple" although it is a recognized name for it) and was called Second Temple of Jerusalem (not "Ezra's Temple" although it's also named that in Biblical scholarship) so WP already acknowledged and reflected correctly through its own naming that the topic and subject is about a series of temples, all I did in essence was to adjust the name of the first one to the First Temple. It would have actually been historically and theologically most correct to add the qualifying suffix (Judaism) because the subject and not the mere name is about the Temples holiest to Judaism and not to any other religion. So this is not as you allege about "word games" it's far more serious than that, trying to convey the most accurate historical and religious aspect of the subject and not just what many people may or may not call it. In any case, as I have proven again and again, the term First temple is just as good and even more used than any other in learned circles. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia, it does not go by what a popularity poll says a topic should be called it deals with the content of the topic. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"In any case, as I have proven again and again, the term First temple is just as good and even more used than any other in learned circles." No, you have shown that it gets more regular Google hits, which include all fora, personal pages, and so on. A better indication, like I said above, is Google books and Google Scholar. The results on Google books are: ""First Temple" Jerusalem" gives 99,600 hits[5], and ""Solomon's Temple" Jerusalem" gives 159,000 hits[6]. You are incorrect in your "proven" claims, and again add irrelevant theological arguments. Fram (talk) 10:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but this a VERY theological subject. What do you think the 1st Temple was? a tennis court? was it part of sports? And who do you think worshiped in it? Europeans? Americans? Zombies? It was built by Jews, for purposes of centralized Jewish worship that lasted for 400+ years for the Jews only and the 2nd one was was also built by Jews for Jews and Judaism, and lasted another 400+ years for the Jews only, so are you expecting Judaism editors to bail out of this key subject because WP is having a discussion about it with all sorts of cries that poor Christians did not have their say here when no one stopped anyone from saying anything? How absurd is that... you obviously do not understand this subject and should recuse yourself from this discussion. IZAK (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I have never and nowhere suggested that Judaism editors should leave this discussion. I have only stated that whatever the preferred name of a subject is in one country, religion, language, or branch of science may not overrule the name most generally used in reliable sources in English. The irrelevant theological argument you used was "add the qualifying suffix (Judaism) because the subject and not the mere name is about the Temples holiest to Judaism and not to any other religion." This has nothing to do with whether I understand the subject or not, but with the fact that you want to name the page based on religious arguments, not based on Wikipedia policies. Fram (talk) 10:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry again, but the subject is one that is first and foremost related to Judaism, shouting WP:IDONTLIKEIT won't change the facts and truths of history and religion. The First Temple stood from about 1000 BCE to about 586 BCE, there were none of today's religions or cultures around they are all dead and gone, certainly not Christianity and Islam that came 1000 to 1500 years later. So that should be the true starting poin and progression and also reflected in the name of the article, as this is already in the article/s. The naming conventions are minor, almost veils, that hide the truth, reality and actuality of the subject, and WP should reflect the facts and the truth and NOT give deference to the deceptive veils covering the actual subject. Now what's wrong with what I have said here? You don't like theology, that's just your prejudice and POV, but that should not stop or hinder WP from its mission of conveying information truthfully and accurately. You see now I am using logic, history, theology and facts, no recourse to Google needed, although Google must be used correctly, you must choose good reliable source that reflect the truth and not the veils and cover-ups and revisionisms of later times of others with POVs that wished to blot out Judaism's strict connections to its temples and vice versa. This helps WP gain credibility. IZAK (talk) 10:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The naming conventions are minor, almost veils, that hide the truth, reality and actuality of the subject, and WP should reflect the facts and the truth

Please review Wikipedia:Verifiability, which opens:'The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.'Nishidani (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps RfC is the best option now

Perhaps the best option, now that moves have been made, is to open an RfC, appropriately publicized, on each of the pages, and use the RfC to select the best, or least problematic, page name, and then move the page(s) [if necessary] to the consensus page name. If there still remains no consensus after a full RfC, binding mediation would be the next step. This way, we can sidestep the probelm of "what is the default name" and concentrate on what should be the accepted wikipedia name. Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No, because that would reverse the onus and almost certainly end without consensus, based on the discussion above. Since you helped IZAK with the recent page moves, though, I think a reasonable way forward might be for you to think about whether, in hindsight, that was for the best. --FormerIP (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you are under a misconception, Former. With an RfC, unlike an RfM, there is no onus as we would not be discussing the move, and by extension the former name (whatsoever we decide that should be) but we would be discussing a priori what should the name be, and whatever consensus at which we arrive would be the final name, regardless of what it is at this moment. If we cannot arrive at a consensus, we would not decide the current name stands, but we engage Wikipedia:Mediation Committee in binding arbitration, which is the final step in content dispute resolution in any event. Therefore, "onus" is irrelevant, As for your second point I've done many C&P move fixes over my years as an admin, and it makes sense that IZAK comes to an admin which he is 1) familiar with and 2) trusts in their competence to correct his error in moving the pages. -- Avi (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Just an interim query. Is there any history of any of hundreds of editors raising an issue over the 'problematic' nature of the original name, Solomon's Temple, from the article's inception six years ago until these last days, when change was made? If there hasn't been, the logical thing would be to respect the tacit testimony of 6 years, rather than acquiesce in a "fait accompli" which was questioned as soon as the wider community noticed it. If there has been a consistent querying of it, on the other hand, then leaving it as it is, and proceding to a full RfC is probably the logical next step forward. Otherwise I think the history of the article would support a revert to the uncontroversial name, followed by the same full RfC. Izak could help here, since he has been active on the article from day 1.Nishidani (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

To me, it would be six of one, half a dozen of the other if we move the articles back or not prior to the RfC; the result is the same: A new opportunity to build consensus on the proper name for English wikipedia, which if it fails, would proceed to binding mediation. -- Avi (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that we should go there yet. The move although initially apparently proper, clearly didn't reflect the consensus of the wider community and should thus be reverted. A request for changing the title can than be made. Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_potentially_controversial_moves. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, talk about "reverse the onus and almost certainly end without consensus" is wikilawyering. The intent of any discussion should be to determine whether the new name does have sufficient support beyond the original group of editors who wanted the change. If there is, then the dispute is, in effect, resolved. If there is not, then, unless the wider community is overwhelmingly against the change, no matter which forum or process is used, there will be a fight to revert back to the original names. I say that not based on fairness, or what the "true name" of these buildings are, but based on simple interpersonal politics. I would like to point out to both parties that unless you try to resolve this matter in a way where all parties involved feel that they were at least heard with respect -- if not achieved something -- then it's going to be messy & people will be given the Wikipedia equivalent of sitting in a corner with a dunce cap. So unless someone starts acting in a way that requires sanctioning, take it away from here to one of the discussion forums proposed above. -- llywrch (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Not wikilawyering, I think. Rather an elementary grasp of wiki dynamics. If it goes to RfC and Binding Mediation, it will almost certainly not return to its original name, which no one objected to, apparently, for 6 years, for the simple reason that RfC will not secure a consensus, and in the Binding Mediation that will follow necessarily, the result, being necesarily a Solomonic compromise, will not be 'Solomon's Temple', whatever else exhaustion will produce. It is precisely this which means that not reverting to the status quo ante will be prejudicial to one favoured outcome. In short Avi's recommended procedure, which is perfectly rational in formal terms, excludes one of the two outcomes vetted here, whereas a return to the original, enduring and normal English name does not prejudice the possibility that in an RfC or later, some variation on 'First Temple' may emerge. Nishidani (talk) 19:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

So, in other words, you need to win this dispute because you're right & the other side needs to lose because they're wrong? I'm not saying that the current set of names is the best & most accurate choice, but either you believe that discussion will eventually lead to the best solution despite the rules, or we just forget about the implications of WP:IAR & decide that slavish obedience to words & process is a better guide than using common sense. And if there is truly enough opinion against the new terms (which I admit are unintuitive, if not bizarre, to me), then these articles will return to their original names. -- llywrch (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not notice, and hence did not reply to this, until rereading the whole thread this afternoon. Perhaps I give that impression, of arguing frivolously just to score points. One cannot contest the right of others to see it this way. From experience of a prior dispute which took the route advocated, I just felt that not reverting would effectively rule out any possibility that, of the various names proposed in a future RfC, the one that has proved stable, and that all my instincts and reading tells me is customary throughout Western usage, would be torpedoed procedurally. Perhaps my reasoning was wrong. I simply feel that, as noted below, a, to me, highly loaded messianic-theological term not common in broad English usage, which is what the new term represents, is a bad default term, even if provisory. Enough. I'm repeating things said elsewhere.Nishidani (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I have not followed much of this dispute, but it seems to me that if this particular argument is applied all around that a lot of articles are going to be in for name changes. Just to give one example: Masjid al-Haram. How many English speakers will recognize this as the name of, what is more commonly know in English, as the "Grand Mosque" located in Mecca? Should we change it to the English, or leave it in Arabic? The possibility of such arguments filling up AN/I for months to come, as heated disputes over names spills over to here, is not an attractive prospect. Vasio (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Your general point is correct. Your illustrative example not so. For here we are speaking of name conflicts between two traditions which recall, memorialize and honour the same thing. The Grand Mosque is not part of non-Islamic tradition.Nishidani (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Vasio, I don't think your general point is correct. If there is WP consensus for Masjid al-Haram then sobeit. If the English title would be better, then it can be RM'd. The difference here is that there is not (per most users and all admins who have commented here) a genuine WP consensus in favour of the page titles that these articles have been moved to. They've been moved wrongly and should be moved back. --FormerIP (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

His general point was correct in that, if First Temple stands for the reason given, a large number of articles names will be up for change depending on who can assert a greater cultural or ethnocultural attachment to them. That is why we have the rule, in naming conventions, of accepting the standard terminology endorsed by any national language, in this case English.Nishidani (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The example is good. Virtually no English speaking non-Muslim recognizes the name "Masjid al-Haram", but it is used in the article instead of a more descriptive name, that everyone recognizes, anyhow. Personally that does not bother me, and see no need to start a massive fight over changing names. Vasio (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

To return to the original point, and recap. From memory, consensus formation and binding mediation tend to ignore Wikipedia:Article titles the primary rule for naming, i.e.,

'Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article.'

The normal name in English, apparently, never challenged since the inception of the article, was 'Solomon's Temple' over six years, and edited by hundreds of people. The article was taken, with its title, directly from a major encyclopedia.

Both consensus-building, and binding mediation involve compromises, and given the differences expressed above, 'Solomon's Temple' will not be accepted. I'm all for compromises when there is some doubt. I can't see however, any doubt over the fact that 'the most common English-language name' here is the term that preexisted this name-change, and in that rapid and small discussion, its proponent did not originally justify the change as being consonant with English usage' but because primarily it belonged to Judaism. That is based on a false premise, and is sufficient reason to ask that we simply return to the page name that has stood there for six years, not just a few hectic days, and then work through an RfC and if needed, Binding Mediation, if that is necessary. To adopt the policy for resolution suggested will practically mean prejudicing the chances that the standard term be retained, by ignoring 'usage' arguments (objective) in favour of results from the arbitrary numbers of people in the process of consensus building (subjective).Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• That an article name was never challenged does not mean it's right. In general, names should be politically and religious neutral. To me, First, Second, Third ... are the obviously neutral names and totally free of religious preference. There might be others temples called such, but the ones at Jerusalem are certainly overwhelmingly the best known in English, so there is no need for disambiguation in parenthesis. To me , "Solomon's Temple" implies an uncertain historical statement, that Solomon was responsible for the construction. It could be interpreted as , the temple called Solomon's Temple, and I think most English speakers would recognize it--but there's a name that requires no interpretation: First. DGG ( talk ) 23:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I've replied below why I think this is a dangerous misprision, but, as your are a librarian, two of dozens of examples might prove interesting. If names should be 'politically and religiously neutral' then the messianic taxonomy IZAK introduced fails your test.
  • 'As regards the general description of the third Temple, the account given by Jos(ephus) agrees with ther careful details of the Mishna (Middoth), but his measurements are unreliable.’ James Hastings, (ed.) A Dictionary of the Bible: Volume II: (Part II: I -- Kinsman), The Minerva Group, vol.2, 2004 p. 598
  • 'The second temple copied the first; the third temple copied the second; except that the outer work of Herod was larger in size, nobler in material, higher in art, than the structures which it replaced.'W. H. Dixon, The Holy Land, Bernhard Tauchnitz, 1865, vol.2 p.33

Please can we veer back away from discussing which titles are best. This is not what ANI is for. The question is about process. Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This is becoming more and more bureaucratic as it continues. A group of editors came to a consensus regarding a topic. The manner of that consensus forming was objected as out-of-process, violating the bureaucratic requirement. Now there is a call for another bureaucratic procedure to determine is the process was accepted or not. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Ok? I am not saying I agree or disagree with the renaming. What I am saying, however, is there was a consensus and that is the overriding principal. Basket of Puppies 23:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

There was a restricted discussion. There was not a WP:CONSENSUS. However, I agree that new bureaucratic proposals are not needed, just for an admin to please move the pages back. --FormerIP (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

To be precise, Former, I believe you are incorrect. There was a consensus reached on the article pages. You feel the consensus reached is not representative of the greater wikipedia community because the discussion was only listed on four or five pages which do not reach what you consider to be a large enough portion of the wikipedia community. But to deny that a consensus of the participants was reached is incorrect. -- Avi (talk) 02:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a good question to ask of you then, regarding the consensus made. How many of those who voted were not a member of Wikiproject Judaism or regular contributors to said Wikiproject? In short, how many voters were those from outside the Wikiproject? Silverseren^C 02:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing that a new discussion is necessary; I'm just pointing out a flaw in Former's argument, as he seems to place much emphasis on bureaucratic process. In my opinion, it is irrelevant, and we need a new discussion. But to say that there was no consensus amongst the participants is wrong; the issue is whether or not the consensus reached is representative as the discussion may not have been broadcast widely enough outside the natural areas of interest. -- Avi (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I can agree with that. Silverseren^C 03:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Move this discussion?

If this discussion is not going to wrap up soon (I haven't been following it), perhaps it should be moved to a sub-page? It's pretty big. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Right on. IZAK (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Some administrative decision is required, before this is moved to a subpage that will not catch the administrative oversight this does. The decision requested is to determine whether we go back to the uncontroversial name, that lasted without query, for 6 years, or acquiesce in, provisorily, the new name, based on a niche consensus of 8 against one, which no one noticed, and when they did proved immediately controversial.

That this will go to a broad RfC, and most probably Binding Mediation, seems clear.

I have argued that acquiescence in the new name, will, procedurally prejudice the chances that the original stable name will be restored by consensus, something not true of the new name. In a forthcoming RfC all should have the assurance that neither side has an unfair advantage, and until some weeks ago, IZAK never appears to have challenged, as he suddenly did, a name that has stood the test of time. That name should be restored, and then challenged.

In reply to DGG. Actually, I didn't want to mention this, because it is a content issue, but since you raise it, while (1)First (2)Second (3)Third Temple looks, being mathematical, more neutral to your eyes, in customary usage it opens a can of worms, at least for English and other Western languages. The usage now adopted by a small consensus is theological in Judaism, not descriptive in historiography. Herod's temple, in Western languages, is often described as the 'Third Temple', whereas in both orthodox Judaism, and in Evangelical Christianity, the 'Third Temple' is a theological hypothesis regarding a temple that in messianic belief will be constructed in the future. You can see this most evidently in German, which refers to (1) Der salomonische Tempel (2) Der serubbabelische Tempel (3) Der herodianische Tempel, and leaves the theoretical future temple, the third in messianic Judaism, out of the account. The third temple is Herod's in many history sources (and Hastings' comprhensive encyclopedia) whereas it is a future construct in messianism, that does not yet exist, and to which now all wiki readers looking for Herod's temple will be directed. IZAK's proposal imposed a messianic division on the temples that sits in defiance of customary usage. Far from being 'neutral' it is a loaded, and partisan term. That is added reason why in what will be a vexatiously extenuating and muddled procedure, probably ending in a consensual neologism, one should return provisorily to the usage that stood the test of time before his controversial proposal. That done, he, anyone else,(I'm sure evangelicals will vote in favour of it) can argue for what is a precedent-setting name change. As a sign of good faith, since my bona fides seems to be challenged by innuendoes here and there, I undertake not to participate in the RfC and Binding Mediation when it arises, if the stable version is reverted to, in conformity with wiki naming protocols.Nishidani (talk) 10:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Relist the move (already!)

I read through some of the discussion (admittedly skipping some of the longer stretches) and this seems fairly straightforward to me (disclosure: I'm clueless about the subject matter and don't know which end of which temple is which!). An informal move discussion was listed in a wikipedia project and closed and the moves done by the discussion initiator. This, obviously given the discussion above, was not an uncontroversial move. So, it would appear that the right thing to do is to revert the moves and list new discussions on WP:RM. Seems simple enough. If the temples should rightly be titled first, second, and third, then that's what will happen. That is the right 'wikipedia' thing to do. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Hi RegentsPark: If that's what you think, you obviously need to re-read the entire discussion, (top to bottom, from one end to the other end) to understand why what you suggest is not acceptable because what you express is only one interpretation when there are are others who oppose it. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry IZAK. The move is clearly procedurally incorrect. And the only way to correct that is to revert them and relist them. Most of the discussion, especially your (long!) posts are about whether the new titles are the right ones are not and that is not the issue here. The process of consensus formation is an important one on wikipedia and should not be treated lightly. Regards. --RegentsPark (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
• I would have to agree, I could care less what the titles are, process is what is important and as a completely uninvolved admin. It should be put back to the original titles and a proper request for move should happen. -DJSasso (talk) 11:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • DJSasso: You are absolutely correct. In spite of the length of the thread, there does not seem to be much disagreement as to what has happened and there is a clear consensus, including all admins that have commented, that there wasn't a good basis for the pages moves, procedurally speaking. It is hard to see what grounds for complaint there could be if an uninvolved admin moved the pages back. So, the question is: do you know anyone who is an uninvolved admin? --FormerIP (talk) 12:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Not quite exact. Of the 9 admins uninvolved in the original move who have commented, two llywrch and DGG either saw nothing wrong with keeping the controversial name, while going to an RfC or approved of it. The other 7 saw a variety of problems with IZAK's reasoning behind, or methods used to justify, both the consensus and the move, and/or suggested reverting to the original name, and then pursuing the proposed messianic namechange through a far wider RfC.Nishidani (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Uh Nishidani, you misunderstood what I wrote. I am taking no stand on the names of the articles, nor of anything IZAK wrote -- except that IZAK's posts were often so long that my eyes glazed over after the first few sentences. I am taking a stand that it is clear that currently a number of people object to the current names of the articles, & that their objections need to be heard & somehow accommodated so that a true consensus exists. I am also taking the stand that how this is done is not important as long as it is done so everyone feels that they have been heard, and that a thread on WP:AN/I is not how to do it. -- llywrch (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That is how I read your reply to FormerIP, and evidently I misunderstood. It's fatiguing trying to analyse and retain everything in one's head while summarizing 40 pages, and I've evidently succumbed. (I checked my notes, and last night, indeed, I placed you in the 'indeterminate' section. My apologies.Nishidani (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

So why aren't opening the larger discussion now? There are any number of possible outcomes:

1. There is consensus for the former names - so we move them back
2. There is consensus for the current names - so we keep them
3. We cannot reach a consensus - we are no worse off then than we are now

AND we may reach a consensus on some and not others (I think the most contentious one will be the earliest temple, just a hunch). So instead of wasting our time here, why don't we get started and hopefully prove the complete irrelevance of the thousands of words above. We can always come back and speak to our hearts content if the RfC isn't successful. -- Avi (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

A gesture of noblesse oblige, if you like, Avi. It's a distinct nuance of positional advantage that one asks, simply, to be cancelled. Since the move has proved to be highly contentious once the broader wikipedia community examined it, one asks that it be reverted, and a full discussion take place, where editors will be aware, as they apparently weren't in the original niche vote, of the full implications of what the move entailed. The revert is to a form that was not controversial for 6 years. If it is now, so is the change that has been enacted. Fait accomplis are not a good basis for restarting the discussion, as anyone familiar with game theory will appreciate. A level playing field, in such circumstances, requires that everyone step back, return to the beginning and, yes, open an RfC immediately once that is done. I won't be there. Sighs of relief all round.:)Nishidani (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Nishdani. Maybe I'm naïve, but I see it as if we go RfC instead of RfM, there is no "default" answer of current name. Rather, we discuss, a priori what the name should be. We can give the articles a blank name for all it matters. I know not everyone sees it this way, but I think that we are not giving the participants enough credit to post their own opinions as to the matter regardless of what is currently above the first horizontal rule. If we put half the energy expended above into a discussion of what the name should be, I'm confident we'd come to a reasonable consensus. Who is in favor of naming them Temples A, B, and C in the interim, that would annoy everybody and level the playing field, no? . -- Avi (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment -- However this is handled make sure that the move request makes sense. I've seen retroactive move discussions before that are utterly confusing because they request the move that has already been made. Please be clear in this request whatever you do. Either move the titles back and re-list the original, or make a new one that is clear in what it requests.Griswaldo (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Griswaldo, this would no longer be a move request as the issue is now "what is the best name" without any ``extra’’ weight given to old or new. -- Avi (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point. And may I point out that any result of the ensuing discussion may lead the opposed group to complain that the rules were bent or broken if there is too much bickering over just how & where to conduct the discussion? I suspect the opinion that will carry the day is the one held by the group which makes the best effort to assume good faith here. -- llywrch (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

@Avi. OK, but the suggestion of this subthread was to revert the changes and to start a new discussion at WP:RM. That is what I was responding to. According to Nishidani 7 out of 9 uninvolved admins also believe that it should be reverted first and then an RfC should go ahead (I wasn't sure if that meant simply RfC or was actually a reference to WP:RM). In my opinion it would be best to revert first, but no matter what happens I'm just asking that you all make sure that whatever is being discussed is clear to the wider community. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, arguing against my own interest, I would correct this. I said 'and/or'. 7 out of nine either felt there was a problem in the evidence used for the consensus, or advocated a simple revert as a prelude to rediscussion. Being individuals, they all spoke from different angles, and summarizing them as all in favour of a revert would be incorrect. Some simply ignored this, but noted the oddities in the reasoning behind the 'consensus'. I still think though that 7 of 9 is a fair indication that there emerged a general 'discomfort' among neutral administrators about the way this was argued, and executed. Nishidani (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Being bold

Fearing that the above bureacratic discussions, wikilawyering, and whatnot would go on for another week and serve no function, I have created three RfC's that will be posted to both the religion and history RfC boards, and I will also be posting friendly notices to appropriate wiki projects. Speaking to all of you, myself included, please expend at least one half as much energy in explaining your rationale for what you believe the proper name should be, with NO extra weight given to what it is now, what it was last week, or what it was in 1875. Pretend we are starting a BRAND new article--what should it be? The links for discussion are, logically:

1. Talk:First_Temple#RfC:Proper_Name_for_this_Article
2. Talk:Second_Temple#RfC:Proper_Name_for_this_Article
3. Talk:Third_Temple#RfC:Proper_Name_for_this_Article

I'm hoping that we can reach a consensus well before the standard 30 day time period for RfC's. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Avi, I appreciate people are tired, but you have just created a completely unworkable mess. It can't work, for the simple reason, that Western scholarship defines the Third temple as Herod's, whereas in Judaism, Herod's temple is the second. That's what you get in following IZAK's proposal as the template, and not reverting. Nishidani (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There were two historical temples, the second of which had massive updates to it 300+ years into its existence. There is nothing wrong with opining that the first should be Solomons, the second should be "Zerubavel/Herd" depending on when it happened, or even splitting the article into two, one called Second and one called third, and the third page should be renamed "Future temple". By all means, if that is what you think it should be, say so. Nothing is unworkable except for paralysis, which I am trying to break. -- Avi (talk) 18:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Second_Temple#Break_this_article_into_two.3B_one_for_Zerubavel_and_one_for_Herod.2C_and_rename_them.... Everyone should be free to suggest ANY option for each of the structures (historical or future), just let's focus on getting it as best we can under wiki guidelines and not going round and round the mulberry bush of process wonkery. -- Avi (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I have listed the discussion at the Judaism, Christianity, Israel, and Jewish history wikiprojects as well as WP:RM. Where else should we publicize this to ensure that interested parties will have the opportunity to opine and debate? -- Avi (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I've cast my opinion on the three temples. And I hope you don't mind that I added Ezekiel's Temple to the list of possible name changes for the currently titled Third Temple article, since Ezekiel's Temple is also a name of it. Silverseren^C 18:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Not at all; good for you! We should consider this as a brand new start and get ALL the best ideas involved so we can get a reasonable consensus and not paralysis. If, for example, you think the article should be split, that too is an option! -- Avi (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)(od) While well meant, I think the RfCs miss the point. The previous moves were made without a proper consensus seeking procedure. These moves should be reverted and the normal process of consensus seeking for a move (WP:RM) initiated. Anything else will leave us a little poorer, in encyclopedia building terms, than we are now. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not wikilawyering. It is simply commonsense, informed by some knowledge of the technical historical issues. I hope there is sufficient patience left to follow the following point, which is crucial.

If there was nothing procedurally wrong in the original, if highly restricted consensus that led to the name change, I'm afraid this cannot be said of Avi's bold move above. It is procedurally defective, because it (a)reflects Avi's perceptions, a perfectly respectable POV, and (b)in following IZAK's controversial template, excludes many feasable alternatives. It closes the discussion, by in part predetermining its result.

IZAK's template makes 'Third Temple' refer exclusively to a messianic belief within Judaism, not to an historical reality. There can therefore be no discussion of 'The Third Temple' in this sense. It is already predetermined by the Template used, that in so far as 'Third Temple' refers to Messianic Judaism, it cannot be discussed or renamed, to refer to, for example Herod's temple, which was an historic reality.

Avi says confidently above that there were only 'two temples'.

'There were two historical temples, the second of which had massive updates to it 300+ years into its existence'

Well, that is his POV. Scholarship, the highest quality WP:RS will consistently controvert his POV on this. Take one of many examples, from one of the foremost scholars on this, >Francis Edwards Peters:-

There were three successive Jewish temples in that place – the Jewish tradition prefers to count only two; Herod, the builder of the third, is not a beloved figure in Jewish history-though not continuously . . The third temple was anything but modest. It was the grandest structure conceived by Judaism’s greatest builders, Herod, surnamed the great.’ Francis E. Peters The Monotheists: The peoples of God Princeton University Press, 2003 p.15

In Avi and IZAK's template, it is excluded priori that discussants can use RS to argue that Third Temple could refer to Herod's temple, which is how many academic sources describe it. In the wikipedia template as now given, Peter's statement is made to be ridiculous. For his Herod's historic temple is numerated as Ezechial's envisioned messianic temple in the future.

I could write more, but only if this is unclear. This is what happens when one does not use commonsense, and start afresh from the uncontroversial point of departure. I'm sure most of this was not foreseen, and that Avi's POV, as reflected in the adoption of IZAK's template, is regarded as the true, and default term. It cannot however form the basis for a reconsideration of the problem. It is part of the problem caused by IZAK's numeration, which ignores the quite distinct conceptual framework common in Western scholarship, from which we are supposed to base our naming and our content.In logic, if your premises are wrong, to make a pun, the building will crumble, or turn out shonky.Nishidani (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, I think you're reading too much into what I said. If you believe that there should be four articles and one that exists now (and only three articles existed, regardless of what they were named) should be split, make your arguments on the page of the article to be split, not here. We should be working to make the best possible set of articles. As I point out on Talk:Second Temple, HeWiki does have four articles on the topic, as they split "Second" from "Herod". You can be very persuasive and write well; use that talent to help determine what should be done!. -- Avi (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Mate, I'm an old man, and I can't really spend my last decade in these hugely extensive and often inconclusive discussions. All I can do is tell you what my five decades of reading tell me about scholarly positions. I didn't read anything into what you said. I see confusion abounding. Many people reading this may not be familiar with the topics and the scholarship, as opposed to wiki rules, and I've tried to show how deep problems can inadvertently arise when people rush things (a 2 day consensus among one constituency. Debresser was the only one there who understood what the non-Judaic perspective was, and the problem this would cause), from not only my personal perspective but that of the scholarly traditions I was raised in (secular classical, biblical and historical scholarship), which, on this are often out of synch with the traditional taxonomies of Catholicism, Judaism, Shintoism, Buddhism and many other historical areas. IZAK's template is that of conservative and messianic Judaism, and I have several RS from Jewish scholars, writers, and scholars who prefer the tripartite taxonomy of Solomon, Zerubbabel, Herod. So you have a religious template, and secular scholarship, intrinsically in conflict in this model, and people using the latter are going to have huge difficulties in deciding what page (Second or Third) they are to discuss their alternative titles. (I've said I won't proceed into the RfC, unless you can email me a kilo of digitalis that is compatible with Irish whisky, mate!)

However it goes, Avi, as always, best regards. Our encounters have always been, for me, most pleasurable.Nishidani (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Logjam

Looks like this has become a complete mess. As a completely uninvolved admin, I am willing to return the articles to their original state. However, it does seem to me that some knowledge is necessary to figure out what these original states were and which articles are affected and I don't have even that basic level of Jewish or Christian history/theology. Nor do I have the patience to read the miles of text above this one. If someone can list the moves that IZAK made in source --> target format, I'll move the targets back to the sources. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

If you do move things back, make sure to either rename and relist the three RfC's or at least ensure the redirects work, as getting the consensus names going forward is much more important that what were the previous names, which are certainly under dispute, each one of them. -- Avi (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll do that. Am I right in thinking that the moves are First Temple --> Solomon's Temple, Second Temple --> Herod's Temple, Third Temple --> ? (it seems as if the third one was not moved)? --RegentsPark (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Second Temple was the name back in 2009 per the logs, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&action=view&type=move&page=Second_Temple I don't think it ever was Herod's temple in EnWiki. -- Avi (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't it "Second Temple of Jerusalem" before? That's what the discussion at Wikiproject Judaism seems to imply. And the Third Temple was that name before, it hasn't been changed. Silverseren^C 21:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)So was the move from Second Temple of Jerusalem to Second Temple? That doesn't seem like it would be particularly controversial. Perhaps only the the First Temple move needs to be redone. (I'm sure I'm missing something here.) --RegentsPark (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The First Temple one was the one that was highly contentious, yes. But if you're going to move one, then you should move the other as well, or people will accuse you of playing favoritism for the name Solomon's Temple. Don't want to get you in trouble, mate. :P Silverseren^C 21:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::::It seems that it was Second Temple to begin with back in 2002, then moved to "Second temple of Jerusalem" 7 years later, which was then moved to "Second Temple (Judaism)" a year later, and then moved BACK to its original name of 7 years a week later. -- Avi (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Question: Was the move to "Second Temple of Jerusalem" precipitated by something? I feel that that sort of change would only occur if something else named the "Second Temple" came up and so the article had to be renamed in order to be clear. Silverseren^C 21:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the log entry:

• (del/undel) 10:06, November 1, 2009 Cush (talk | contribs | block) moved Second Temple to Second Temple of Jerusalem ‎ (title was ambiguous) (revert)

Is Cush still active? -- Avi (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Pfft... *laughs* I am very confused about how changing the title made it less ambiguous. From what I can tell, it made it more. Oh, and I ran a quick search and I found that there is a second temple for Mormons and there are a myriad of second temples for various things in Hinduism. Silverseren^C 21:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like it needs disambiguation but I'll move that back as well. And archive this long thread. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: The following involves three related articles, please comment at all three:

1. Talk:Solomon's Temple/Archive 2#RfC:Proper Name for this Article
2. Talk:Second Temple of Jerusalem#RfC:Proper Name for this Article
3. Talk:Third Temple#RfC:Proper Name for this Article

The recent move of the articles below has engendered concern on WP:ANI if the consensus reached was representative of the wider wikipedia project. Therefore, three RfCs have been opened to fully discuss the proper names of the articles, so consensus can be reached. Please visit and opine at the sections listed below.

1. Talk:First_Temple#RfC:Proper_Name_for_this_Article
2. Talk:Second_Temple#RfC:Proper_Name_for_this_Article
3. Talk:Third_Temple#RfC:Proper_Name_for_this_Article

Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Avi, good consensus-seeking, but three separate RfCs may not be a good idea, if inconsistency is thereby introduced. Say the consensus is to call them the First, Herod's and Third, respectively? Bad outcome. --Dweller (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Each article has its own issues, and if we call them First, Herod, and Future, so be it. Redirects will solve that issue the way it does now (type in "Solomon's temple" 8-) ). -- Avi (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreedly that would be unfortunate, but as Avi said: "so be it". Debresser (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Solomon's Temple/Archive 2#RfC:Proper Name for this Article

Talk:Second Temple of Jerusalem#RfC:Proper Name for this Article

Talk:Third Temple#RfC:Proper Name for this Article