Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Significance of Jerusalem

Religious significance of Jerusalem

Mediation of this dispute has been completed. The case pages should not be edited.

To report a problem with the outcome of this case, contact the Mediation Committee.
If additional mediation proceedings are required, a new mediation request should be filed.
These case pages should not be edited, even to correct article content problems. Case pages are not indexed by search engines.

Resolved:

Inactivity.

This mediation case is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this case page.

view edit delete watch
Filed: 20:32, January 27 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Articles involved

Religious significance of Jerusalem

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

Informal mediation on talk page
WP:RFC: added on 16 January 2007. No responses received.

Issues to be mediated

Should the header start with "The city of Jerusalem is considered sacred by Islam" sourced to Yusuf Ali?
Should the statement "According to the vast majority of Islamic scholars, the "Farthest Mosque" referred to is the site of the Temple of Solomon, and the present day location of the al-Aqsa mosque of Jerusalem", also sourced to Yusuf Ali stay?
Should "The Quran (verse 7:161) refers to the city of Jerusalem", sourced to many persons, stay?
Can hadith relating to Jerusalem be added, (either entirely or paraphrased) to the article?
Does the section Religious_significance_of_Jerusalem#Controversial_claim violate Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources?
Should only Yusuf Ali's work be taken seriously, or can other scholars be sourced as well?
Should vital but brief history and conflicting claims be at least mentioned?

Additional issues to be mediated

Additional issue 1
Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediate

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.

Agree.Bless sins 20:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. --Shamir1 21:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 03:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Qasamaan 20:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Accepted

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to mediate this case - individually or alongside another editor; I'm currently mediating the MedCom case, Jews for Jesus (II) which is a content dispute over a religious article, so I feel I'm quite well suited to this case. The Jews for Jesus case would not obstruct me to this case, as it is all but wrapped up. Hopefully, I can use this case to help the Committee on an informal basis. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 17:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: ^demon has expressed his concern over a non-committee member mediating this case, and as such I am unwilling to mediate. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 18:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can take this case as well. Proceed on the article talk page rather than here. -Ste|vertigo 04:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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