This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Temple denial article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Temple denial appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 9 September 2009 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
Dennis Ross has said several times that this was the only "new" idea which Arafat personally contributed at Camp David... AnonMoos ( talk) 22:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Could we have a scientific source that says the stone is believed to be part of Herod's Temple? I can find religious sources and tourist books that say it, but nothing serious. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 06:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
This page should be moved to Temple Denial, the popular term. [1] [2]-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I keep fixing the writing in the lead, and Brewcrewer keeps reverting. Can you say why? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 07:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
...consists almost exclusively of a list of accusations. None of the accused is given any chance to deny the accusation. In many cases (eg Abu El Haj) we are not even told what the accused said but only what some critic claimed about it. In the case of living persons, this is a clear violation of WP:BLP, and in general terms it is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Another problem is the lack of any distinction made between the 1st temple and the 2nd temple. Due to the absence of extra-Biblical proof, lots of serious people including Israeli archaeologists have questioned whether the 1st temple existed. Denying the 1st temple is obviously vastly different from denying the 2nd temple that occured in historical times and left traces visible today. But both sorts of denial are here lumped together. Zero talk 07:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Nableezy: Please stop edit warring on the footnote format. Let the article writers choose how to format the sources. Thanks.-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't even really know what the dispute is, but in general we should follow the policies and guidelines rather than making up our own style. Zero talk 03:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I find it curious that the article doesn't go into any depth into the two viewpoints of the issue. Does either side have any evidence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.100.80 ( talk) 05:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I found there is a book The Lost Temple of Israel By Zvi Koenigsberg that says the first temple was on Mount Ebal near Nablus. Maybe that is where it is from? Zero talk 04:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I removed the section titled "A growing phenomenon" which was riddled with problems, beginning with the tendentious and presentist heading. Other editors had flagged these few sentences for weasel words and questionable sourcing. Named authors were not described and do not appear notable.
I also found the final sentence ("Aaron Klein has written the efforts by Muslim leaders in the West to oppose Temple denial have failed because Muslims in the Middle East believe leaders who use Temple denial to make 'Islam the only legitimate actor' in Jerusalem.") illogical. Why should the alleged beliefs of "Muslims in the Middle East" determine the success or failure of "efforts by Muslim leaders in the West"?
There seems to be an underlying assumption here of robot-like regimentation among Muslims, manipulated by a sinister conspiracy among Muslims "leaders." It's not unlike what was so often said about the Jews a century ago, and with a similar absence of proof. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 18:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
What about denying its location as on the Temple Mount? Is this included in "Temple Denial"? See Ernest L. Martin and Disputed facts under ground in Jerusalem. Chesdovi ( talk) 15:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The article as is stands is hardly anything except a dump of Dore Gold's opinions. Who needs it? Zero talk 00:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Moreover, Dore Gold is not a "third-party reliable source". He is in fact a prominent member of the Likud establishment who many years was an official spokesman for the Israeli government. The exact opposite of "third party". His opinion is quotable as an example of its genre, but he is not a reliable source for facts by Wikipedia criteria. Zero talk 00:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Camp David: An Exchange - The New York Review of Books, September 20, 2001, Dennis Ross interview on Fox News Sunday, April 21, 2002 etc. -- AnonMoos ( talk) 13:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
There is no such phrase as "physical form of denial" in standard English. If that is not true, it should be easy to find examples (I found one teenage blog, that's all). Nor is its meaning clear. How can the meaning of this phrase be inferred from the example? Disrespect, disregard, or even contempt for archaeological remains is completely different from denial. If I destroy remnants of the Colloseum does it mean I deny that the Colloseum existed? Of course not. So, what is left is some neologism used by Dore Gold with some intended meaning best known to Dore Gold. What words are actually used on page 16 of his book? If he used the actual words "physical form of Temple denial" then they must be put in quotes. If not, his actual words must be used. Or maybe this thing can be recognised as patently ridiculous and omitted altogether. Zero talk 05:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
We actually have an article on Temple Mount Sifting Project... -- AnonMoos ( talk) 22:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
The line "...as though the existence of the ancient Jewish temples on the Temple Mount was a mute question..." Should the word be 'moot' or 'mute'? LorenzoB ( talk) 02:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
[5], adding to statements made by user "bricology" above. Historylover4 ( talk) 03:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Bricology completely dealt with your claims (noting the Battle of Qarqar, the Jebusites, supposed "reconstruction", etc) about "well stuff is covered that's why there's no evidence" of it typical claims by your ilk. Historylover4 ( talk) 15:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The Herodian Temple, or the temple before that, or the temple before that which is attributed to biblical Solomon? There should be a clear distinction, because the availability of archaeological or historical evidence for these edifices differs substantially. Denial of the Herodian Temple is just silly, while the denial of a historical Solomon or the temple correctly or erroneously attributed to him may indeed be contextually justified. And besides denial there are also degrees of doubt about the architectural features and extend of these temples (as well as those of the Millo at different times) among archaeologists and historians. Doubts also exist about the exact religion exercised in any temple at the site predating the time of the Babylonian and Assyrian conquests. This article completely fails to set archaeological or historical research against modern political purposes. ♆ CUSH ♆ 15:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
This article remains in very poor shape, due to excessive reliance on polemic sources such as Gold. Intentional blurring of the distinction between the temples is a standard ploy of these sources. Certainly there is a need for an article on this topic, but the current rubbish is not it. Zero talk 12:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Cush has just repeated an anti-Semitic blood libel by calling Zionism racism. Cush should be banned from all Jewish pages.
This article is almost entirely a list of opponents the phenomenon of 'temple denial', with (as far as I can see) only one documented example of denial actually taking place (not counting non-specific accusations by opponents of the phenomenon). If this is a phenomenon widespread enough to deserve its own article, surely there must be more examples? As it is, it just looks like a lot of people very upset about something that doesn't appear to be taking place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin M. A'Lee ( talk • contribs) 18:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
“ | It is our sacred place, al-Aqsa [mosque] is ours, this [Temple Mount] is ours. They have no right to go there and desecrate it. Jerusalem is the jewel in the crown and it is the eternal capital of the Palestinian state. Without it, there will not be a state. | ” |
While it is OK to present noteworthy opinions on temple denial, including negative opinions, it is not ok to present a case for or against something in Wikipedia's voice. Actually it is a misuse of the encyclopedia. Zero talk 22:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Briefly summarizing the physical evidence for the Temple, and linking to the main article ( Archaeological remnants of the Jerusalem Temple) is relevant to the topic of Temple denial - in the same way that the section on Holocaust denial#Examination_of_claims, and link to the article on Criticism of Holocaust denial, is to the subject of Holocaust denial. Removing any mention of evidence for the Temple from the article would be a classic case of WP:FALSEBALANCE. EastTN ( talk) 23:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
EastTN -- I'm sure you're well-intentioned, but I'm not sure that there's a real need for this article to say much beyond that the consensus of mainstream scholarship is that the bottom half of the Western Wall (a big structure which everybody can see for themselves without going to a museum) is part of the precincts of the Herodian Temple... AnonMoos ( talk) 04:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I didn't realize at first that this wasn't a new article, because really the sourcing isn't very good. We have a book published by a junk publisher, a book review of that book, an opinion column, a think tank, a blog post...it looks like the only conventionally reliable source currently in the article talking about "Temple denial" as a phenomenon, as opposed to just being a WP:SYNTH collection of people engaging in the phenomenon, is the 2014 NYT article. Don't we have anything stronger? – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 00:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I removed this:
Please look at the references. The first one seems to be a fringe theory that claims a famous archaeologist held a most unlikely belief. We definitely need a better source for that. The second one is a book by Ernest L. Martin, whose opinions were definitely fringe (see his article). Perhaps at some point these were intended as examples of temple denial, but the first is unacceptable altogether and the second is dubiously classified (is it temple denial to believe the temples existed somewhere else?). Zero talk 18:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
This paragraph has been removed a couple of times on the basis that there is "no mention of temple denial here."
The suggested rationale would set an unreasonable standard for inclusion of material in the article - specifically, that the named topic of the article must be specifically referenced in every paragraph and source. This paragraph falls in a section on the Physical evidence for the Temple. The presence or lack of physical evidence is clearly a question that is directly relevant to an article on Temple Denial. This appears to have been at least implicitly acknowledged, as there has been no attempt to remove the section (which I would strongly object to).
I can see some rationale for excluding the paragraph that deals with the fortress Antonia. But to argue that material on the physical evidence for the existence of the Second Temple should be excluded in an article that is about "the assertion that none of the Temples in Jerusalem ever existed or were not located on the Temple Mount" strikes me as absurd on its face. EastTN ( talk) 19:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Zero 100% (is that 0%? ). Since this is an encyclopedia article about Temple denial and not a project to prove or disprove the existence of the Temple, appropriate material to add to the article are sources about Temple denial, not sources about whether the Temple existed, or what evidence there may be that it existed. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 02:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
My position remains the same as it was on "04:02, 24 July 2017" and "19:45, 24 July 2017" above -- we could mention perhaps one thing that is completely uncontroversial in mainstream scholarship (such as that the bottom of the Wailing / Western Wall is the remains of a support structure built for the Herodian reconstruction of the second temple), but this article is not the place to weight possibilities or delve into details. AnonMoos ( talk) 14:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
See [6] linked from [7]... -- AnonMoos ( talk) 16:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: ( non-admin closure) I would not normally close a discussion I participated in, but this is a non-controversial move. Leaving the redirect as there are many existing links. — Paleo Neonate – 23:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Temple Denial →
Temple denial – The second word should not be capitalized. It was in a newspaper headline, as is normal, but not in the story itself.
PopSci (
talk) 23:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Should this really be in the lede? It's beyond extreme. Temple denial is bad, but 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust over a very short time period. P+hJ+N+ZJTjE+R+N+J+Sh (Fintsternish), she/her ( talk) 20:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
It should probably be clear in the article, as well as the lead, that acknowleding that the first temple or Solomon were likely mythological is distinct from this accusation, that is more about historical revisionism in relation to widely accepted history. It's often been proposed in the past but seems to still be a problem with the current article. -- Paleo Neonate - 01:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
To editor AnonMoos: You added "In January 2017, newly elected Secretary-General of the United Nations António Guterres made clear reference to the fact that a temple once stood on the Temple Mount, and positively asserted its destruction during the siege of Jeruslaem in 70 CE". However the full text of the UNSC's relevant remarks in the source is "Imperial Rome not only destroyed the temple in Jerusalem". Nothing about the Temple Mount or a siege in 70 CE, and we aren't allowed to add such commentary. (The appearance of this at Occupied Palestine Resolution seems to be SYNTH since the SG didn't mention UNESCO or the Occupation resolution. I'll have more to say or do over there.) The next part you added is " Mahmoud Abbas, leader of the Palestinian National Authority and president of the State of Palestine later demanded that Guterres recant this claim and submit an apology to the Palestinian people." However, the source doesn't mention Abbas or the UN speech at all, rather "Ahmad Majdalani, a member of the PLO Executive Committee" responding to a radio interview. It looks to me that all this was actually taken from the third source, which also disagrees in part (the "the political party..of Abbas" rather than Abbas himself). I acknowledge the relevance of the incident to this article, which is why I won't immediately delete but instead invite you fix it. Zero talk 05:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Temple denial (Hebrew: הכחשת בית המקדש hakhtum Beit HaMikdash) Why "hakhtum?" What is that even? Why not hakhchashat Beit Hamikdash? GidonAriel ( talk) 11:23, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Temple denial article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Temple denial appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 9 September 2009 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
Dennis Ross has said several times that this was the only "new" idea which Arafat personally contributed at Camp David... AnonMoos ( talk) 22:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Could we have a scientific source that says the stone is believed to be part of Herod's Temple? I can find religious sources and tourist books that say it, but nothing serious. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 06:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
This page should be moved to Temple Denial, the popular term. [1] [2]-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I keep fixing the writing in the lead, and Brewcrewer keeps reverting. Can you say why? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 07:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
...consists almost exclusively of a list of accusations. None of the accused is given any chance to deny the accusation. In many cases (eg Abu El Haj) we are not even told what the accused said but only what some critic claimed about it. In the case of living persons, this is a clear violation of WP:BLP, and in general terms it is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Another problem is the lack of any distinction made between the 1st temple and the 2nd temple. Due to the absence of extra-Biblical proof, lots of serious people including Israeli archaeologists have questioned whether the 1st temple existed. Denying the 1st temple is obviously vastly different from denying the 2nd temple that occured in historical times and left traces visible today. But both sorts of denial are here lumped together. Zero talk 07:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Nableezy: Please stop edit warring on the footnote format. Let the article writers choose how to format the sources. Thanks.-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't even really know what the dispute is, but in general we should follow the policies and guidelines rather than making up our own style. Zero talk 03:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I find it curious that the article doesn't go into any depth into the two viewpoints of the issue. Does either side have any evidence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.100.80 ( talk) 05:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I found there is a book The Lost Temple of Israel By Zvi Koenigsberg that says the first temple was on Mount Ebal near Nablus. Maybe that is where it is from? Zero talk 04:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I removed the section titled "A growing phenomenon" which was riddled with problems, beginning with the tendentious and presentist heading. Other editors had flagged these few sentences for weasel words and questionable sourcing. Named authors were not described and do not appear notable.
I also found the final sentence ("Aaron Klein has written the efforts by Muslim leaders in the West to oppose Temple denial have failed because Muslims in the Middle East believe leaders who use Temple denial to make 'Islam the only legitimate actor' in Jerusalem.") illogical. Why should the alleged beliefs of "Muslims in the Middle East" determine the success or failure of "efforts by Muslim leaders in the West"?
There seems to be an underlying assumption here of robot-like regimentation among Muslims, manipulated by a sinister conspiracy among Muslims "leaders." It's not unlike what was so often said about the Jews a century ago, and with a similar absence of proof. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 18:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
What about denying its location as on the Temple Mount? Is this included in "Temple Denial"? See Ernest L. Martin and Disputed facts under ground in Jerusalem. Chesdovi ( talk) 15:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The article as is stands is hardly anything except a dump of Dore Gold's opinions. Who needs it? Zero talk 00:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Moreover, Dore Gold is not a "third-party reliable source". He is in fact a prominent member of the Likud establishment who many years was an official spokesman for the Israeli government. The exact opposite of "third party". His opinion is quotable as an example of its genre, but he is not a reliable source for facts by Wikipedia criteria. Zero talk 00:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Camp David: An Exchange - The New York Review of Books, September 20, 2001, Dennis Ross interview on Fox News Sunday, April 21, 2002 etc. -- AnonMoos ( talk) 13:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
There is no such phrase as "physical form of denial" in standard English. If that is not true, it should be easy to find examples (I found one teenage blog, that's all). Nor is its meaning clear. How can the meaning of this phrase be inferred from the example? Disrespect, disregard, or even contempt for archaeological remains is completely different from denial. If I destroy remnants of the Colloseum does it mean I deny that the Colloseum existed? Of course not. So, what is left is some neologism used by Dore Gold with some intended meaning best known to Dore Gold. What words are actually used on page 16 of his book? If he used the actual words "physical form of Temple denial" then they must be put in quotes. If not, his actual words must be used. Or maybe this thing can be recognised as patently ridiculous and omitted altogether. Zero talk 05:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
We actually have an article on Temple Mount Sifting Project... -- AnonMoos ( talk) 22:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
The line "...as though the existence of the ancient Jewish temples on the Temple Mount was a mute question..." Should the word be 'moot' or 'mute'? LorenzoB ( talk) 02:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
[5], adding to statements made by user "bricology" above. Historylover4 ( talk) 03:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Bricology completely dealt with your claims (noting the Battle of Qarqar, the Jebusites, supposed "reconstruction", etc) about "well stuff is covered that's why there's no evidence" of it typical claims by your ilk. Historylover4 ( talk) 15:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The Herodian Temple, or the temple before that, or the temple before that which is attributed to biblical Solomon? There should be a clear distinction, because the availability of archaeological or historical evidence for these edifices differs substantially. Denial of the Herodian Temple is just silly, while the denial of a historical Solomon or the temple correctly or erroneously attributed to him may indeed be contextually justified. And besides denial there are also degrees of doubt about the architectural features and extend of these temples (as well as those of the Millo at different times) among archaeologists and historians. Doubts also exist about the exact religion exercised in any temple at the site predating the time of the Babylonian and Assyrian conquests. This article completely fails to set archaeological or historical research against modern political purposes. ♆ CUSH ♆ 15:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
This article remains in very poor shape, due to excessive reliance on polemic sources such as Gold. Intentional blurring of the distinction between the temples is a standard ploy of these sources. Certainly there is a need for an article on this topic, but the current rubbish is not it. Zero talk 12:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Cush has just repeated an anti-Semitic blood libel by calling Zionism racism. Cush should be banned from all Jewish pages.
This article is almost entirely a list of opponents the phenomenon of 'temple denial', with (as far as I can see) only one documented example of denial actually taking place (not counting non-specific accusations by opponents of the phenomenon). If this is a phenomenon widespread enough to deserve its own article, surely there must be more examples? As it is, it just looks like a lot of people very upset about something that doesn't appear to be taking place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin M. A'Lee ( talk • contribs) 18:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
“ | It is our sacred place, al-Aqsa [mosque] is ours, this [Temple Mount] is ours. They have no right to go there and desecrate it. Jerusalem is the jewel in the crown and it is the eternal capital of the Palestinian state. Without it, there will not be a state. | ” |
While it is OK to present noteworthy opinions on temple denial, including negative opinions, it is not ok to present a case for or against something in Wikipedia's voice. Actually it is a misuse of the encyclopedia. Zero talk 22:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Briefly summarizing the physical evidence for the Temple, and linking to the main article ( Archaeological remnants of the Jerusalem Temple) is relevant to the topic of Temple denial - in the same way that the section on Holocaust denial#Examination_of_claims, and link to the article on Criticism of Holocaust denial, is to the subject of Holocaust denial. Removing any mention of evidence for the Temple from the article would be a classic case of WP:FALSEBALANCE. EastTN ( talk) 23:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
EastTN -- I'm sure you're well-intentioned, but I'm not sure that there's a real need for this article to say much beyond that the consensus of mainstream scholarship is that the bottom half of the Western Wall (a big structure which everybody can see for themselves without going to a museum) is part of the precincts of the Herodian Temple... AnonMoos ( talk) 04:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I didn't realize at first that this wasn't a new article, because really the sourcing isn't very good. We have a book published by a junk publisher, a book review of that book, an opinion column, a think tank, a blog post...it looks like the only conventionally reliable source currently in the article talking about "Temple denial" as a phenomenon, as opposed to just being a WP:SYNTH collection of people engaging in the phenomenon, is the 2014 NYT article. Don't we have anything stronger? – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 00:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I removed this:
Please look at the references. The first one seems to be a fringe theory that claims a famous archaeologist held a most unlikely belief. We definitely need a better source for that. The second one is a book by Ernest L. Martin, whose opinions were definitely fringe (see his article). Perhaps at some point these were intended as examples of temple denial, but the first is unacceptable altogether and the second is dubiously classified (is it temple denial to believe the temples existed somewhere else?). Zero talk 18:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
This paragraph has been removed a couple of times on the basis that there is "no mention of temple denial here."
The suggested rationale would set an unreasonable standard for inclusion of material in the article - specifically, that the named topic of the article must be specifically referenced in every paragraph and source. This paragraph falls in a section on the Physical evidence for the Temple. The presence or lack of physical evidence is clearly a question that is directly relevant to an article on Temple Denial. This appears to have been at least implicitly acknowledged, as there has been no attempt to remove the section (which I would strongly object to).
I can see some rationale for excluding the paragraph that deals with the fortress Antonia. But to argue that material on the physical evidence for the existence of the Second Temple should be excluded in an article that is about "the assertion that none of the Temples in Jerusalem ever existed or were not located on the Temple Mount" strikes me as absurd on its face. EastTN ( talk) 19:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Zero 100% (is that 0%? ). Since this is an encyclopedia article about Temple denial and not a project to prove or disprove the existence of the Temple, appropriate material to add to the article are sources about Temple denial, not sources about whether the Temple existed, or what evidence there may be that it existed. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 02:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
My position remains the same as it was on "04:02, 24 July 2017" and "19:45, 24 July 2017" above -- we could mention perhaps one thing that is completely uncontroversial in mainstream scholarship (such as that the bottom of the Wailing / Western Wall is the remains of a support structure built for the Herodian reconstruction of the second temple), but this article is not the place to weight possibilities or delve into details. AnonMoos ( talk) 14:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
See [6] linked from [7]... -- AnonMoos ( talk) 16:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: ( non-admin closure) I would not normally close a discussion I participated in, but this is a non-controversial move. Leaving the redirect as there are many existing links. — Paleo Neonate – 23:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Temple Denial →
Temple denial – The second word should not be capitalized. It was in a newspaper headline, as is normal, but not in the story itself.
PopSci (
talk) 23:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Should this really be in the lede? It's beyond extreme. Temple denial is bad, but 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust over a very short time period. P+hJ+N+ZJTjE+R+N+J+Sh (Fintsternish), she/her ( talk) 20:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
It should probably be clear in the article, as well as the lead, that acknowleding that the first temple or Solomon were likely mythological is distinct from this accusation, that is more about historical revisionism in relation to widely accepted history. It's often been proposed in the past but seems to still be a problem with the current article. -- Paleo Neonate - 01:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
To editor AnonMoos: You added "In January 2017, newly elected Secretary-General of the United Nations António Guterres made clear reference to the fact that a temple once stood on the Temple Mount, and positively asserted its destruction during the siege of Jeruslaem in 70 CE". However the full text of the UNSC's relevant remarks in the source is "Imperial Rome not only destroyed the temple in Jerusalem". Nothing about the Temple Mount or a siege in 70 CE, and we aren't allowed to add such commentary. (The appearance of this at Occupied Palestine Resolution seems to be SYNTH since the SG didn't mention UNESCO or the Occupation resolution. I'll have more to say or do over there.) The next part you added is " Mahmoud Abbas, leader of the Palestinian National Authority and president of the State of Palestine later demanded that Guterres recant this claim and submit an apology to the Palestinian people." However, the source doesn't mention Abbas or the UN speech at all, rather "Ahmad Majdalani, a member of the PLO Executive Committee" responding to a radio interview. It looks to me that all this was actually taken from the third source, which also disagrees in part (the "the political party..of Abbas" rather than Abbas himself). I acknowledge the relevance of the incident to this article, which is why I won't immediately delete but instead invite you fix it. Zero talk 05:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Temple denial (Hebrew: הכחשת בית המקדש hakhtum Beit HaMikdash) Why "hakhtum?" What is that even? Why not hakhchashat Beit Hamikdash? GidonAriel ( talk) 11:23, 24 April 2022 (UTC)