Talk:Temple denial

Dennis Ross statement

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)

I guess this is something worth adding to the artilce, but we would need a source.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I remember reading it in ca. 2002 news coverage; I don't have any sources immediately to hand, but may try to look some up (not right now, though). AnonMoos (talk) 12:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Citation request

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)

Page Move

This page should be moved to Temple Denial, the popular term.[1][2]--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I'll move it. -- Y not? 15:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Should it actually be at Temple denial (currently a redirect to Israeli–Palestinian history denial)? Why is the second word of the title capitalized? Thanks, cmadler (talk) 15:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess the term is a proper noun.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Writing in the lead

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)

I think we're both fixing the lede. What are your specific concerns?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Mini-review: This article...

...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)

I had a go at fixing it earlier, but didn't save my edit, in part because I don't know enough to feel confident handling the sources, and in part because I was violating NOR by trying to add historical material not directly related to "Temple denial." I'm not convinced at this point that the article should exist, because of the inherent confusion, the BLP issues, and the lack of disinterested sources. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

How about selecting a few examples that have good sources (better than just Dore Gold's allegations) and merging them into Israeli–Palestinian_history_denial? Zero^talk 13:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem with merging some stuff to Israeli–Palestinian_history_denial, but the term is clearly notable enough for a standalone article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in this article suggests it is notable at all. It is just a low-circulation propagandistic neologism. The correct level of treatment would be a redirect of this name pointing to the other article. The only other item of information here is that Dore Gold made up the phrase, which is in the "so what?" category. Zero^talk 03:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring on footnote format

Nableezy: Please stop edit warring on the footnote format. Let the article writers choose how to format the sources. Thanks.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Brew, what are you doing with this? Why are you using shortened references for opinion columns published online? You arent referencing different pages each time, just put it in as a normal named reference. nableezy - 20:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

And 1 revert can hardly be called edit warring, though you with 2 could be. nableezy - 20:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

1 + 1 = 2.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

First one is not a revert, though I just made my second one now removing the opinion column that is cited one time that you oddly put as a "reference". nableezy - 20:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

+1 = 3.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, the first one is not a revert. But take that to AN3 if you wish. nableezy - 20:43, 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)

The style used by the first contributor to use one should be kept, which means no citation templates should be added, if anyone cares. See WP:CITE. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Arguments?

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)

Significant segments of the supporting structures built for the Herodian reconstruction of the Second Temple are still in place, including the so-called "Wailing Wall" or "Western Wall". There is a degree of somewhat legitimate debate over the nature of the First Temple (or Solomonic Temple) by the Biblical minimalists, but there is simply no real legitimate controversy among reputable mainstream scholars over the existence and general location of the Second Temple -- such "controversy" is merely ultra-politicized historical revisionist nonsense, plain and simple, without valid scholarly or archaeological basis... AnonMoos (talk) 05:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Basically, there is some evidence (Herodian style column bases) that the lower part of the current Western Wall formed part of the outer retaining wall that may have surrounded the Second Temple. [3] There is no archaeological evidence whatsoever attesting to the existence of the First Temple. This article does not differentiate between the two, for some odd reason. Tiamut^talk 10:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

AnonMoos wrote "Significant segments of the supporting structures built for the Herodian reconstruction of the Second Temple are still in place..." Not so fast. First, the so-called "Herodian reconstruction" is only believed to be a "reconstruction", rather than a new construction, and it didn't occur during the reign (or lifetime) of Herod. As Wailing Wall states, "Just over half the wall, including its 17 courses located below street level, dates from the end of the Second Temple period, commonly believed to have been constructed around 19 BCE by Herod the Great, but recent excavations indicate that the works were not finished during Herod's lifetime. The remaining layers were added from the 7th century onwards. That's a significant difference from the blanket assertion of "Herod built it". Also, "reconstruction" is a problematic and subjective claim. "Reconstructed" from what? If someone claimed to have built a "reconstruction" of say, the First Library at Alexandria, they would need to be able to demonstrate that their reconstruction was accurate to the original; something that is impossible to do in either instance. A reconstruction of say, one of Frank Lloyd Wright's buildings, OTOH, would be straightforward and uncontroversial, since the plans still exist. The fact is that the existence of a First Temple cannot be proved, so even calling something a "Second Temple" is likewise problematic. And even if a First Temple of some sort existed, proving its location (much less dimensions, materials, etc.) is also impossible. So what we are left with is a cultural artifact of something that is believed to have been reconstructed. I'm willing to entertain the possibility of a Second Temple having existed, but that does nothing to bridge the gulf between the hypothetical First Temple (which is fair play for skeptical enquiry) and the Second Temple, which is an archaeological matter. And before anyone tries to play the Antisemitic card -- I have no horse in this race, and am just as skeptical about even the existence of Jesus bar Joseph, and of most claims about Muhammad. Bricology (talk) 08:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter, because the politically or religiously motivated Temple Denialists like Arafat deny the existence of any Temple, first or second. Controversy over the First Temple only (while admitting the existence and location of the Second Temple) is not "Temple Denial" in the sense relevant to this article. By the way, the rocky ridge along which the Jewish temple and the original city of David were built did not really accumulate chronological layers (as are found at many archaeological sites); the builders of later structures went down to bedrock to lay their foundations, thereby destroying the foundations of structures from previous eras... AnonMoos (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It matters if the reports are obfuscated so that the distinction is lost. As far as I can tell, what Arafat told Clinton was "Solomon's temple was not in Jerusalem but in Nablus" (but I'd like to know where this claim originates so we can see what it actually is). Moreover, there was an interview of Arafat in Haaretz when he said something like "When you dug on the Temple Mount you didn't find Solomon's Temple you only found Herod's Temple". So I'm not convinced by a lot of hostile sources saying he denied "the temple" was there without saying which one. Where is there a reliably reported quotation from Arafat denying that the second temple was in Jerusalem? And Dore Gold is not a reliable source; as a leading member of the Likud establishment, he fails the "third-party" test on WP:RS. Zero^talk 15:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

AnonMoos wrote "It really doesn't matter, because the politically or religiously motivated Temple Denialists like Arafat deny the existence of any Temple, first or second. Controversy over the First Temple only (while admitting the existence and location of the Second Temple) is not 'Temple Denial' in the sense relevant to this article." That looks like a strawman to me. There is valid skepticism about the literal existence of a "First Temple" from scholars, academics and others, not just those motivated by political or religious differences. The fact is that the term "Temple Denial" is being employed here as a blanket to cover any skepticism about the existence of either claimed temple. The word "denial" is specifically chosen to discredit those who doubt something's existence, no matter how valid their doubts; it implies that the doubter is unwilling to accept the reality of something that has been proved. If those asserting the existence of the Second Temple were willing to be intellectually honest, they'd differentiate between the two and label skepticism about the First Temple something like "Controversy about..." or "Dissenting views about..." rather than conflating doubt with denial. That's as nonsensical as saying that an atheist must be a "God Denier", rather than simply someone who does not accept that claims for his existence are tenable. This is a stratagem intended to discredit critics and to have a chilling effect on alternate viewpoints. Bricology (talk) 08:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I really don't see what rhetorical advantage is to be gained by questioning the First Temple but accepting the Second Temple, in a context of attempting to refute Zionism. Accepting the Second Temple means that you're basically accepting that the Temple Mount site was sacred to Jews during a period of over a thousand years before any Muslims or Arabs started to be significantly involved. In any case, if Arafat's position on the Jewish Temple was somewhat nuanced, he completely and utterly failed to convey any such nuances or subtleties to Dennis Ross at camp David in 2000... AnonMoos (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It makes a rhetorical difference to someone who claims prior (i.e. Canaanite) connection to the land. Zero^talk 15:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Does it? The Bible itself says that Jebusites preceded Israelites in Jerusalem, so I quite fail to see what the point of going beyond the Bible in this area is... AnonMoos (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

AnonMoos wrote "I really don't see what rhetorical advantage is to be gained by questioning the First Temple but accepting the Second Temple, in a context of attempting to refute Zionism. Accepting the Second Temple means that you're basically accepting that the Temple Mount site was sacred to Jews during a period of over a thousand years before any Muslims or Arabs started to be significantly involved." That's not consistent with what many historic texts and many archaeologists assert. For example, the Seder Olam Rabbah puts the beginning of the construction of the "First Temple" at 832BCE. It is irrefutable that Jerusalem was already built and inhabited by the Jebusites prior to the arrival of the Israelites; even the Septuagint admits this. The Jebusites were part of the larger Caananite group that had inhabited the area since at least the 6th millennium BCE. And peoples identifiable as "Arabs" were living in Qarqar (300 miles north of Jerusalem) before the Battle of Qarqar in 853BCE. Since it is uncontroversial that Arabs originated in the Arabian Peninsula (to the south of Jerusalem) and their diaspora towards Qarqar would've taken them through what is modern-day Israel, it would be surprising if Arabs didn't already live in Jerusalem prior to the arrival of the Israelites. We simply cannot know whether or not "Arabs started to be significantly involved (in the Temple Mount site)" before Israelites were. All claims in favor of the Israelites seem to come from Israelite sources, many of which are inaccurate if not apocryphal. No, I'm not "attempting to refute Zionism"; I'm merely pointing out that claims of some "divine deed" to the area are superstitious nonsense, that neither Zionists nor anyone else knows who worshiped on the Temple Mount first, and that the area was certainly settled by Jebusites before the arrival of the Israelites, who even in Jewish sources are described as having taken it by force. Without a "divine deed", with the land being taken by force by Israelites from previous inhabitants, and with no reliable records to prove the existence of a "First Temple", Jewish legitimacy for their claims upon the Temple Mount must come from some other source. What is that source? I have never seen it offered. These are valid subjects for debate, not for censorship. Bricology (talk) 09:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess the Arafat story comes from Benny Morris' interview of Ehud Barak regarding the Camp David talks:

"Barak recalls Clinton telling him that during the Camp David talks he had attended Sunday services and the minister had preached a sermon mentioning Solomon, the king who built the First Temple. Later that evening, he had met Arafat and spoke of the sermon. Arafat had said: "There is nothing there [i.e., no trace of a temple on the Temple Mount]." Clinton responded that "not only the Jews but I, too, believe that under the surface there are remains of Solomon's temple." (At this point one of Clinton's [Jewish] aides whispered to the President that he should tell Arafat that this is his personal opinion, not an official American position.)" [4]

This seems to confirm my suspicion. And I'll add another question: where and when did Arafat say the temple (either one) was in Nablus? He said plenty of other stupid things, but did he really say that? Zero^talk 15:34, 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)

During the Hellenistic period (and possibly part of the Achaemenid period), the Samaritans had a temple on Mount Gerizim (not Mount Ebal) which was a rival to the Second Temple at Jerusalem, and the Samaritans claimed that as the heirs to the legacy of the northern kingdom of Israel they were more authentically Israelite than the Jews of Judea, who were the heirs to the legacy of the southern kingdom of Judah. But the main claim of the Samaritans was that Mount Gerizim was the authentic location selected by Moses and Joshua; I'm not sure that they claimed that Solomon's temple had been located there, and such a claim would be rather implausible for a number of reasons, including that David and Solomon were members of the trible of Judah, while Mount Gerizim conspicuously falls outside the tribal territory of Judah... In any case, I really don't see what the political point of first temple denial combined with second temple acceptance is (as explained before) -- this position would anger those Christians and Jews who take the Bible seriously, while still admitting that the Temple Mount site was sacred to Jews during a period of over a thousand years before any Muslims or Arabs started to be significantly involved, which would seem to be the worst of both worlds. AnonMoos (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed section

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)

Ernest L. Martin

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)

Dore Gold

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)

The phenomenon itself is a moderately significant additional symbolic and emotional obstacle to a peace settlement which has been commented on by Dennis Ross, among others... AnonMoos (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The phenomenon is notable, but the article should rely less on Dore Gold as a source. He's got no particular expertise in the fields of history or archaeology, yet he's cited in 5 of the article's 6 paragraphs. — Malik Shabazz (talk · stalk) 18:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Malik in essence, but of course the solution is to add content from other sources and not remove existing content, per WP:PRESERVE. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:48, 29 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)

Direct from Dennis Ross

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)

"physical form of denial"

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)

The situation to which he refers is well known -- due to some kind of obscure behind-the-scenes longstanding political accord (which has never been publicly satisfactorily explained or officially held up to the light in any way), the Israeli department of Antiquities has given the Muslim temple mount waqf free permission to conduct construction/demolition operations below the temple mount platform which will necessarily have the effect of destroying any remaining archaeological evidence for the ancient Jewish temple (and sometimes seem to be undertaken specifically and intentionally for that purpose). Meanwhile, professional archaeologists are of course strictly forbidden to conduct actual archaeological research in that area, and the Israeli antiquities department has gone out of its way to persecute people who have sifted through the rubble dumps left behind by waqf demolition operations and found little fragments of ancient artefacts there. There are a lot of people who wonder what the Israeli antiquities department actually does to justify its existence other than supervising and facilitating the destruction of the historical record under the temple mount, and vindictively persecuting those whom it has placed on some kind of enemies list (such as with the long and pointless trial of Oded Golan, which doesn't seem to be going anywhere...).

In any case, the Muslim temple mount waqf seems to be playing a rather two-faced game, since simultaneously it does its best to destroy historical evidence of the Jewish temples, while also claiming that no such evidence exists. I don't care to argue over lexical semantics, but the general sitation has been documented extensively in issues of Biblical Archaeology Review and elsewhere... AnonMoos (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

2021

We actually have an article on Temple Mount Sifting Project... -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Typo?

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)

Have no real idea what it was supposed to be, but replaced it with "disputable". AnonMoos (talk) 05:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Fort Antonia

[5], adding to statements made by user "bricology" above.Historylover4 (talk) 03:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, the website of some kind of Armstrongite Church of God offshoot (note the founder's Ambassador College diploma)... AnonMoos (talk) 22:25, 16 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)

Sorry, but I'm a little suspicious of a site whose founder spent basically 20 years at Ambassador College, but who does not bother to tell us whether or in what manner he broke with Armstrongism. Even more importantly, it has no ascertainable credibility as a scholarly source in ancient archaeology... AnonMoos (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Which temple?

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)

My position is still the same as it was above: "Controversy over the First Temple only (while admitting the existence and location of the Second Temple) is not 'Temple Denial' in the sense relevant to this article". The Herodian temple is usually lumped in with the Second Temple, since it remained in use the whole time of its refurbishment. Herodian denialism may seem "silly" to you, but to certain Arabs and Muslims (both nationalistically-minded and Islamist) it's a necessary step towards denying all Jewish religious and historical rights in Jerusalem. AnonMoos (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

What are historical rights? ♆ CUSH ♆ 19:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It has no legal definition or force, but it's what comes along with saying "my ancestors were here", and it's what revisionists and history-deniers and bigots and pathological haters seek to undermine.... AnonMoos (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, if the "my ancestors were here" is only a religious claim, then undermining it is justified. "My parents and grandparents lived here" has real legal value, "my far distant imaginary ancestors were here" does not. Your reference to "Jewish religious and historical rights in Jerusalem" is pure Zionism, which is a form of racism. Please do not drag this here. ♆ CUSH ♆ 06:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Whatever, dude -- I'm really not interested in your support for the repealed and repudiated and discredited UNGA 3379, or in any of your other personal pathologies. In any case "my ancestors were here" is actually a historical claim. It has no direct legal implications (as I said), and may not have any great implications in other spheres, but in the case of the post-586-BC pre-135-AD Jewish community, it seems to have enough importance that many Muslims and Arabs, and some others, feel it necessary to lie through their teeth and/or embrace wacked out historical revisionist fantasy theories. AnonMoos (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow! Zionsim is the idea that Jews are humans who have a right to self-determination. To be antizionist is anti-semiticBeeblebrox3 (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like bullshit. Debresser (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2016 (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)

The term "Temple Denial" may be mainly used by Gold (not sure about that), but the phenomenon has definitely been described by others (not only by him). According to Dennis Ross, it played a part in sinking the Camp David summit in 2000 (and in ensuring that Clinton placed the blame for the failure of the summit mainly on the Palestinian side), and ever since then it's had a minor but significant role in poisoning the mood and deepening resentments and animosities... AnonMoos (talk) 21:01, 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.

Examples? NPOV?

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)

See this article. "Jews are currently forbidden from outwardly praying on the site, which is the holiest place in Judaism and the third holiest site in Islam. Jewish visits to the site have lately provoked protests by Palestinians, who clashed with police on several occasions, prompting its temporary closure." Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas called for Jews to be barred from the Temple Mount in a fiery address:

“ 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. ”

On Saturday, he reiterated the statement, calling Jewish visitors “a herd of cattle.”

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon also engaged in Temple denial by calling attempts by Jews to pray at Judaism's most holy site "provocations." 98.103.146.102 (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Neither of those are examples of Temple Denial. Zero^talk 14:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Presenting arguments against

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)

Relevance of Physical Evidence

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)

The articles you give as examples are amongst the worst violators of the NOR rule in Wikipedia but cleaning them up has proved impossible. Only information sources which explicitly mention the topic of the article should appear here. Sources about the temple are not relevant if they don't mention temple denial. Otherwise it amounts to giving our own opinions on a disputed subject, which is a no-no. Zero^talk 16:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Zero0000. It's one thing to summarize the arguments against "Temple denial" made in reliable sources. It's something entirely different to present our own argument for the existence of the Temples, cobbled together by referring to various Wikipedia articles. The first is the right approach. The second is impermissible original research. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I have to disagree. The principle of no original research is a critical one. But what we're talking about is not the synthesis of published material to draw our own conclusion. Rather, it's the question of what material would the typical reader find relevant on a particular topic. So, setting aside the Holocaust and using another example, the article on Climate change denial fairly liberally links to related topics such as Scientific opinion on climate change, the History of climate change science and Public opinion on climate change. Similarly, the article on the Vaccine controversies discusses and links to articles on the history, safety and effectiveness of vaccines. Why? Because they are relevant to the discussion, and because to systematically exclude the information would be to implicitly but very clearly adopt a point of view.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that the article be turned into a debate - it should not. Nor am I suggesting that the material should be given a disproportionate amount of space. It should be summarized in a brief and neutral way, with appropriate links to articles with the details. But I find the suggestion that it would be appropriate to write an article on any form of denialism without appropriate links to the underlying topic completely baffling. The issue here isn't original research, but maintaining a neutral point of view. EastTN (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think you missed the point. Although I haven't read every source, Climate change denial#Arguments and positions on global warming doesn't appear to have been written from scratch by Wikipedia editors summarizing climate research. It cites and presumably summarizes reliable sources that refute arguments commonly made by people who deny the existence of climate change or global warming. The corresponding section of this article, by contrast, summarizes reliable sources about archaeological discoveries, not sources that refute arguments made by people who argue against the presence in Jerusalem of one or both Temples. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:07, 24 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)

Sources

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 agree. It all appears deeply unbalanced. The term itself was created by right-wing nationalists such as Dore Gold in order to put it in the same category as Climate Change Denial and Holocaust Denial, such that those who question the archaeological proof can be framed as extremists. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about the name, but the actual phenomenon is most definitely a real one. For example:
"Since we would be discussing the options on the Haram, I anticipated that Arafat might well again declare that the Temple—the most sacred place in Jewish tradition—did not exist in Jerusalem, but was in Nablus. … I wanted Gamal, a Christian of Coptic origin who was originally from Egypt, to tell Arafat that this was an outrageous attempt to delegitimize the Israeli connection to Jerusalem." -- The Missing Peace: The Inside Story of the fight for Middle East Peace by Dennis Ross (2004, ISBN 0-374-19973-6), page 718. AnonMoos (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

By the way, Ross's comments to Arafat during this (August 2000) meeting are about as disdainful and contemptuous as diplomatic language gets (outside of an old-style declaration of war): "Mr. Chairman, regardless of what you think, the President of the United States knows that the Temple existed in Jerusalem. If he hears you denying its existence there, he will never again take you seriously. My advice to you is never again raise this issue in his presence." -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Removed paragraph for discussion

I removed this:

According to Benjamin Mazar, the Roman fortress Antonia was located on the highest point of the Temple Mount, the current location of the Dome of the Rock. The 1st century Jewish Roman historian Josephus said the Romans kept a whole legion of soldiers (5,000–6,000) at Antonia. The Temples were 600 feet south and 200 feet lower than the Antonia complex, on Mount Ophel, near the Spring of Siloam, which provided water for sacrifices.

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)

Zero0000 -- I agree with your action. As I said above, maybe we could have one brief mention of a surviving Temple structure or relic widely accepted by mainstream scholarship, but this article is not the place to go dive deeply into the evidence, or discuss any controversies... AnonMoos (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I wonder if this whole passage was added by one of the individuals who seemed to be pushing dubious Armstrongite "Church of God" sources in the discussions of 5 years ago above on this page... AnonMoos (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm the one who added it. I'm not an Armstrongite (are you pushing your agenda on this article?). There are many other articles, including "Armstrongite" and Josephus that say the Temple was south of the Fortress. Josephus said the Fortress "dominated the Temple". Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

This is not an article about either the Antonia Fortress or the precise location of the Temple. Zero^talk 23:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Temple denial is also about the location of the temple, that it was NOT on the "Temple Mount"! Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Who says? We need to follow published reliable sources. Zero^talk 04:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Who says what? The NYT article discusses location of the Temple. There are reliable sources in the citations in the disputed paragraph. There are several other archaeologists who dispute the location of the Temple or try to refute others who dispute it such as Ritmeyer. If Antonia Fortress was on the Temple Mount, then where was the Temple?! This article is biased, it's as if only Palestinians or Jews with an agenda are the ones disputing where the Temple was located. Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

You need to find a reliable source that judges a dispute over the location of the temples within Jerusalem, rather than a dispute over their very existence, to be "Temple denial". Do you have one? Zero^talk 22:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I believe the sources cited in the paragraph are reliable. Article is about temple denial and location of the temple i.e., denying it was on the "Temple Mount" sources that say it was located elsewhere, as long as they're not fringe sources are okay.Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

So the answer to my question is "no", I take it. Here is what you can do within the rules and procedures: Start an WP:RfC with a question like "Should this article cover claims that the Temples were in Jerusalem but not on the Temple Mount?" If a consensus forms that such material is appropriate, you can start proposing particular text and sources. Zero^talk 07:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Before I do that, you should read the first paragraph of this article: Temple Denial refers to the assertion that none of the Temples in Jerusalem ever existed or were not located on the Temple Mount. Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Before you do that, you should read the following section of this talk page. This article isn't the appropriate forum in which to try to prove the historic presence of the Jewish Temples in Jerusalem. It's an encyclopedia article about the phenomenon of Temple denial, not an advocacy column. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

But the first sentence of the article on Temple Denial defines the term to mean location of the Temple in Jerusalem. You're trying to change the agenda of this article. Did you read the first sentence of the article?! The first sentence of this article defines what it's about, restore the paragraph. Raquel Baranow (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I think you need to read the first sentence of the article. It defines what Temple denial is: "the assertion that none of the Temples in Jerusalem ever existed or were not located on the Temple Mount." It does not say that this encyclopedia article is the appropriate place to establish whether the Temples existed or where they were located. That's not the purpose of an encyclopedia article; it's advocacy. The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to summarize what reliable sources say about the subject of Temple denial. Not on the subject of whether the Temples existed or where they were located, but on the denial of their existence or the questioning of their location on the Temple Mount. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

How can you know what Temple Denial is if you don't describe what Temple deniers believe? Some Temple deniers believe the Temple was not on the Temple mount but 600-feet south on Mount Ophel. See for example how the article on Holocaust denial describes what Holocaust deniers believe. Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Flawed Rationale for Removal of Text

This paragraph has been removed a couple of times on the basis that there is "no mention of temple denial here."

Possible Second Temple artifacts include the Trumpeting Place inscription and the Temple Warning inscription, which are surviving pieces of the Herodian expansion of the Temple Mount. The Magdala stone is thought to be a representation of the Second Temple, carved before its destruction in the year 70.

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)

The article is about Temple denial. It is not a place where arguments either for or against Temple denial should be constructed by editors. That's what your insertion does, and we are not allowed to do that. Please read WP:SYNTH. Zero^talk 21:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think you're seriously misconstruing WP:SYNTH here. No argument either for or against the concept of Temple denial has been constructed in this section - either by me or by anyone else. More to the point, no one has "...combine[d] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", which is the core definition of WP:SYNTH. The issue here is that you're effectively trying to argue that the material isn't relevant to the article. That's a fundamentally different argument, and one that I believe is false on its face. EastTN (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

In summary, the article says that some people deny the Temple existed and you want to add evidence that it did. It is exactly like the example in the first box at WP:SYNTH. If the article title was "Arguments for and against the existence of the Temple" then your addition (properly cited) might be admissible, but that is not the article title. Zero^talk 07:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

No, it is not at all like the example in the first box at WP:SYNTH. The issue there is that the facts in the first half and the second half of the example sentence come from different sources. That's made explicit in the paragraph immediately above the box explaining the example. "If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research." That's the essence of creating an argument - taking two or more separate facts or propositions and combining them to draw or imply a new conclusion.

The case is entirely different with the material we're discussing. There's no synthesis being done here, so WP:SYNTH cannot apply. The only question that remains is whether the material is relevant. Again, that's a fundamentally different argument, and I believe the relevance of the material is obvious. EastTN (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but you are wrong on two grounds. On the rules, different sources are not a necessary feature of SYNTH. Read it: "Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." On the application, the NYT source does not mention Temple denial at all so it is indeed a different source from the sources that do mention it. Including it is out of the question. The Haaretz article also cited in that section is permitted since it mentions Temple denial and makes an argument against it. However, the presentation of it here is bad, as opinions should be attributed and not presented as facts in Wikipedia's voice. Actually there are plenty of archaeologists who feel that solid physical evidence of the first Temple is still lacking, unlike the second Temple which is accepted by essentially everyone. Zero^talk 01:12, 22 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)

That's still misconstruing the policy on WP:SYNTH. The policy deals with the synthesis of facts to draw a new conclusion that isn't found in the sources. The text we're discussing nowhere takes two unrelated facts from a single source and combines them (synthesizes them) in a novel way to draw a conclusion that is not in that source. No matter how you slice it, there simply is no synthesizing going on here, so WP:SYNTH cannot apply. If you want to raise another concern, fine - but that one's bogus. The other argument you seem to be suggesting is that if the title of the article is not specifically mentioned in a source, then based on that fact alone nothing in the source can have any relevance to the article. That goes far, far beyond anything suggested by WP:SYNTH. The policy you're suggesting would have the effect of biasing the POV of the article in favor Temple denialism. There is an NPOV way of acknowledging the existence of the archeological evidence, and pointing to the relevant articles that discuss it, without turning it into a "project" to prove the existence of either Temple. EastTN (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're misconstruing the purpose of an encyclopedia. I'll repeat what I told your comrade-in-arms above: An encyclopedia article is not that appropriate place to establish whether the Temples existed or where they were located. That's not the purpose of an encyclopedia article; it's advocacy. The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to summarize what reliable sources say about the subject of Temple denial. Not on the subject of whether the Temples existed or where they were located, but on the denial of their existence or the questioning of their location on the Temple Mount. (Sorry, but I won't argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or whether your interpretation of WP:SYNTH is right or wrong. You seem to be laboring under a fundamental misunderstanding about the purpose of an encyclopedia, and there's no point arguing about policy until we agree on the basics, such as what an encyclopedia is.) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:14, 23 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)

A recent example of Temple Denialism mentioned in the Washington Post

See [6] linked from [7]... -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 24 September 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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. —PaleoNeonate – 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)

• Support - I agree with you that the title should use sentence case per MOS:TITLECAPS. —PaleoNeonate – 11:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support — Capital D is incorrect. Zero^talk 11:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support and no discussion needed as this is a technical and non-controversial proposal. Debresser (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"compared the phenomenon to Holocaust denial"

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)

We're reporting on what David Hazony said. In any case, I'm not sure that the moral seriousness of history denialism follows simply and directly from the moral seriousness of what is denied.... AnonMoos (talk) 04:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

"I'm not sure that the moral seriousness of history denialism follows simply and directly from the moral seriousness of what is denied." Have you thought a bit about what else this could justify comparing to Holocaust denial? פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 10:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

And the point isn't really whether it should be in the article at all, but whether it should be in the lede. And I don't think it should. Comparing Temple denial to Holocaust denial is, itself, a severe form of Holocaust denial. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 10:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The lead should not consist entirely of citation of critics. In fact, this page fits the policy WP:Attack page so well that its right to exist at all is questionable. Besides that, the distinction between questioning the existence of the temple and questioning its location is missing. Worse, the distinction between the first and second temples, which are not even remotely the same as regards the physical evidence, is missing. Overall, this article is a disgrace. Zero^talk 06:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I've pointed out repeatedly in the discussions above that denial of the First Temple only, with full acceptance of the Second temple, is not "Temple denial" in the sense relevant to this article. But denial of the existence of the Second Temple in Jerusalem is fully equivalent to denial of the existence of the Second Temple at all, since both positions are nonsensical pseudo-science which no reputable archaeologist takes seriously... AnonMoos (talk) 07:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The exact location of the Temple, on the Temple Mount encompassing the pierced stone (Foundation stone), is also explicitly mentioned in pre-Muslim rabbinic Jewish sources and in the pre-Muslim Itinerarium Burdigalense, among other places. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 10:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

First temple

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. --PaleoNeonate - 01:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe just replace "successive" with "Second"? -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

UN speech

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)

I was having difficulty assembling info on this from other than Jewish and Israeli sources whose political affiliations you would have objected to, when I noticed the paragraph in the other article, which seemed to be already sourced and ready to go, so I just copied it over. Mahmoud Abbas did not directly speak, but two close spokesmen/advisers with official positions -- Majdalani and Adnan al-Husseini did speak (and were not repudiated as far as any news coverage). This issue is rather trivial, and can be fixed with a word or two. This article [8] pretty clearly states that the Palestinian demands that the UN Secretary-General apologize for telling the truth were triggered by an initial statement, followed by an interview with Israeli radio. AnonMoos (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

P.S. If Guterres was less than thoroughly explicit in his initial statement, the "original synthesis" seems to have taken place in Ramallah, not on Wikipedia! AnonMoos (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hebrew translation

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)

Why is the Hebrew translation even here? This is not an Israeli place, nor a Jewish concept, that normally justifies a Hebrew name. Zero^talk 15:38, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it would be out of place if correct, but if it was incorrect (as I suspect), then it should definitely be deleted... AnonMoos (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

"Scholars agree that the two temples existed on the Temple Mount during these time periods."

Most do, but the extra-Biblical evidence for the first Temple is a lot less than the extra-Biblical evidence for the second Temple, and there are small groups of vigorous first Temple dissenters, such as the "Biblical Minimalists" who are mostly considered legitimate scholars (as opposed to second Temple deniers, who would be considered crackpots). The sentence is perhaps a little simplistic... AnonMoos (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)