Talk:Israeli-Palestinian history denial

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Israeli-Palestinian history denial article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Israel Portal Israeli-Palestinian history denial is part of the WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu): edit purge watch Here are some tasks you can do: Copyedit: Yossi Sarid, Havlagah, Palestinian views of the peace process Cleanup: Israel Export Institute, Agricultural Research In Israel, Israel lobby in the United States Expand: Category:Companies of Israel, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Category:Israeli songs, Port of Haifa, Allon Plan, Israel Antiquities Authority, Secular Jewish culture#Dance, Carmel Winery, Goldstar, List of Egged bus lines, Cellcom, Bezeq, Diamond industry in Israel, Geneva Accord, Zman Tel-Aviv Stubs: Israel stubs Update: National Religious Party NPOV: Israel and the UN, Israeli military action in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict Other: update WP Israel banner to include rating scale Translate from Hebrew: Yuval Steinitz, Women in governments of Israel [1] Translate to Hebrew: Gemara, Chief Rabbi, Palestinophilia, David Gans, Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, David Bar Hayim, Jacob of Lissa, Nosson Zvi Finkel, Bezalel Ashkenazi, Solomon Schechter, Av Beit Din, Howard Fast, Guardian of Zion Award, Martin Gilbert, Hasbara, Israeli wine, Pierre van Paassen, Uri Davis
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

I have removed:

"There is disagreement on how this word was used. Many Palestinians today see this as evidence that an Arab nation of Palestine always existed. As such, people with this point of view feel that statements such as those by Golda Meir constitute history denial. However, many others hold that this was merely the name of a geographical nation; there is no evidence that any Arab nation with this name existed. In this view, views such as those made by Golda Meir have nothing to do with history denial. In this view, one points out that the existence of a name for a geographical nation doesn't mean that their is a people that exists with their own nationality in the region."

because the quote is making a much more specific claim:

"The British chose to call the land they mandated Palestine, and the Arabs picked it up as their nation's supposed ancient name, though they couldn't even pronounce it correctly and turned it into Falastin a fictional entity."

It clearly says that the Arabic word "Falastin" was picked up from the British, which is about 1400 years off base. That's the history denial, not the wider implication that no Palestinian nation existed, which we could no doubt debate till the cows come home. - Mustafaa 11:13, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Copy and paste move 2 Denial of IDF Responsibility for Death of Muhammad al Durrah 3 Split suggestion 3.1 The proposal itself 3.1.1 New proposal 4 If I may add... 5 "A land without a people for a people without a land" 6 Quote intensive 7 People 8 Why Include Trends from the 60s? 9 Americans, Lebanese, and Christian Englishmen 10 Proposed merger: Temple denial

[edit] Copy and paste move

There has been a copy and paste move done between this article and Revisionism in the Israel-Palestine Conflict. I'm going to attempt sort this out now. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:55, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Denial of IDF Responsibility for Death of Muhammad al Durrah

Clearly, this article has to do with how Israelis and Palestinian may incorrectly present or interpret history. It certainly is not about investigations into a case of one bystander being shot by accident by either side. While this is a fascinating case, it clearly belongs elsewhere.

[edit] Split suggestion

(I copied the following text from Talk:Zionist revisionism in Israeli-Palestinian conflict and fixed indentation. Start reading from The proposal itself. Gady 00:32, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Merging different things into single article is an option, when they are somehow related, e.g., gentically, but separate topics to small to deserve an article. In this case both topics are big enough and different enough to have their own, separate, articles. The issue of bad titles is another issue. Mikkalai 15:54, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The topics themselves are related, which is what various sides view as "revisionism" in the conflict. I suppose one can always find a finer and finer granularity to distinguish them, and therefore insist that separate articles are required. However, in practice what happens then is that different sub-topics become POV pieces expressing an opinion, all context is lost, and any general articles on the subject become unreadable link repositories. Noticing this, editors then attempt to add detail to the link repositories, which inevitably conflict with the links they refer to (since those have been thoroughly POVd), resulting in a mess and more edit wars. What we need is one article in which to work out all the POVs, retain context, and provide an article actually readable and worth reading. Jayjg 16:23, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

what is wrong with "finer and finer granularity"? It is a policy ow wikipedia to split pages when they grow. One can always write a common, summary-like article, with details in additional pages. All what is common for both sides will fit perfectly well in this summary page. Mikkalai 21:48, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

First let's let the article grow to 32K, then worry about splitting off logical portions. As it is, once each one is NPOVd they'll be little more than stubs. Jayjg 21:32, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think there's consensus on this too, but it's not a consensus some are willing to recognize, so this is very much a live issue. As an aside: I'm opposed to partisan granularity (the proposal below is unspeakably undesirable). Cool Hand Luke 19:17, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Exactly, unspeakably undesirable. Jayjg 21:32, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The proposal itself

I suggest to make two articles with unambiguous titles,

"History denial by Israel opponents"

and

"History denial by Palestine opponents"

A reasonable extension: make the Israeli-Palestinian history denial a summary article that discusses things common to both sides and refers to separate pages for details.

And for several reasons, most important being that IMO not only palestinians deny israeli history and not only zionists deny palestinian hisory and facts. What is more, not all israeli deny palestinians (BTW, not mentioning them is an oversight. I don't know about palestine in this resiprocity). Mikkalai 15:54, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My only problem with this suggestion is that this would lead to the following situation: Israel opponents would work on the first. Palestine opponents would work on the second. Both would be POV beyond recognition. The notion of putting them in a single article, artificial as it may look, has led to more balanced pages. See for example List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, and many other pages. Gady 16:03, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This problem is easily solvable: cross-reference them. Both sides will readily grab an opportunity to edit the opponent's. Mikkalai 21:40, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The list of massacres has an immediately seen benefit: transparent chronology. Mikkalai 21:44, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The term "History Denial" is already POV for both articles. And splitting into two is a terrible idea, all context is lost, and links don't help. Jayjg 21:30, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I strongly suspect you didn't read the article lately. What context are you spearing about? There are two section that do not refer to eact other. Moreover, which speak about different things. Mikkalai 23:29, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Denial" is a correct term. Both sides deny certain facts. It is not the issue whether this denial correct or not. It is a statement of fact: someone denies something. If you disagree with my last sentence, please explain why and please provide a better term, in your opinion. Mikkalai 23:29, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your assumption is implicit in your description; that these are "facts". The "facts" are highly contested to begin with. Jayjg 19:18, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It may be useful to review the history of this article... RK created the denial by Palestinians content and placed it, totally illegitimately, on Bible conspiracy theories; when, after discussion, it was concluded that this material had nothing to do with the article, rather than simply delete it and be accused of POV motivations, I stuck it in this article and added a thoroughly non-exhaustive denial by Israel section to balance it. In my opinion, splitting it up will remove the balancing factor, and most probably lead to both articles ultimately being far more POV. - Mustafaa 00:24, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What balanncing? One says: you don't exist and other says you killed my children? One can reasonably speak about balance when one and the same subject is discussed by the opponents. There is no common subject of discussion here. Mikkalai 00:55, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Never mind the children. They're denying each other's past existence in the region of Palestine or parts thereof; that's the common theme, other than the recent addition of Muhammad al-Durrah. Perhaps "Factually incorrect denials of a given ethnic group's past presence in the region of Palestine or parts thereof" would do as a title, but it's a bit of a mouthful. - Mustafaa 01:09, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK. Suppose that the common issue is mutual denial of existence/presence. It this case poor Muhammad has nothing to do here. Probably the person who decided to merge it into here was led into confusion by bad article title.

[edit] New proposal

How about Mutual denial of historical claims by Israeli and Palestinians? IMO the subject will be narrowed unambiguously down.

Mutual denials about recent events may be listable, similar to the list of massacres. Mikkalai 01:54, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's a good title; it talks about claims now, not facts, which in my opinion already makes it more NPOV. Jayjg 19:18, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Define mutual. I define it as "common to or shared by two or more parties". I don't have a problem with that. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:47, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

also,

• Having the same relationship each to the other: mutual predators.
• Directed and received by each toward the other; reciprocal: mutual respect.

Mikkalai 03:13, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] If I may add...

Many politically right-wing Israelis did not accept the existence of an independent Palestinian people. For example, Golda Meir asserted, "There are no Palestinians," (see Palestinian). Today, the existence of a unique Palestinian nationality/identity is recognized by most Israelis although some continue to advocate "transfer", ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the Occupied Palestinian Territories, by claiming that Palestinians are actually Jordanians. (See No such thing as Palestinians) [2]

First of all, Golda Meir wasn't all-that right-wing politician... The next thing is about her comment: I don't know if that's what she meant, but the big question about the existance of the Palestinian Poeple is what makes the a people? What makes Arabs from Iran and Arabs from Iraq two distinct nations, although they were both the same 100 years ago, is the split brought on them by the UK/France, and caused them two be two different countries, and therefore caused cultural differences - which combined alltogether, over a period of 100 years, turned them into two "sub-nations" of the Arabic nation. Now, what kind of culture makes the Palestinians a distnict nation, and not "just Arabs"? Right, they're not Syrians, nor they're Saudis...but sound to me kind of strange to take all of the Arabs that don't havd(/had) a country(meaning: government, culture, whatever) to give a "focused" definition of "what kind of arabs are they", and call those "unclassified" Arabs by the name "Palestinians"... Just wondering. It has little practical meaning to this article(although it has some), but it's still interesting to get an answer.

The part that does have practical implications over this article is the "transfer" issue. No one ever claimed(for as mush as I know) that the Jordaniand are actually Palestinians, or the other way around, or whatever... What many claim(and are right, for as much as I know) that over 70%(if I recall the numbers right) of Jordan's population are Palestinians. If we look at the simple facts(disregarding "interesting" definitions, such as the PLO-Charter's definition) we see that there's nothing strange on unbeliebable here: Palestinians are those arabs that lived in Palestine, and not only in "Israeli Palestine". Both today's Israel and Jordan were under the same British Mandate(till Churchill's "White Book" in 1922) - and even after that, the Palestinians remained the same Palestinians. It's not like the "border" between the Mandate-proper lands and Abdalla's lands caused them to switch nationality... Also, I assume everyone writing here have at least heard of the black september, so we clearly see that there were Palestinians in Jordan for a long time. the difference between Israel and Jordan is that Jordan gave a taste of what's-to-come if they continued messing things up, and they got the clue. Israel failed to do so.(Yes, the las note is POV/"propoganda"/whatever` No, you shouldn't focus on it, but on the content that bares meaning to the article)

--AlexKarpman 10:14, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "A land without a people for a people without a land"

Israel Zangwill's Zionist slogan is well-documented. [2] [3] [4] [5] Please stop deleting it. --Powergrid 17:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good find. Now please stop re-inserting the irrelevant information about Muhammad al-Durah. al-Durrah is not a significant part of Palestinian "history" to be denied; rather, the he was a boy who was killed in crossfire between Israeli and Palestinian forces. It is not clear who shot him and, as it stands, it is looking more and more like the Palestinians did it. One could as easily have a section in the Palestinian denial of Israeli history section showing the exact incident as an example of Palestinian denial of their own actions and blaming them on Israel. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your opinions are interesting but ultimately irrelevant. Al-Durrah is notable enough to history that his killing is mentioned widely in articles about the Intifada. The denial of responsibility about his death qualifies the case for description in this article. I cite a few reports here mentioning al-Durrah as an example of Israeli denial of history, remind you about the NPOV policy of representing all views, return the description you deleted to the article and ask that you stop deleting relevant information from the article. Thanks. --Powergrid 19:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Israeli responsibility for al-Durrah's death is not a "historical fact", therefore the section doesn't fit the topic of the article. I remind you that articles must stay on topic, and ask you to stop inserting irrelevant material. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The topic is allegations of Israeli-Palestinian history denial. The allegations are real and belong in the article. Your perceptions of the truth concerning the underlying incident are irrelevant. --Powergrid 20:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The topic is allegations of denial of historical fact. Claims that Israel and its supporters lie about all sorts of things do not constitute "denials of historical fact" on the part of Israel. On the contrary, those kinds of claims are a dime a dozen, as are counterclaims on the other side of the debate. My perceptions of the topic of the article are entirely relevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[6] “After denying, then accepting, then again denying responsibility for Mohammed's death, the Israeli army appeared to be trying to cover up its terribly public error. But the graffiti face of Mohammed on the walls of the Bureij camp will not fade that easily.”

[7] “The visual documentation of the cold-blooded murder of the child Muhammad al-Durra shattered the complacency of those who had been comfortable with the anonymity of the Palestinians and the invisibility of their suffering. Even then, the Israeli propaganda machine tried to distort the truth even in the face of irrefutable evidence. First, it was said that he was killed by Palestinian gun men. Then, he was caught in the crossfire. The worst version was in the cynical depiction of the child Muhammad as a trouble-maker or a mischievous child who brought it upon himself-as though the proper response to a child living his childhood is deliberate death. The last accusation involved a question: What was he doing there? The real question should have been what was the Israeli army doing there in the heart of Palestinian Gaza shooting at civilians including a child and his father who had been caught red- handed attempting to indulge in the provocative act of shopping together.”

[8] “Moreover, unlike elsewhere in the world, concocting false statements and accounts about events, such as crimes committed by Israeli occupation troops and settler cutthroats, is a systematic, institutionalized and organized task for which hundreds of millions of dollars are allocated every year and hundreds of mercenary writers, parroting columnists, and unethical apologists are recruited and mobilized, all for the purpose of hallowing the unholy and converting the lie into a "truth" believed and accepted by millions of unsuspecting people around the world. Take for example, the indelible story of Muhammed Al- Durra, the poor Palestinian kid who was so-callously murdered by trigger-happy Israeli army soldiers last October as he was seeking, in vain, to escape the inescapable bullets of the heroes of Zionism. In the beginning, the Zionist mill of mendacity claimed that Al-Durra was actually killed deliberately by Palestinian "gunmen" in order to besmirch Israel's "fine" image on the world's arena. When the lie proved to be too brash, the same mill fabricated the Satanic and cheap claim that Palestinians were pushing their kids to the front lines in order to embarrass the Israeli "defense" forces which killed them inadvertently and regretfully. And even today, nearly five months after the monstrous crime, and far from saying a simple and genuine "sorry" for the vile deed, Israeli propagandists and apologists, including supposedly respectable diplomats, are still unashamedly ruminating and parroting the crass lie that Al-Durra was pushed into the fire-line by his father (his father, too, was nearly killed) in order to score a propaganda victory for the Palestinian cause!! I don't know why I chose to stress the case of Muhammed Al-Durra as a classical Zionist lie, as there are thousands, perhaps millions of graver Zionist lies about every demolished house, every uprooted tree, every obliterated village, and every atrocity the lying murders carried out. Maybe because the specter of his phantasmagoric death is still haunting us whenever the murder is re-enacted by Israel's born-to-kill soldiers. Maybe because we unconsciously or subconsciously feel that we have to do something to compensate or atone for our collective guilt as humans for not doing enough to save the child from the ugly claws of a preventable death. Or just maybe because his death is still so vivid and so fresh in our exhausted individual and collective memories. Of course, the Zionist robe of lying is so long, so much that it takes a voluminous encyclopedia to record and document Zionist lies, particularly those disseminated since the Palestinian Nakba of 1948. We all are aware of their classical lies, such as "the Arabs left their hometowns and villages voluntarily in 1948 and were not expelled by the Jews," "a land without a people for a people without a land," "What Palestinians," and that "we may forgive Arabs for killing our children, but we shall not forgive them for making us kill theirs!!"

Propaganda pieces are not relevant; I remind you that articles must contain relevant material. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:51, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Line one of the article says, "This article deals with the actual or alleged denial of historical facts by either Israelis or Palestinians." Allegations of denial, what you refer to as "propaganda", are included. --Powergrid 20:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alleged denial of historical fact. The claim that the IDF killed al-Durrah is not a historical fact; on the contrary, it is most likely false. More importantly, claims that Israel and its supporters lie about all sorts of things do not constitute "denials of historical fact" on the part of Israel. On the contrary, those kinds of claims are a dime a dozen, as are counterclaims on the other side of the debate. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your opinion of the facts is irrelevant. It is a historical fact that Israelis killed Muhammad al-Durrah. Denials, such as your assertion that the Israelis did not kill al-Durrah (above), are examples of history denial. --Powergrid 22:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your opinion of the facts is irrelevant. It is a historical fact that killers of Muhammad al-Durrah are simply unknowable, though likely Palestinian. Denials, such as your assertion that the Palestinians did not kill al-Durrah (above), are examples of Arab hasbara. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that my opinion, like your opinion, is irrelevant to the article. The allegations made by others are what we are trying to record. You should review the NPOV policy and apply it. --Powergrid 04:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, this is a conundrum. The article is supposed to deal with allegations that Israelis and Palestinians deny historical facts (to rhetorically undermine their opponent's legitimacy while promoting their own propaganda as the "truth"). One of those allegations of denial is against Israelis and their supporters who lie about the killing of Muhammad al-Durrah by Israeli soldiers. It seems quite clear that these are allegations of denial and that these allegations belong in this article. You are claiming that the Israeli denials are the true historical facts and the allegations that these are denials should be deleted from Wikipedia. Can we hear some opinions on how this issue can be described, preferably from an editor who does not promote Israeli propaganda? --Powergrid 22:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the article was created because you kept wanting to invent the notion of "Zionist Revisionism", but other editors weren't putting up with your propaganda, so the whole sorry mess was moved here. This article was supposed to be about denials of the histories of the two peoples, not petty lists of every time each side says the other is lying. And I don't think we need to hear any more opinions; as it is, I'm being mighty good about responding at all, considered that you have been banned by ArbCom. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:03, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not understand this last remark but I repeat my request for some objective editors to look at this conundrum.--Powergrid 03:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, your other sockpuppets never understood it either. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You may need to explain yourself better. Again, I call for level-headed objective editors to take a look at this issue. --Powergrid 04:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Powergrid, you are simply wrong. You are accepting Palestinian propaganda as a "fact", but saying that over and over does not make it so. Similar Palestinian sources also claim that it is a "fact" that Jews wish to conquer the entire middle-east. You can shout and repeat all you want, but that does not establish facts. RK

Thanks for your helpful input. --Powergrid 03:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Historical fact is inexorably tied to a certain historiographical consensus — if the given event is very recent, some consensus among well-known journalistic sources needs to be established, at the very least. El_C 05:23, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quote intensive

I'm afraid that too much of this article reads like a selection of quotes which, therefore, tends to drift outside a cogent narrative. Specifically, there needs to be a lot more back and forth, many people have written on this issue critically, and the article needs to mention their ideas (and cite them, too, but in proportion). Ultimately, more context needs to be provided about this phenomenon, its development and proliferation in politics, religion, education, academia, law, et cetera, etc., through an historically-grounded, historiographically representative account. El_C 01:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Think you're up for it? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:51, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, tis quite an undertaking, and honestly, I find it very difficult to substatively edit articles with already-existing content and fairly well-developed framework. I am usually sole author of whatever article, section, paragraph I write, while my rewrites tend to be total. It's a shortcoming on my part, I'm easily thrown off by others' words. Significantly, I'm not aquainted enough with the material, I had no idea that Abbas made such disecrditable statements(!), for example. In short, I can look into it and watch over it, but I probably should focus my energy in areas where my expertise and preculiar skills can be harnessed best. At any rate, I'm looking forward to learning more on this issue. El_C 02:13, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] People

My Oxford defines "people" as community, tribe, race, nation, etc. or as common people, subjects. Or any defined collection of persons. Everyone would agree that Jews and Palestinians are "people" by some of these definitions but not by others. It seems pointless to me for either side to complain about "denial" without specifying a specific meaning.24.64.166.191 03:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why Include Trends from the 60s?

"They also claim that Israeli textbooks of the 60's systematically ignored this event, and that only after the eighties did awareness of it begin to increase among the Israeli populace."---

Why include this in a list of denials if the problem no longer exists? It (if it can be substantiated) makes a valid point, but not in a section about current affairs.

[edit] Americans, Lebanese, and Christian Englishmen

What do the views of Americans, Lebanese, and Christian Englishmen have to do with so-called Israeli history denial? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The author of a source doesn't have to be Jewish or Israeli (or Muslim or Palestinian) to be able to contribute to this topic, and to be quoted.

I'm not sure that the slogan "A land without a people for a people without a land" was coined by Shaftesbury; I had always thought it was Israel Zangwill who came up with that (see for example Alon Tal, Pollution in a promised land, University of California Press 2002, ISBN 0-520-22442-6, p. 38; but see also Alan Dowty, The Jewish State: A Century Later, University of California Press 1998, ISBN 0-520-22911-8, p. 267f.).

I've reinserted the sources and modified the paragraph about Shaftesbury you had deleted. —Babelfisch 08:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Read the first sentence of the article: This article deals with the actual or alleged denial of historical facts by either Israelis or Palestinians. None of those people, including Israel Zangwill and Lord Shaftsbury, were Israeli or Palestinians, and the tie you've made is original research as well. Also, don't put simple links in refs, it's a waste of time for the reader. If you can't be bothered to provide additional detail regarding a ref, then leave it inline. I'll clean up some of that now, and add some references. More to come later when I have time. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

why is is that denial by Israel comes first ? It is the palestinians who deny israel right to exist see http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3337561,00.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.1.206.221 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 9 December 2006.

[edit] Proposed merger: Temple denial

A new user just created Temple denial. I proposed that it be merged into this article, as it is a specific instance of history denial already mentioned here. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 23:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Not so fast. This may belong because it is a developing story, seperable form the general Arab/Palestinian denial of Jewish history.

And because of the specificity, outrageousness, and malevolent intent of academics, clerics and politicians who, presented with stones carved in Hebrew that some form specific spots on the Temple Mount mentioned in historic sources (such as : "this is the trumpeting place" for the place where an ancient priest stood and blew the trumpet to welcome the Sabbath) and say with a straight fact taht no Jewish Temple existed.

If the Temple deniers were correct, Israel would have no more claim to state hood in the Levant than it would have to Pennsylvania or Provence.

Moreover, the Wiki page on archaeology is rife with this kind of denial. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Athena's daughter (talk • contribs) 08:50, March 9, 2007.

Nobody's rushing to do anything. After proposing to merge two articles, we're supposed to wait at least a week to allow people to comment before taking any action. I also took the additional step of notifying you that I had proposed merging the two articles. I had no intention of doing anything in this instance until I had heard from you, since you started the other article.

I proposed merging the two articles because I wonder whether the section in this article that discusses "Claims that Jews never inhabited Biblical sites" duplicates material in the other article and whether this article would benefit from integrating the material in the other article into it. (One approach might be to make "Temple denial" a subsection of "Claims that Jews never inhabited Biblical sites".)

There may be good reasons why the two articles shouldn't be merged. Read Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages for a list of reasons why articles might be merged, and see if you can make counter-arguments. For example, maybe there's so much that can be said about Temple denial that it merits an article of its own, or it would overwhelm this article. Those may be good reasons not to merge the two articles. If that's the case, maybe the right approach would be to move the content of this article that discusses Temple denial to the other article and advise readers of this article to read that article for more details. (For example, the "History" section of Israel says "Main article: History of Israel and then has a very short summary of Israel's history.)

The supposition that "if the Temple denier were correct, Israel would have no more claim to state hood in the Levant than it would have to Pennsylvania or Provence" isn't a good reason not to merge the articles. Many of the examples of history denial in this article imply that Israelis or Palestinians have no right to states in the Land of Israel/Palestine. That's the whole point of this article: to describe those assertions by one group that deny the history of the other.

Read this article with these thoughts in mind, and think about what the best approach might be. In my mind there's no question that the two articles overlap with respect to the concept of Temple denial and that some of the content should be merged. To me, the only question is what approach is best. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 18:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The reason I started this article is that Temple Denial, in the sense of denial of the existence of and of the existence of evidence for the existence of an ancient Jewish or israelite community in Israel/Palestine, has become something of a grouth industry. There is suddenly so much of it. And much of ti comes cloaked in language that may confuse well-meaning individuals without graduate degrees in archaeology, who may turn ot Wikipedia. I mean, if someone tells you that no evidence fo rthe existence of the Temples or of the Davidic dynasty has been found, how many of us would know whether such a statement is factual or an outrageous - and highly politicla - fib.

And it does seem somewhat seperate from history denial, because this is history literaly cut in stone, and the rules of evidence for archaeology are somewhat different form those that apply in history.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Athena's daughter (talk • contribs) 16:04, March 9, 2007.