Talk:Temple Institute

Temple Institute Ritual Objects for Temple Use
User:Daniel575|Daniel575]] removed the list of links to Temple Institute Ritual objects for Temple use. Pending this discussion, I've moved the list below my comment here. I believe this is one of the most notable things about the Temple Institute, a principle reason why ordinary people might be interested in visiting it, notwithstanding its politicial views. Whether we agree or not, I believe we have to report the information that is of primary public notability, even if it is not what we personally are most interested in. Also, wanted to ask whether the list should appear here, The Third Temple article, or both places. Shavua Tov, --Shirahadasha 02:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Building of Temple Ritual Items
As part of its ongoing effort to prepare for a future rebuilt Temple, the Temple Institute has been preparing ritual objects suitable for Temple use. Several items to be used in the Temple have been made by the Temple Institute. 
 * Copper Laver (For Kohanim to wash at start of day)
 * Mizrak (holds blood from sacrificial animals)
 * Large Mizrak (holds blood from larger animals)
 * Three Pronged Fork (to arrange offerings on Alter)
 * Measuring Cup (to measure meal offerings)
 * Copper Vessel for Meal Offerings (to prepare meal offerings)
 * Silver Shovel (to remove ashes from alter)
 * Silver Vessel for Wine Libation (for wine accompanying offerings)
 * Lottery Box (For Yom Kippur)
 * Silver Altar Cup for Water Libation (for Sukkot)
 * Silver Libation Vessels (for Sukkot)
 * Sickle (to reap the Omer barley)
 * Other Offering Implements (to offer the Omer barley)
 * Abuv (to roast the Omer barley)
 * Menorah Cleansing Vessel (to clean the Menorah)
 * Oil Pitcher (for replenishing the Menorah)
 * Small Golden Flask (for replenishing individual Menorah lamps)
 * Frankincense Censer
 * Incense Chalice (For Ketoret or Incense Offering)
 * Incense Shovel (For Ketoret or Incense Offering)
 * Menorah (See Menorah)
 * Table of the Showbread (See Showbread)
 * Incense Alter (For Ketoret or Incense Offering)
 * mock-up of Ark of the Covenant (See Ark of the Covenant)
 * The Crown (Crown worn by the High Priest)
 * Garments of the High Priest (See High Priest
 * Silver Trumpets (Announce special occasions and offerings)
 * Gold-Plated Shofar (For Rosh Hashanah. See Shofar)
 * Silver-Plated Shofar (For fast days. See Shofar)
 * Harp (Used by the choir of Levites singing Psalms)
 * Lyre (Used by the choir of Levites singing Psalms)


 * It is just a list of links. External links in an article should be minimized. One link to their website, where all of these artifacts are listed, suffices. You could make a list of the article without adding a link to every one of them. Wikipedia is not a link collection, and definitely inside the main text links should be limited. The way in which you added these links is really contradictory to Wikipedia policy. --Daniel575 | (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * With or without links, what about in table form alongside the article, as per example? J.christianson 08:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No. As I said, this whole thing is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not a collection of links. One link to the TI portal on temple artifacts suffices. --Daniel575 | (talk) 09:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What about in this form, without individual links? J.christianson 09:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That looks much better. Without the links, it looks ok, but I actually don't really see the use of it. But if you insist on adding it, fine. I just think it's unnecessary, since anyone can click on the link and see it all there. --Daniel575 | (talk) 10:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Controversy of 2006
Daniel575, I've removed the "controversy of 2006" content. This is part of the Temple Mount controversy, which is covered in the Temple Mount article, only a summary is needed here.

I haven't removed its coverage there, but I honestly don't believe anything but a brief summary is encyclopedic. The content here seemed much more like the content of a newspaper article, covering a particular spat on a particular day, than an encyclopedia article. An encyclopedia covers broad issues in summary fashion. It doesn't address individual events in isolated, journalistic fashion. Wikipedia notability policy is in terms of notability among scholars. Scholarly notability is measured in terms of light, not heat. If we measure notability by the amount of noise people make, we should probably all be writing articles about pornography. Blow-by-blow accounts of insults people trade at each other generally sheds little light on issues of scholarly relevance. --Shirahadasha 22:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Foreign Support
The report on 34 people from Papua New Guneae visiting and donating "several thousand dollars" doesn't strike me as encyclopedic. We don't have to report every news incident. The visitors appeared to be ordinary tourists, not government dignitaries. One would expect an organization to periodically receive visitors and receive donations. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent rewrite
In the past it's beeen necessary to revert edits to prevent the article from being re-written to reflect an entirely anti-Temple Institute POV. This time it has been necessary to revert to prevent the article from being re-written to an entirely pro-Temple Institute perspective. I left in several paragraphs about the Institute's past andcurrent efforts in constructing ritual items, garments, and other preparations for a restored Temple, slightly edited to tone down the POV. However, I believed it necessary to revert entirely the edits to the Controversies section and its subsections on the appropriateness of building a Temple in contemporary times and on ascending the Temple Mount. The edit had rewritten both sections to remove all reference to the existance of a controversy, present more extended arguments justifying the Temple Institute's position, and to delete all information on contrary positions. However, the Temple Institute's position on both issues is currently a minority one in both the religious and the political domains. To retain its encyclopedic integrity under the WP:neutral point of view policy, the article must reflect the fact that both issues are currently controversies, provide information about other viewpoints, and identify the Institute's position as a minority view. These requirements are, as the neutral point of view policy explains, non-negotiable. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems right to me. Although I will note that the recent editor took out some unsourced conspiracy theory stuff also. That removal seems correct. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

My recent copyvio removal


I'm of the opinion that this material duplicates that on the home website enough to constitute copyright violation. I'm happy to discuss it further, or for a more complete re-write to be reinstered. - brenneman  07:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"in the event conditions permit its reconstruction."
Nice euphemism, considering the land has belonged to the Muslims for 1300 years and currently has a massive Muslim temple on it. Doesn't that make this group quasi-terrorist?

Imagine if some Catholic group was making plans to build a cathedral on the site of the Touro Synagogue "for immediate use in the event conditions permit it". 71.206.188.10 (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

For the analogy to be accurate, one must also imagine that the Vatican historically stood where the Touro Synagogue is now located, and had been essentially destroyed in order for the synagogue to physically and spiritually replace it.172.10.238.180 (talk) 07:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)