Talk:Temple Mount Faithful

Untitled

I do not like the Temple Mount Faithful, however, let's be clear about their motives. Their primary goal is the reestablishment of a Jewish Temple. According to them, the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa Mosque serve as an impediment to this, since according to Jewish law, there can only be one Temple and that in a very specific location on the Temple Mount. In order to build that Temple, the TMF supports the removal of the mosques, whether by the (rather impractical) plan of moving them or by the (rather violent) plan of blowing them up. Also, there are several different factions in this movement, which is not nearly as unified as this piece suggests. In fact, a more moderate faction simply advocates the creation of a Jewish prayer area in the southern extreme of the Temple Mount (today, no non-Muslim prayers are allowed on the Mount). Just striving for some accuracy. Danny

Needs a lot of work

I removed some of the more blatant POV but this article still needs the attention of an expert to remove the rest.71.237.210.137 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC).

The article is about the movements beliefs and principles --Normandy Journal (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Normandy Journal

I am not sure why you (Normandy Journal) reverted the last set of changes. They clearly were not vandalism. At the moment the article reads like propaganda. The various claims are not supported by 3rd party sources. It needs drastic edits. I have restored the POV tag and added a couple more. Also please point to a wikipedia policy that supports the use of "G-d", without such a policy then God should be used --Snowded ^TALK 11:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of any response I propose to radically prune this article removing all material which is not supported by citation --Snowded ^TALK 08:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Given the edit waring editor (see below) I have made the reductions now as the material is appallingly POV --Snowded ^TALK 08:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This page did not contain any "propaganda", any more than does the Temple Institute or Hamas pages. The information was all taken from the Temple Mount Faithful Web site, as was listed on the page. As for accusations about the organization, the Temple Mount Faithful ("TMF") has never advocated the blowing up of the Dome of the Rock or the Al Aqsa Mosque. Gershon Salomon himself has been very careful over the years in stating their desire is, once the government of Israel takes the Temple Mount back not them, these buildings should be dismantled and sent to Saudi Arabia. LeeU 16:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

As to any "claims" and "citations," there were links to the organizations Web site to back up the information. If the "claim" is in reference to the actual Temple or other Scriptural items, then other pages like the Temple Institute and Hamas must also be done with as this one was. LeeU 16:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The statement "there are several different factions in this movement, which is not nearly as unified as this piece suggests. In fact, a more moderate faction simply advocates the creation of a Jewish prayer area in the southern extreme of the Temple Mount" is completely false. There is only one "faction" within the TMF. I believe you are getting this organization confused with others who want the Temple built also. They are not connected to the TMF in any way. [I apologize if this response is incorrect, this is the first time I have done this.] LeeU 16:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

WIkipedia works from third party sources, its not here just to replicate web sites. --Snowded ^TALK 16:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

So far I have not seen anyone make any reference to "third party sources". What other "sources" do you want? And I didn't just replicate the Web site. I provided information, just like the other sites did. I'm not sure what it is that you want. It's obvious that most of those quoted here don't want to see this page with much info on it, if at all. LeeU 20:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You need to read up on the way WIkipedia works. Without a third party reliable source its difficult to establish anything. Also the previous version read like a propaganda piece; making factual statements without authority. To be honest it may better just to delete the article --Snowded ^TALK 22:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Based on what I have seen, yes, I agree it would be best to delete the Temple Mount Faithful entry from Wikipedia altogether. Will you be handling that? Also, thanks for the guidance regarding "the way Wikipedia works." I appreciate it. LeeU 18:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Hehe you want to say that I am vandalizing an article

That has no sources. That is a racist pamphlet. I will take a rain check on your suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneralChoomin (talk • contribs) 08:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Delete request

The phrase "Temple Mount Faithful" gets over 100 hits at Google Scholar, including academic articles and reliable books. It gets over 1000 hits in the Google News Archive, including many prominent news sources. And that's only in English. Therefore, the suggestion that no reliable third-party sources are likely to be found is incorrect and there is no case for speedy deletion. Listing it on a few project pages might attract someone willing to work on it. Further attempts to delete should go through WP:AFD. Zero^talk 08:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I left it for several weeks to see if anyone would take it up. Happy to leave it for a few more. --Snowded ^TALK 08:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion request.

This is nothing more then first hand sources to a pamphlet. It was then and it is now. I request a speedy deletion since this article is more like a recruiting tool with no substance other then links to it's homepage. General Choomin (talk) 02:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I have declined the speedy tag - neither WP:CSD A1 nor A3 are satisfied here. I see that there is some history of edit warring on this page, but it is clear that the subject of the article is highly notable. There is extensive newscoverage, as GoogleNews search shows[1] and GoogleBooks produces extensive results as well[2]. The article needs improvement, not deletion. Nsk92 (talk) 04:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. It needs deletion since it appears to be an advert. Well actually it was initially an advert to begin with. Reducing it to one fact and a link to the site is still an advert in my opinion. But I digress. If you wish to change this into a real article then be my guest. Perhaps you will find a good source that you feel is appropriate. Until then I will edit out portions that break the rules such as not using direct sources. Best wishes to your better article. General Choomin (talk) 09:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The article does not read like an advert or a promotional text at all. The links I provided above give plenty of sources covering the subject of this article and I have added a couple of them to the article. If you still insist on deletion, the appropriate venue is to list the article for WP:AFD, rather than to CSD tag it again. Given the fact that you already have problematic history with this particular article, including vandalism[3] and edit warring on this article (for which, as I understand it, you were blocked back in April of this year), you need to be particularly careful here. Moreover, you need to be aware that there was an ArbCom case decision Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions regarding all articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A part of that decision provides for significant discretionary sanctions that could be imposed by administrators on users with a record of disruptive editing on articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Nsk92 (talk) 12:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Well you proved me wrong. I just edited a few things and will leave it at that. BTW, even the person I was edit warring with commented that "There is an argument for a speedy delete here." Since the article at that time was pretty much a primary source advert for extremist recruiting. I'm not as rash nor new at this now so don't worry about what happens to me. I have a lot to learn still but I've learned a few lessons since then.

PS: I heard something about christian fundamentalists funding this group to hurry up with the building of the third temple. Apparently so that Armageddon can occur one way or another. I just don't remember where I read it. Hope that helps with your article. General Choomin (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I have expanded the article a bit more. Yes, there are sources regarding their ties with christian fundamentalists and I have added a little bit regarding that to the article. Both Inbari and Selengut treat this issue in some detail and I'll have to read them more carefully; probably more should be said about this issue in the article. Nsk92 (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Moved to WP:COMMONNAME

The fairly indisputable common name here is "Temple Mount Faithful", and the page has been moved there accordingly. See Ngrams; also 19,000 hits for TMF to 2,000 hits for the full name, and 393 scholar hits for TMF to hits for the full name, without even mentioning source quality and the prevalent usage by key institutions, such as the UN, Israeli Supreme Court, etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)