Talk:Temple of the True Inner Light

Religion: New religious movements Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Drug Policy (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Drug Policy, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Drug PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Drug PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Drug PolicyDrug Policy articles

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled]

Someone has been changing this page and putting false information about the Temple. The Temple does NOT include cocaine as a part of the Flesh of God. Rather, it is a part of the darkness (satan) to them. Also, Harvey Finn is NOT associated with the Temple in any way. And the concept that the Temple is in Spearwood is interesting since Spearwood is an Acacia Tree that may contain DMT, but that is NOT the physical location of the Temple. Somaeye (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The UPI ref is outdated. It reflects attitudes before the legalization of Marijuana and before court decisions in favor of other churches that were somewhat similar to the Temple such as Santo Daime and UDV.

The Native American Church, from which the Temple started, was formed by 6 people - not 1.Somaeye (talk) 13:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing things here on the talk page (it would also help if you were to use the Edit Summary field when making changes, so that your changes don't look arbitrary.)

Would there be any objection to saying that the founders included Birnbaum?

The UPI reference was being used for the statement on the eucharist, which it supports. It's also a very useful reference to have in here, because it is the only easily-verifiable one that confers a reasonable degree of notability (not in itself enough to meet the notability guidelines, but a good step toward that.) The other ones that can be read online seem to have just passing mentions of theTemple. If it must be used for historic material, that's fine, this article should not just reflect the Temple's current status but also its history. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for talking. The UPI article is outdated not only because of the negative slant it takes but also because the Temple no longer hands out fliers at concerts and usually doesn't hold Communions for non-members anymore. They are reachable through the website and email and focus on spreadig of their beliefs. It is only when someone shows a belief and understanding in what the Temple is about that they consider meeting with someone. And although the mention in the TIHKAL book seems just in passing - among those who are in the "Psychedelic" world, it is of much more importance than the UPI ref.

Note that Birnbaum is not mentioned in the UPI article, nor in the article by Peter Gorman, who was Executive Editor of High Times magazine at the time when he visited the Temple in 1989 - 9 years after the founding in 1980 of the Temple.

Thanks again for your civility. I noticed the "Article Summary" after my last posting.Somaeye (talk) 11:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

not relevant - nominating for deletion PROD

This doesnt seem to be noteworthy enough to be on wikipedia. How many people are part of this temple? In addition, I believe the existence of this article to be self promition. This article was created by (and is primarily maintained by) user Somaeye (who doesn't have a userpage unfortunately). And on the website, the email is Somae7 at yahoo - sounds like someone close to the temple. For these reasons I am proposing this for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QueensanditsCrazy (talk • contribs) 15:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've challenged the PROD, QueensanditsCrazy. There certainly seems to be independent sources out there. Whether they are enough to meet WP:GNG deserves a proper WP:BEFORE check (some of the sources might be unsubstantial, and given the subject matter, self-published or otherwise unreliable). I think the WP:COI issue should be looked into, and possibly some of the article re-written, but that does not mean it has to be deleted. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair! I'm a little new to the wikipedia process - I think an examination of notability would be valuable. Conflict of interest as well. How do we go about these processes? From my understanding, if we decide this is not notable, then this article is to be deleted right? QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is self promotion as you can see that his email somae7@yahoo.com is listed on their apparent 'website-to-be' here https://psychede.tripod.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.132.14.34 (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed some things, but the stub-let should certainly be deleted- not _remotely_ notable

There is one citation, from a 1987 article briefly mentioning the Temple, and two citations with nothing to do with them, but which are about psychedelics.

One brief mention in one article hardly makes a topic "notable". 24.47.52.7 (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it turns out the Shulgin cite does mention them.

There is also an article in High Times from 1990. There is also a mention in at least one academic article or book that used to be cited here, and still is cited on most of the many wikipedia knockoffs.

Still, that is three mentions in RS ever, for a group around since the mid-'70s, which is to say three mentions in 50 years, which does not suggest very great notability. 24.47.52.7 (talk) 23:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]