User talk:Lisa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Welcome to Wikipedia!!![edit]

Hello LisaLiel! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button Button sig2.png located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some pages to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Kukini hablame aqui 19:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical
Wikimedia.png

Re: New Covenant reversion[edit]

Hello,

when you are removing large parts of an article without explaining it in the edit summary, then it could happen that another editor might see this as vandalism. Especially Recent changes patrollers like me will always look for an explanation for the removal of content. If there is no explanation for the removal of content, another editor will most likely revert the edit. You did not explain the removal see diff so I reverted it to the previous revision. This is not vandalism. The removal of content is.

Next time, simply explain the removal of content in the edit summary.

Hope this helps.

Regards

User Doe ☻T ☼C 21:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Not Views, Methodology[edit]

Lisa -- we're both observant, and we would both rather Messianics stop creating confusion. We just have different methodologies. To me, clarity is the solution. To you, silencing is the solution. One of the main sociological markers for a cult is term switching -- using one group's terms with radically different meanings. Mormons will say that they believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But they absolutely do NOT believe in the trinity. They are polytheistic and will say so internally. What's the solution? To brand them a cult? Of course not. To pretend they don't exist? No. To define all the terms side by side? Absolutely. You see it as advertisement and I see it as exposure. However, I DO think that the table with the Muslim column belongs in interfaith and the Messianic one should stay in the Messianic category. I didn't promote it to interfaith, and now that the Muslim one exists, it is a much better table for that arena.Tim (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and put it up for arbitration. You're committing vandalism.Tim (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Nominating a page for deletion etc[edit]

Hi LisaLiel: You nominated Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms for deletion but you forgot to "insert the {{subst:afd1}} tag at the top of the page." I have now done so. Omission of such things can lead to the invalidation of a vote. If you did indeed place it there at the time you nominated the article for deletion and it was removed by someone then you should, in fact must, lodge a complaint of vandalism. If you inadvertantly forgot to do it, try to remember next time. You can see all the steps that must be completed for a valid AfD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, especially Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion. In addition, there is also a very important page that helps the Judaic editors know about deletion votes, when you place a notification at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism. Finally, please join the Judaic editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism and its very active talk pages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Thanks a lot. Bruchim haba'im and a freilichen Chanukah. IZAK (talk) 12:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Request, be briefer in your AfD comments[edit]

Hi again LisaLiel: Pardon my advice. Regarding what is happening now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms. Normally, Wikipedia AfD pages are not the place to conduct massive debates between parties. You did a good job presenting your case why the article should be deleted. You should not be writing essay-length responses and retorts to others as that just clogs up the page, makes the whole process messy and hard to follow, and is over-all counter-productive and very annoying to most editors who do not do such things when coming to vote and give their views (usually not more than a few sentences, if that.) I know it is not easy for a writer, but try to be concise and to limit yourself to paragraph-length responses at the most. People coming onto the page can go to the article's talk page to see and join detailed debates. Thanks for giving this your attention. I am placing a similar message on the others who are creating havoc on that page with full-blown essay-length responses rather than more focused replies that would be much more helpful to all concerned. IZAK (talk) 12:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Your citations[edit]

Thank you for providing citations - it seems like we have a lot of material on idolatry now in the article, so I've added an entry in the table just for that concept. I've also wikilinked the apostasy cell to the article Idolatry in Judaism. Kol tuv, Egfrank (talk) 12:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Editing concerns[edit]

Lisa, just a reminder, please try to resolve your dispute with discussion - one revert followed by discussion is fine (see WP:BRD). However, the WP:3RR rule says you must not revert the edits to an article more than three times in 24hours. I know you are well meaning and it would be a pity to lose your efforts to a block. Thanks, Egfrank (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes you do discuss, but even repeated WP:BRD edits over the same topic can get you blocked. I'm concerned because of your statement, "As many times as you, ....".

Sometimes working on Wikipedia can be very frustrating - especially if you are a well educated Jew, as I know you are. Try to be patient and find sources that explain your position clearly. That education of yours didn't just give you knowledge, it gave you the skill to look up things and analyze them Jewishly. If someone says the sources don't fit the claims ask them why rather than accuse them of having shuttered ears or POV stubborness. It can only help you find even better citations and get better at explaining your position. Best, Egfrank (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Areyeh Kaplan quote[edit]

Thanks for your edits. Unfortunately, the Areyeh Kaplan quote you recently added comes from a source that does not use the word apostasy anywhere (I looked). Try to find another more suitable source or modify the wording to be more in keeping with the source. Thanks, Egfrank (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Lisa - it is not my rule, it follows WP:RS, WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR. Use of a quote to define "apostasy" that does not itself mention the word apostasy is an example of "synthesis". Please try to find a better quote and in the meantime remove the quote from the apostasy cell. Also keep in mind that as the nominator of the AfD it is especially important that you be scrupulous in your editing of this article, lest one think you are trying to sabotage an article you have nominated for deletion. Thanks, Egfrank (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Lisa, I realize you feel what you are doing is right, but you have been amply warned. I have reported the situation at WP:ANI#Continued problems with editor - disruptive editing. My deepest apologies, I value your participation and do not enjoy doing this. You can explain your side there. Egfrank (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Protection tags[edit]

I have removed the page protection tags from Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms as the article is not currently protected. Please do not re-add them, as this is misleading to other editors. If you feel the page needs protection, please request it at Requests for page protection. Jeffpw (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks[edit]

Thank you for the Jokes you left on my talk page. Jon513 (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Judaism and Christianity[edit]

You are a hypocrite, because you made a change to the article and provided no explanation onthe talk page. I reverted you, but I actually DID put a detailed explanation on the talk page. When I provided an explanation onthe talk page I assumed good faith on your part and treated you with respect. Then, you (1) reverted me and (2) had some nerve telling me to provide a reason before reverting, when I in fact DID provide a reason and YOU did NOT. This shows a real lack of respect towards me and a failure on your part to assume good faith. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology, I appreciate it. I too have edited too quickly sometimes and am sorry I was so rough in my response. I have also added more explanaion on the Christianity-Judaism talk page to expain my edit which I hope satisfies you. By the way, I don´t see the fig discussion in that particular article but I do agre with you and left a message on the glossary talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Rather than revert you again, I ask you to delete the word "attempted" before genocide. Article 2 of the CPPCG defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." In other words, the act of genocide includes by definition a variety of acts with a specific set of intentions. It really dons´t mean anything to say that when Ferdinand and Isabela expelled Jews from Spain they were "attempting to attempt" to destroy in whole or in part Jewish culture. They actually were intending to do so, and that means they actually did commit genocide. Please, revert your most recent edit, which only dilutes what was actually done in the past. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughtful and detailed response on my talk page. But consider this: I believe at certain times in European history the Catholic Church intended for all Jews to convert to Judaism. This would entail the end of the Jewish culture, which, according to international law today, is genocide.Slrubenstein | Talk 13:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your making the change - but I am uncomfortalbe if you feel pressured into it. If you feel strongly about your view, we can continue discussing this. That is why I did not revert you, but rather brought the discussion to your talk page. I respect your views and hope we can reach a compromise edit both of us think is accurate and NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

you and Tim[edit]

I wish the two of you would stop it. Or take it to your own talk pages. Lisa, you are deliberately looking ofr trouble because you accused Tim of "calling you unpleasantness" when he did no such thing. I did a search of this page and found "unpleasantness" only twice, both in posts by you. Tim never called you unpleasantness. And Tim, don´t let Lisa provoke you. Grow up. forget the past. Focus on the future. Focus on improving the article in compliance with policies.You have no intention of communicating with lisa? Liar! you just communicated with her. If you really mean it, then just ... do ... not ... respond ... to ... her. And don't wait for an apology from anyone. Water under the bridge. Assume good faith, we use the word "assume" because it doesn't matter whether it is justified or not, it is simply necessary if ANY progress is to be made on articles. So assume it, and move in! Slrubenstein | Talk 23:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not conflict averse. But (1) I have seen you provoke Tim as much as he has provoked you. And if it isn't 50-50, you know what, so what? Big deal. that is not the point. (2) the cycle of bickering is going no-where, it is not making either of you feel better, and it is not improving the discussion. It doen't matter who is right or wrong, the cycle itself is unconstructive and pointless. (3) talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, You know what? you have legiti ate grievances? Take them to his talk page, or ArbCom, but not the article talk page which just waste's your time and everyone else. In short, someone has to be the better person the adult, and do the right thing which is to ignore insults and stop being defensive and focuson improving the article. If that person is not you, then at least take your complaints and claims off the article talk page to a more appropriate spot. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Every second I have spent trying to get you to act like an adult, I have spent trying to get Tim to act like an adult. If you haven't noticed that, it is because your hurt feelings or anger blinds you. I am not taking his side over yours by any means. You need to decide, which do you care more about: your personal grievances, or working on the encyclopedia? Hint: try to calculate how much time you have spent writing about your grievances, and how much time adding policy-compliant content to articles, in the past three days? This is how you want to spend your time? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You and I[edit]

I have asked you and Tim to stop bickering, or to take your bickering to your talk pages.

Now you have taken your bickering to my talk page. You are spitting on me, this is a total sign of disrespect as you know you are doing precisely what I asked you not to do, and you are doing it on my page.

Tim can respond to me on my talk page.

You can respond to me on my talk page.

But if Tim responds to you on my talk page, I will delete it.

If you respond to Tim on my talk page, I will delete it.

GET THIS THROUGH YOUR SKULL: Do NOT use my talk page to bicker with someone else. I care about improving the encyclopedia, not your desire to fight. If you insist on using Wikipedia to fight rather than to work on an encyclopedia, do it on your talk page. OR somewhere else. But not on an article talk page, and NOT on my talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

you, me, and the bomb[edit]

both of us have bent over backwards to explain things to BB. I suggest that at this point between us we have said all there is to be said and there is no more value to our trying to explain things to him. But I have asked others who have contributed regularly to Judiasm-related articles if they would comment. I propose you and I lay low for a few days and see if others chip in. They may come up with a more effective explanation (though I fail to see how); they may also be enough simply to establish consensus on this point. Let's wait and see, okay? I plan on avoiding the talk page to focus on this and other artidcles. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. -LisaLiel (talk) 05:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

When I leave a message for you on your talk page, why do you not respond to me hee or on my talk page? Why do you respond on the article talk page? The only purpose I can see is it is another chance for you to insult Bikinibomb publically. Be careful: Wikipedins do take WP:CIV and WP:NPA and WP:AGF seriously. It doesn't matter whether BB or anyone else attacks you - two wrongs do not make a right here, and administrators or ArbCom will handle two or more people attacking one another by banning all of you, rather than none of you.

If your purpose was not to attack BB publically, I would recommend you remove your response to me on the article talk page, and put it here, or on my talk page, where responses to me belong.

Well, the last time I posted something on your talk page, this happened. I assumed that meant you didn't want me posting there. Did I misunderstand? -LisaLiel (talk) 05:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry if I was not clear. I meant, I did not want you to respond to other people on my talk page. But it is fine your you to respond to me on my talk page, and usually prferable. Happy New Year, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Now to respond to you: you are wrong. Things work at Wikipedia by building consensus of views. The more people are involved, the more stable the situation becomes.. But even if you disagree with me, why not do it on your talk page or mine? Or must you always have an audience when you put someone down? Slrubenstein | Talk 01:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I also want to clarify - I know that your disagreement with me over tactics is sincere and well-intended. But I genuinely believe building or demonstrating a consensus on the talk page is important. It is especially important if a conflict reaches the point where is calls for administrative action or goes to ArbCom. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not disagree with you on substance. But tactically, I think we can use DNFTT and effectively ignore him more succesfully if we wait for a few more people to comment, so that it is very clear that he is (1) acting against consensus and (2) refusing to dialogue with many others. If he is the troll you believe he is, then he will repeat this pattern of behavior as more people register their views. That will only make our case stronger. There is no downside to this. I know you are tired of engaging him and of course you have done your fair share. You are free not to deal with him any more. But there is no harm in a few other editors coming to the page and expressing views that support, or at least are consistent with, your own. This may look like we are feeding him but in fact in fact we are giving him enough rope to hang himself, if that is what he choses to do. At that point it will be clear to all, not just you or me, that he is a troll. And that is important at Wikipedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

My typo[edit]

Thank you for standing up for me on Jossi's talk page. I was tired, and made a mistake, and I appreciate your pointing out it was an honest mistake. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Telushkin[edit]

Great idea! Wish I had thought of it!

Anyhow, I just wrote him the following:

Rabbi Telushkin,

I’m the Wikipedia editor that you were written about regarding the statement:

Throughout the centuries, more than a few Jewish thinkers have argued that the idea of the trinity (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost) seemed idolatrous. Ultimately, however, the majority of Jewish scholars concluded that although Christianity speaks of a trinity, it does not conceive of the three forces as separate with different and conflicting wills. Rather, the trinity represents three aspects of one God. While Jews are forbidden to hold such a belief, it is not avodah zarah."

I’ve been intrigued for years that you were the only Rabbi I had found to actually disagree with the Trinity. That is – you actually stated something resembling the actual doctrine that you disagreed with. I’ve not been able to find any other Jewish source to disagree with the Trinity. Instead, all of the disagreements have been with the concept of Arianism (i.e. the belief in lesser powers in partnership with God).

I’ve always understood the Jewish position to be: “Christianity is belief in multiple powers, multiple powers is idolatry, therefore Jews can’t have that belief.” That, of course, is Shituf, a concept Jews forbid for Jews, and that Christians forbid for Christians. Both groups regard the belief in multiple powers to be idolatry, and rightly so.

Instead you described something that Christians would identify as “well, I wouldn’t have worded it quite like that, but he’s VERY close.”

I’ve also understood the Jewish position to be: “idolatry is forbidden to Gentiles in the Noachide laws, the belief in the Trinity is idolatry, and it is okay for Gentiles to have that belief.”

In other words, it both is, and is not, idolatry. Now, as a Jew I can “get” that. There’s a higher standard for “idolatry.” But it’s very difficult to pin anyone down on where that line is. Your blanket statement “While Jews are forbidden to hold such a belief, it is not avodah zarah” seemed to solve that logical problem by saying, “well, the ACTUAL doctrine isn’t polytheistic, but instead it’s polydimensional, which is forbidden for Jews” (more in line with a Guide to the Perplexed kind of reasoning).

I apologize if I falsified what you said. I had thought you to be the best source to describe how the Trinity itself (not merely Arianism) is wrong for Jews, because you seemed to actually ADDRESS the Trinity.

Should I instead understand you to mean: “While Jews are forbidden to hold such a belief [because it is avodah zara], it is not avodah zarah [for Christians (i.e. Gentiles)].” Is that a correct understanding?

And for the record – I’ve never portrayed you as someone who would have allowed Christian belief for Jews. I’ve merely portrayed you as someone who could accurately show how Christianity is forbidden for Jews, and not just Jehovah’s Witness beliefs.

Thanks.

Tim

PS -- and now I'm an hour late getting out of here...Tim (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

An editor has nominated Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 13:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Shalom Bayit[edit]

I need to sue for peace for a while. I gave more explanation on the Shituf talk page.Tim (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Footnoting Technique[edit]

Dear LisaLiel, thank you for teaching me the footnoting technique. Works like a dream! Das Baz, aka Erudil 21:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional information. Your instruction has been useful not only for Hillel and Shammai but also for other articles I've been working on. You should write a Wikipedia for Dummies book. Das Baz, aka Erudil 18:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Das Baz (talkcontribs)

Bible and history[edit]

Lisa, I've edited the bible and history article and removed the link to Daniel (book of) which I gather you want very much to keep in. I've tried to explain my reasons on the Talk page, but fear I may not have done a good job. PLease let me know if what you think. PiCo (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Problematic new Christian/Jewish template[edit]

Hi LisaLiel: Please see the discussions at Template talk:Books of the Bible concerning the new troubled and troubling {{Books of the Bible}} template. Your attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 05:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yakubher[edit]

Well there is no historical evidence for the exodus nor much for the slavery either rather than what the bible tells. however there is plenty of evidence that the Hyksos people were Hebrews and there's plenty of historical and archaeological evidence that the Hyksos were exoduted to Canaan from Egypt.

Semitic Hebrews were paid workers and they had migrated to Egypt. They migrated to the royalty of Egypt. Thutmose III is heavily considered to be Moses, as Thutmose III invaded Canaan and set up 12 governed lands there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASEOR2 (talkcontribs) 21:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


FYI: ASEOR 2 gets all the content he has been adding from this source. He is simply on a POV-pushing campaign to put the unfounded theories from this video into articles. There is nothing else going on here. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

redirects[edit]

You suggested Ancient Canaan be redirected to Canaan. Instead, ASEOR2 redirected ancient israel to ancient canaan: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancient_Israel&action=history - did he have any authority to do so? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul[edit]

So you really think the majority of Ron Paul's e-buddies oppose:

- Virtually any kind of amnesty or support for undocumented immigrants, or birthright citizenship - Allowing Americans to be tried in the ICC (not that he's alone in this, you might look up the Netherlands Invasion Act) - The UN, period - Abortion rights, period - Gay marriage rights, period - there's some psychobabble about "states rights", but this is an old euphemism for racism, and speaking of... - Ron Paul, whether or not he's an actually a "racist" in the standard sense, opposes any sort of institutions which help black and other racial minorities fight against historical and current injustices, which does make him a de facto racist, in that he supports policies which disproportionately help white people and harm black people - In fact, speaking of the UN - if you actually read his Issues page, which I suspect no one does, he seems to have more of a problem with wars that obey international law - Gun control, which if it's done effectively is understood by everyone to be a good idea. The American gun culture is truly an embarrassment, and you've got enough embarrassments as it is (You might compare Cuba's infant mortality rate to your own) - Speaking of, health care. It's understood that a majority of Americans want health care, it's just sort of a basic assumption that poor people, or even just working people without the exorbitant wages to cover expensive procedures, don't thereby just deserve to die - Ending environmental regulations, fundamentally rendering the United States a physical threat to the security of the world - Public schools - Public roads - The disabled - Helping - Caring about your neighbours - Kindness - Children - Orphans.

The only thing Ron Paul claims to support is "freedom", which is vacuous. Hitler supported the freedom of good German Aryan Christians to their lebensraum. "States rights" folks support the freedom of white males to kick black people, women, and gays in the face. The king supports his own right to hang people at will. You might say you support universalized or equal freedom, but this requires governmental structure to implement and support, and considering the current state of our/your society (I'm from up North), quite a lot of one. There are problems with governments, assuredly, but there are problems with governments ostensibly "democratic" (like the American Federal Government) as much as there are problems with your corporatocracy, which doesn't even pretend to be democratic. In fact, these institutions are worse - and moreover, they're no more about "freedom", and I'd argue they're no less governments, than the one which Mr. Paul babbles on about, the one which pays his salary.

More importantly, if Ron Paul supporters really do agree with all these things... then what? My point is I sincerely hope, believe but hope, that it's an extreme minority that actually believes these things. --Jammoe (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In case you care, yet another straw dog argument[edit]

Found at History of early Christianity: "Alister McGrath stated that many of the Jewish Christians were fully faithful religious Jews, only differing in their acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah. As such, they believed that circumcision and other requirements of the Mosaic law were required for salvation." User:Vassyana reverts any attempt at neutrality: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_early_Christianity&diff=198025225&oldid=198011765 75.0.0.97 (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Glossary of Christian and Jewish terms[edit]

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Glossary of Christian and Jewish terms, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 08:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism[edit]

Just so you know: I was in an 'edit war' with POV J4J folks (in which two of them & I were warned by admin for revert violations) - I only kept the C-J fringe statement in the header to keep the J4J gang from continuing to edit out the important sentence right before it that states clearly that Judaism does not include the Messianic bunch. THANKS for editing it out of the header. If more editors were monitoring the situation it would have been done sooner. Cheers, A Sniper 16:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

tildes[edit]

Howdy. Yes, that's what I do every time, but for some reason my user name is never hyperlinked...which is fine by me. Cheers, A Sniper 20:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The bible and history[edit]

Re The bible and history: I take it you don't dispute that Noth's "primeval history" was defined by Noth as taking in Genesis 1-11 rather than Genesis 1-12? This being so, what exactly are you disputing? PiCo (talk) 11:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The Bible and history again[edit]

Sorry to irritate you Lia - I was basically just having some fun, and now I feel contrite. So, to get serious, what do you propose we do? Make a suggestion on the Talk page and we'll discuss. PiCo (talk) 02:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Judaism's view of Muhammad[edit]

Please can you help expand this article. ephix (talk) 10:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Invitation[edit]

Objectivist1.jpg WikiProject Objectivism
Salutations, Lisa. I've noticed you identify as an Objectivist Wikipedian and would like to invite you to join the freshly resuscitated WikiProject Objectivism, a group of Wikipedians devoted to improving articles related to Objectivism. If you're interested, consider adding yourself to the list of participants and joining the discussion on the talkpage.

Yours in enlightened self-interest, Skomorokh 00:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Shortcuts:

Chronology of the Bible[edit]

Hi. Wikiblame tells me it is your edit [1] I've removed twice today saying it was OR. It really does look like OR and I can't square it with other chronologies. Another editor has put the tables back twice and I've responded here [2] suggesting he look at other versions. I don't want to get into an edit war with anyone over this, but I definitely do not understand the precise dates in the list you added. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hardly[edit]

Although I've finished editing my book, I have a sequel to write and I'm in the middle of negotiating a screenplay. I do not have time for this. My only entrance came when you wrote: "There was a huge edit war over an attempt to give them" (Messianic Jews) "more visibility here back in January". The effort, rather was to cover up definitions. Now -- if you will take back the implication that I'm Christian or Messianic, then I'll take back my suspicion (based on your implications) that you are one. I really don't care further than that.Tim (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


Please don't remove reliable sources[edit]

You may not consider HaShem to be non-feminine, Rabbi Paula Reimers says this is a key feature of his masculinity in the Tanakh. Of course there are other points of view within Judaism. All points of view should be covered in the article, probably none of them should be in the lead. I remind you that reliable sources like Reimers are not to be removed without discussion. Alastair Haines (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think I removed a source? Granted, Paula Reimers is not a valid source for Judaism's view of God; only for Reform Judaism's view of God. But I didn't remove it. Nor did I write anything that contradicted it. Judaism does not see God as having gender. Reimers' view that God is "non-feminine" in Judaism does not contradict it. God is non-feminine. God is also non-masculine. -LisaLiel (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Reimers' argument is that God is portrayed as masculine and not feminine for compelling theological reasons. The last of the three sources currently cited says nothing about gender, it only speaks of sex and noun class. It is quite specific—"no body, no genitalia". It speaks of male rather than masculine. Christianity is exactly the same, Father and Spirit are not male, but masculine. Jesus, however, is both masculine and male.
So, what we have is two sources apparently opposed to one another. Reimers saying God is masculine in the Tanakh, Kaplan saying gender doesn't apply to God. Kaplan doesn't say what he means by this, either he disagrees with Reimers, or he's not talking about the Tanakh, or he's arguing his branch of Judaism considers the Tanakh's masculine God is to be understood metaphorically. Actually, all he says is his own use of the masculine pronoun for God does not imply masculinity. He doesn't say what this means in the Tanakh. Reimers is the only authority cited on that.
Summary
  1. Reimers: God masculine in Tanakh
  2. Kaplan: Jewish use of masculine pronouns implies nothing
  3. "Judaism 101": God does not have male biological sex
Conclusion: regarding gender (not sex) sources imply only that God is masculine in the Tanakh.
I will emend the text accordingly. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your continued interaction on this important point. Please understand that I note your scrupulous understanding of the common sense and common decency of Wiki policies. You are obviously a polite as well as insightful discussion partner. You also know far, far more than I about Judaism. I genuinely seek to learn from your comments, though I consider them as critically (in the good sense) as I am pleased you consider my own.
I will touch on something more personal. I am a conservative Christian, I believe there is a God, and only one, who chose and saved a people for himself through Noah, through Abraham and Moses. With Moses he made an everlasting covenant, to doubt that covenant is to doubt the Word and character of the God who gave it. But with mercy, although scattering the northern kingdom, he disciplined Judah in Babylon, restoring them to the Land and returned to dwell with them in the new temple. These things are true, and worthy of a response involving the whole of one's heart, soul and mind. I would convert to conservative Judaism were it not that I learned these things from those who claimed to record the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth.
I am passionately likeminded with you on very many profoundly important matters. And, like you, I respect the nature of the Wiki forum, which is all about forming a responsible editorial judgement of which sources fairly represent positions addressing the topics of articles, then quoting or summarising them accurately.
But, to the point at hand, I want to know what "the Jewish view of God's gender" is. From what I've read, there are actually three notable points of view—masculine, feminine and neither. It would be odd if this were not so. The feminine view is so marginal as to be arguably WP:UNDUE. However, one thing is clear, no-one I've ever read has suggested God has male sex. Polytheism has deities with sex (and corresponding gender), henotheistic religions (afaik) are unanimous that sex is not applicable to God. However, the article is about gender not sex. If it needs a hatnote, it is one that addresses that issue, it would be easy, "This article is about God's gender. Divinities to whom sexuality is attributed, have this noted in their entries."
I'm busy with other things atm, but I will make a point of providing you with more material from Paula's article. Regardless of her other views (which both of us may disagree with), as regards the Tanakh, and its theological significance, she argues that masculinity for YHWH protects the Mosaic presentation from sinking into pantheism (nature worship), since an instinctive human association with a feminine God involves birth, whereas masculine associations allow for clearer separation of creator from creature. Of course, she doesn't mind admitting this, because the Tanakh is far from the final word in shaping her perspective.
But regardless of Paula, you and I may need to discuss further how significant the distinction between sex and gender is with God. Perhaps you are not convinced that sex and gender provides a helpful distinction in this, or any setting. There are many sources on this. I would particularly appreciate hearing from a keen mind like yours, just what you think are the limitations of this (now popular) distinction. I believe it has reservations myself, I merely work with it because it is the language of contemporary academic dialogue. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your note Lisa. Please, please, please provide several sources that use the words "Judaism", "God" or synonyms, "gender" and "masculine" or "feminine" in the same sentence. If masculine and feminine refer to grammar they don't count. "Male", "female" and sex don't count either. We already know God isn't sexual, the article is about gender not sex. We also need to know what the expert Jewish readings of the Tanakh say, because Judaism and the Tanakh can be two different things.
So far, all I know is that Judaism views God as having no sex, and grammatical gender is irrelevant. But as far as God's gender role, whether he is understood in masculine or feminine terms, I'm mainly hearing that God is "non-feminine" in Judaism, or at least that feminine gender is a controversial understanding. You and Paul Reimers are telling me that, there must be others.
Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Shituf[edit]

Thanks for contacting me. I've replied at WT:JEW#Shituf Page. Good luck. HG | Talk 04:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Berger[edit]

Sent[edit]

Lisa, I've sent the following to Dr. Berger:

Dr. Berger,

I've read through Lasker's book and your shiur, and you are right that Shituf is intended to be directed not only to Arianism and Tritheism, but also to Trinitarianism as well.

I have a working definition for "Shituf" that I think covers all three theistic systems, and would appreciate it if you let me know if I am understanding the full scope of the word:

Shituf is the term used in Jewish law for worship of the God of Israel with an association of external powers, deities, or internal aspects. Any worship deemed by Judaism to fall short of pure monotheism is considered avodah zarah ("strange worship" or "idolatry"), and is forbidden both to Jews and to non-Jews, but shituf is a lesser form of avodah zarah which some rabbinic authorities consider to be permissible for non-Jews, since it does include worship of the One God of Israel.

Is that correct?

The wording "external powers" addresses Arianism, "deities" addresses Tritheism, and "internal aspects" addresses Trinitarianism.

Thanks so much for your help!

Tim

I probably should have finished it with something like "is there anything I left out that I need to add?"

BTW, I'm not trying to take credit for your wording. I'm just trying to stay focused on the definition. I'll let you know what Dr. Berger writes.Tim (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

Dear Tim, This still has some problems. Shituf as you define it clearly includes beliefs that fall short of pure monotheism (tritheism for sure). Thus, the second sentence doesn't work. Also, some Jews did not regard "internal aspects" as problematic, depending on how they are understood (attributes for some philosophers; the sefirot for many kabbalists). Best regards. David Berger

Notes[edit]

Lisa,

It looks like we've got a bit of work to do. I can see his point about internal aspects possibly intersecting with some kinds of Jewish thought. We are both agreed, however, that Christianity is seen to NOT be permissible to Jews in Jewish thought, while the Sefirot are.

While I have no intention of OR -- I think some R is in order. If you're willing, I'll do some research this week on Sephirot and try to map out informally what I think the differences are between Kabbalistic thought and Trinitarian theory.

Right now I'm trying to figure out a wording based on Dr. Berger's answer... now that he points it out, I DO see an internal contradiction in the second sentence:

Any worship deemed by Judaism to fall short of pure monotheism is considered avodah zarah ("strange worship" or "idolatry"), and is forbidden both to Jews and to non-Jews,
but shituf is a lesser form of avodah zarah which some rabbinic authorities consider to be permissible for non-Jews, since it does include worship of the One God of Israel.

That is, according to the first half, "any...avodah zarah...is...forbidden...to non-Jews".

But in the second half some "avodah zara [is]...permissible for non-Jews".

I recall that Telushkin explicitly said in his quote that belief in the Trinity is "forbidden for Jews, but it is not avodah zara."

Are we getting something wrong in the definition of avodah zara that I'm missing?

Also, if I understand Dr. Berger correctly, tritheism is not really Shituf, but idolatry.

Tim

Dr. Greenstein[edit]

Sent[edit]

Lisa,

Here's what I wrote to the other source:

Dr. Greenstein,

My Rabbi suggested I email you with a question I gave him. I’ve been working on a definition of “Shituf” to make sure I understand the full application of it:

Shituf is the term used in Jewish law for worship of the God of Israel with an association of external powers, deities, or internal aspects. Any worship deemed by Judaism to fall short of pure monotheism is considered avodah zarah ("strange worship" or "idolatry"), and is forbidden both to Jews and to non-Jews, but shituf is a lesser form of avodah zarah which some rabbinic authorities consider to be permissible for non-Jews, since it does include worship of the One God of Israel.

If I understand Shituf correctly, it is not only applied by Jews to Arianism (“external powers”) and Tritheism (“deities”), but is also applied to Trinitarianism (“aspects”). Am I correct that it applies to all three theistic systems? Does this wording cover everything intended by the term, or do I need to add anything?

Thanks so much,

Tim

I'll let you know what they say when they write back!

Additional Shituf Notes[edit]

I moved this from the other page:

<sigh> Tim, that's not it. I don't know if it's honestly that I'm just incapable of explaining it cogently. It isn't a matter of "internal aspects" being forbidden to Jews. Any worship of a trinity is forbidden to Jews, whether the idea behind it is "internal aspects" or anything else. The whole "internal aspects" thing is a huge red herring. Once it's a trinity, it doesn't matter what the intent is. Just like someone defecating on a statue of Baal Peor has violated avodah zarah even if his intent was to show scorn for Baal Peor, so too is any worship of a trinity with any and all intents, ideas, philosophies, theologies, rationalizations or flights of fancy that the worshipper might come up with. It's the act of worshipping a trinity that's forbidden. The "why" doesn't matter.
I agreed to let you put the "internal aspects" in there because I just got tired of fighting with you about it. But from the point of view of Judaism, Trinitarianism and Arianism and Tritheism are all the same thing. There is no difference, because any difference is on a frequency that we aren't listening to, and will never listen to.
A car with two doors is a car. A car with four doors is a car. A car with four doors and a hatchback is a car. Suppose I have a 16 year old daughter, and I tell her she isn't allowed to drive a car. Now... she might come and say, "Well, that's a coupe and a sedan and a station wagon there, and I use the word 'car' only for sedans, so I'm going to go ahead and drive this coupe." And I'll reply, "Very nice. You're grounded." Because while there is a point of view in which the distinction between sedans and coupes and wagons is of interest and value, I don't care. I told her she can't drive a car, period. No car, no how.
Judaism says that anything short of worshipping a singular and indivisible God is not monotheistic. How non-monotheistic is it? A little (shituf)? A lot (avodah zarah)? That's not the point. And Judaism says that worshipping a trinity is a car. If you want to say that Christians say it's a sedan, and not a station wagon, well, who am I to argue with you? By all means, let Christians call things sedans and coupes and station wagons and insist that they're different things. Maybe they even are different things. But they're all a subset of "car". And Trinitarianism and Arianism and Tritheism and any other -ism that has ever been or will ever be created to explain the worship of a trinity are all "worship of a trinity". And Judaism says that's non-monotheistic.
Again, I'm not saying anything I haven't said before, and I know it's as unlikely to be understood this time as it has been in all my previous attempts, but I can't help it. There's a little part of me that is certain that if I can just say it clearly enough, it'll be understood. You might disagree, but at least you'd understand. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa, you write "anything short of worshipping a singular and indivisible God is not monotheistic". But that's the problem. CHRISTIANS not only agree with you, they INSIST on it. Really, it's a dimensional thing. A billiard ball is one ball. It has three spatial dimensions. The Christian deity has three personal dimensions. That's it. Period. It's FORBIDDEN in Judaism. But exactly in which category is it forbidden, and is that actually Shituf, or is it some other forbidden thing? I think we agree that the "trinity" is forbidden in Judaism. We also agree that tritheism is flat out idolatry (Christians do too). I'm glad for that note from Dr. Berger, by the way, because it was troubling. Anyhow, the only difference is in the definition of the "trinity". You are giving an Arian definition (which is fine, you can state your meaning from the outset and we're set). The problem is that this isn't the Wikipedia definition, nor even the English definition. So, what do we do? We ARE writing in Wikipedia, and we ARE doing it in English.Tim (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Also -- if you're willing, this will really help: when you make a statement about the "trinity" run it through a dimension-analogy to see if that's working out. For instance, "Jews believe in a singular and indivisible billiard ball." Right. But... they don't. Here's the real difference: there is no "inside" or "outside" to God. There are no external or internal anythings to associate him with. The problem of the trinity (more relevant even than shituf, I suspect) is that it is a definition at all. To speak of "internal" or "external" or aspectual relationships is to put God on some kind of intellectual display, which is (if I understand Maimonides right) idolatrous. Anyhow, it's a Shituf page. There's a Trinity page. Maybe they do or don't intersect. As I said, it doesn't matter to me whether they do or don't, only that we note it and move on.Tim (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Tim, I am not giving an Arian definition. I am giving a Jewish definition. As I said, it doesn't matter if Christians say that they're worshipping one billard ball with three dimensions or three billard balls. That distinction doesn't matter to Judaism. Judaism says it's forbidden to worship billiard balls. Period. One billiard ball with three dimensions or three billiard balls, it makes no never-mind to us. Billiard balls are verboten.
I give up. I can only conclude that either you honestly aren't interested in the Jewish view on this, or that I'm utterly incompetant when it comes to explaining this to you. Either way, you won't change and I've done everything in my power to explain this to you, and you still come back with the same "Arian" crap. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Lisa -- my Rabbi doesn't have any problem with this honest inquiry, and Dr. Berger doesn't seem to either. Perhaps we shouldn't do it together, but that doesn't mean it isn't an honest reasonable Jewish inquiry. As I've said before, and again, and will in the future -- I don't care whether Jews are right about the definition of Christianity or Christians are right about the definition of Christianity. I only care, if Jews are applying a concept to "Christianity" whether the definition of that concept matches the definition of the concept of Christianity. That is -- do Jews and Christians have a different definition of "Christian". If so, in an encyclopedia article that addresses such an application, it should be noted. It does not matter who is right, only that it is different. Also, while I agree that this is a Jewish concept and is defined by Jews, I insist that it is written in intelligible English -- that is, English that can be understood by a generic audience.
In any case, maybe we just don't communicate well to each other, which is no fault to either of us. No one is wrong. We are, perhaps, just not compatable. So perhaps we should wish each other the best and try our best to stay out of conflict.
Also, for what it's worth, most of the time when I'm discussing this with a Rabbi I know (at least the times it's come up), the billiard ball analogy is a snap, and they get it. Maybe it's a clergy thing. I don't know. But that could be something I need to be aware of -- since I am also trying to communicate with a generic (non-clergy) audience. So, in that I do appreciate your honesty describing your frustration. I'll try to be aware of this in the future.Tim (talk) 23:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted[edit]

Exquisite-folder4.png A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gender of God.
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 02:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Alastair[edit]

Please don't fan the flames any more. He doesn't get it, let's leave it at that.

By the way, I'm not female ;-). A common mistake, which amuses me greatly. — Werdna • talk 09:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about mistaking your Gender -- while we're Gender bending, check out the Gender of God page Werdna... ;-)Tim (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone to watch[edit]

Lisa, there's a Messianic author of the "Orthodox Jewish Bible" making inappropriate links to his website. The screen name is Fredeee [3]. Looks like a lot of links to a site that's badly formatted with no scholarly information, but trying to convert Jews to Messianism. Looks like we could use some of our edit energy together getting rid of some non-wiki-standard links.Tim (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit history in Gender of God[edit]

Because several misstatements of fact, tendentious claims, and wikilawyering have come out with regards to this section, I thought it would be worthwhile to present a brief history of the editing that has occurred on this section. It will be useful for mediation, and if necessary, for arbitration.

  • On July 4, 2008, I noticed that the header in this article stated, without any citation, that Judaism views God as male. Since this isn't the case, I edited it (diff: [4]) and provided two reliable sources for my edit.
  • Alastair immediately responded by editing to state that Judaism views God as "non-feminine" (whatever that was supposed to mean), and added a reference to a quote by Paula Reimers that doesn't address the question of how Judaism views God in terms of gender, but rather addresses the reasons why some people might want to use feminine terminology for God (diff: [5]).
  • Since the two sources I had posted backed up the edit which stated that God has no gender in Judaism, and since the Reimers quote did not support Alastairs edit claiming that God is seen as "non-feminine" in Judaism, I changed the text back. Despite the fact that the Reimers quote was irrelevant, I left it there (diff: [6]).
  • Alastair replied to this edit by posting a scolding on my talk page (diff: [7]) telling me not to remove sourced material. Of course, you can see by the article history that I hadn't done any such thing.
  • On July 5, 2008, Alastair then edited the header of the article to say, again, and removed any statement about how Judaism views God in terms of gender, and instead stated that the Tanakh of Judaism presents God as masculine (diff: [8]).
  • On July 6, 2008, I once again changed the text to state that Judaism views God as having no gender, and I moved the Reimers quote into the Judaism section, allowing it to stand in the body of the article, immediately after another quote by Rebecca Alpert about modern Reconstructionist prayer book which uses feminine language for God (diff: [9]). I did not remove the source, because Alastair clearly felt strongly about it, but I took it out of the header, because it did not address the issue of how Judaism views God in terms of gender.
  • Alastair's response was to label the citation of Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan as "POV" and the citation of Jewfaq.com (a well known resource for Jewish concepts) as "irrelevant" (diff: [10]). While I'm trying to present these edits without commentary, I was stunned that an editor on Wikipedia would behave this way. So I simply reverted it (diff: [11]).
  • On July 8, 2008, I edited out the two sources I'd put in (diff: [12]). I then placed those sources in the Judaism section, where they more properly belonged (diff: [13]). And then I moved the {{fact}} tag in the header so that it was only pointing to the statement about Islam, because the sources for Judaism were available in the Judaism section (diff: [14]).
  • At this point, Tim and Ilkali got into war over grammar. I lost interest and didn't pay much attention to the article for a while, except for removing the quotes that Tim had placed around the word God (diff [15]).
  • On July 28, 2008, though I wasn't paying attention, so I missed it at the time, Alastair again labeled the sources I'd brought as POV and moved them to the bottom of the sections (diff: [16]). In the intervening time, Alastair had had an RfC brought against him by Ilkili for bullying and wikilawyering, had threatened legal action against Wikipedia, been banned, backed out of his threat and gotten unbanned, and refused to respond to the RfC, whereapon it was closed by an admin.
  • Alastair next changed the sources so that instead of them reading as reliable sources for Judaism, they were presented as opinions (diff: [17]). Again, I wasn't paying attention, or I would have challenged this as soon as he did it. He stated that one of the sources "sees" things a certain way, and that the other "believes" what he wrote. It's hard to imagine a more weaselly way of trying to get around reliable sources.
  • Today, August 3, 2008, Tim added a piece of material about Mesopotamian myths to the Judaism section, which has no relevance, since Judaism does not consider itself to be derived from such myths, even if some modern biblical scholars claim it was (diff: [18]).
  • At about that point, I noticed what Alastair had done, and I went in to fix it (diff: [19]). I moved the reliable sources back up to the beginning of the article, since they are the only sources in the entire article which even speak to the question of God's gender in Judaism. The quote from Rebecca Alpert does not; it talks about a controversial prayer book put out by the Reconstructionist Movement which uses feminine grammar and imagery for God, but which does not claim that God is female in Judaism (or male for that matter; it doesn't address the issue at all). The quote from Paula Reimers does not; it speaks only to the sociological reasons why some people like a book like the one Alpert commented on. The material on Mesopotamian myths is not relevant to the Jewish view of God's gender, because Judaism does not believe itself to be based on Mesopotamian myths, even if some modern biblical scholars claim it was. The material demonstrating that God is referred to with masculine grammar and imagery in the Bible is irrelevant, since the reliable sources in the section stipulate that this is the case. Nevertheless, I left all of that material in, and merely moved the only reliable sources in the entire section to the top, and removed the weasel words that Alastair had added for the purpose of dismissing them as mere "opinion pieces".
  • That was when Alastair decided to eliminate edits he didn't agree with. Without any discussion whatsoever, he reverted my edit (diff: [20]).
  • I then restored my edit, which Alastair has labeled a reversion (diff: [21]).
  • Alastair responded by reverting my edit again, and warning me against "edit warring". It's a strange thing to call what I did edit warring. I made a reasonable edit, which Alastair reverted without a word of explanation, and when I restored it, he accused me of edit warring. And reverted it for the second time (diff: [22]).
  • I restored my edit for the second time, and placed a warning on the Talk page to Alastair. I gave a lengthy explanation for my initial edit, and warned Alastair to stop reverting my edit (diff: [23]). This time, I also removed the paragraph which contained a lengthy discussion of Hebrew grammar, which had no relevance to the Jewish position on the gender of God.
  • On the Talk page, Alastair labeled the text that I edited "the consensus text". He also claimed that I was "altering text that has stood for more than a year", when the edit history clearly shows (as I think the diffs I've given show) that what I altered was text that had been there for several weeks.
  • Alastair had reverted my edit twice, so he sent Tim in to do it the next time. Tim reverted the Judaism section to the way it had been before my initial edit on this day, including putting the only two relevant reliable sources at the bottom of the section, with weasel words preceding each one (diff: [24]). He then added a citation which says that God is both male and female (diff: [25]).
  • I then edited the page so that it reflected my initial edit with the addition of Tim's source. This should not be considered a reversion, since it included Tim's addition of a source (diff: [26]).
  • Without any discussion, Tim reverted my edit (diff: [27]).
  • I restored my edit once more, but this time omitted the irrelevant paragraph about Mesopotamian myths (diff: [28]).
  • Tim then reverted my edit again. This was the third time he reverted my edit, yet I note that he has not been blocked. The only reversions I have done this entire day have been to restore the edit I made initially which was reverted for no legitimate reason (diff: [29]).
  • So I restored my edit one more time (diff: [30]).
  • Then Alastair reverted my edit for his third time (diff: [31]). At this point, my edit had been reverted six times in the space of an hour. Three times by Tim and three times by Alastair.
  • Finally, I restored my edit for the last time (diff: [32]).
  • As a result of all of this, I was banned for 24 hours, even though my "reverts" consisted only of restoring a good faith edit that had been reverted by two other editors without any discussion.

Re:Alastair[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Lisa. You have new messages at L'Aquatique's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gender[edit]

I am glad you are editing constructively - I will look at the article again but am in transit and may not be able to for a couple of days, Slrubenstein | Talk 02:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines[edit]

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Coren (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

sources: lack of citation[edit]

The verses from Deuteronomy do not mention shituf anywhere and have been needing a citation for the past three months. If someone wants to present a reliable source that says that these particular verses in Deuteronomy are about shituf, that would be reasonable for this article. But without such a source, including these verses from Deuteronomy on the grounds that you think what it is addressing is the equivalent of shituf is original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. If you are unable to provide a rationale for this material being in the article, I will remove it on the basis of WP:OR. --Jerryofaiken (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC) I think that three months was a reasonable amount of time for you to come up with such sources. If you put it back in without citations, I won't engage in an edit war with you; instead, I'll report you for a violation of WP:OR. --Jerryofaiken (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." Jimmy Wales

You have two days to correct the rest of your citations or remove them. Some of your citations are misleading since a verfication check indicates the source cited is not the source for the reference. If you do not remove them, I will report you for a Wikipedia:Verifiability violation. --Jerryofaiken (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmph[edit]

If that person had had a talk page I would have answered him myself. Kudos for just deleting it.Tim (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Very much to your credit noble woman![edit]

  • To my shame, I must admit I've been slow to read your Evidence talk page comments. As always, you write clearly and very honestly. But in the quote below, you show (imo) a consistency of quality that extends even deeper into your character.
  • "If people accuse Alastair of improper behavior, it's my fault. That's on this very page." — Lisa
  • Despite our disagreements, I've always been able to detect a sincerity about them. Your words above are an example to everyone. You are willing to take responsibility for criticisms you offer.
  • Yet again I note that you are a remarkable woman that I feel priveleged to have met, albeit in difficult circumstances. And, yet again, I think your resolution of the content dispute was nothing short of brilliant, all the more so given the context in which you generously provided it.
  • Best regards Lisa, Alastair Haines (talk) 08:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Response here. -LisaLiel (talk) 11:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
LOL, even better, you have corrected my misreading nicely. Thanks, I see your intention in what you wrote now, it fits your argument better. I'll go and check the diffs and the talk page. From memory it all happened quite quickly, my point would be that I'd previously objected to the removal on the talk page, and restored the text, without any counter-objection later being recorded on the talk page. As burden of proof had still not been accepted and attempted, it was my belief you were bypassing discussion to insist on your edit. Frankly, were it not for the AN/I and arbcom, I'd have let the whole thing be, since you did marvellously the next day. Even at ArbCom, I have no interest in dwelling on your actions (as I perceive them), merely to deflect the suggestion that I was doing anything different to what I see regularly elsewhere, and never construed as edit warring.
I think many people are genuinely confused on this point. And I could well be wrong myself. However, I've not yet heard a single argument that I edit warred in this case. We'll see in the end I guess. I'll probably provide a dozen examples from various adminstrators doing exactly what I did. That should help clarify things I should hope. Perhaps there's a whole bunch of us getting away with murder for our misreading of the policies. It would be a good outcome to clarify that. I'd insist that despite making 7 reversions, you had not edit warred at all. And you'd be a hero. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Connotations[edit]

Hi Lisa. I didn't want to belabor this on the Talk page, especially after your nice comment about choc and vanilla. Since we seem to share an interest in accuracy, allow me to reply that "blatant" has negative connotations and does not simply mean clear or obvious. From OED: "Of persons or their words: Noisy; offensively or vulgarly clamorous; bellowing." "In recent usage: obtrusive to the eye (rather than to the ear as in orig. senses); glaringly or defiantly conspicuous; palpably prominent or obvious." Anyway, I do appreciate your effort on the Talk page to keep the conversation civil and on topic. Cheers. HG | Talk 18:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Jubilees calendar[edit]

That was used in the books of Jubilees and 1 Enoch, which are considered part of the Bible by Ethiopian Christians (though not part of the "Hebrew Bible as such)... AnonMoos (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Article Yahweh[edit]

Hi Lisa. I honestly don't understand why you're preocupied with the vocalisation aspect - I've tried to accommodate your views with a compromise localising the article to the single divine name mentioned in Exodus, yet you reject this - why? And why so much concentration with the vocalisation - there's an article YHWH which would surely be a beter place for such a discussion. The Yahweh article has so much junk in it - the first trhing we're told is the views of Jehovah's Witnesses, of all things, but they're a tiny sect, not a mainstream group, why should an entire section be devoted to them? Ther's so much more important to talk about, like the first appearances of the name in the archaeological record, the meaning of the two divine revelations in Exodus, the meaning of the combined form Yahweh-Elohim (or YHWH Elohim if you prefer). Honestly, I have no objection to your point about the vocalisation being uncertain, I just want to move beyond that. PiCo (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lisa and thanks fopr the answer. It seems that you're saying that the things I want to say on the Yahweh page, you'd rather see on the YHWH page - i.e., keep the Yahweh article for a discussion of the vocalisation issue. I have no problem with that. I'll have a lok at the YHWH page. But while we're on the topic of the Yahweh page, it seems to me to have a great deal of irrelevant material if all that's to be discussed is the pronunciation. I guess this comes from being an issue that many people feel strongly about. Might be hard to prune it back. PiCo (talk) 05:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Dating Solomon[edit]

Lisa, where are getting the figure of 410 years for the cumulative reigns of the kings from? Barr says 430. Is there a division of opinion among scholars?PiCo (talk) 05:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Who is Barr? I'm taking it from Seder Olam Rabba. As far as scholars are concerned, the actual number is 380. See Tadmor and Thiele and others. Maybe Barr came up with 430 years because he wanted to associate it with the 430 years associated with Israel's time in Egypt. I don't know. But it's certainly not a common view. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If you don't mind[edit]

Although I've sworn off battling you, I hope you don't mind if I come in when we both agree (which was really 99% of the time on substance anyway).Tim (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea how to do an RfC on a user, but I feel like we're getting close to it. SkyWriter 13:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I could tell he was going to be a problem from the get-go. It's a shame. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
And maybe you could ask for some help on the Judaism Wikiproject page. I'd try again, but I'm afraid L'Aquatique will bite my head off again. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. I also posted on her talk page asking if we should start thinking RfC. I'm still not clear on when we get to that kind of thing. SkyWriter (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I warned him on his talk page, and also reported him for 3RR. SkyWriter (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me know if you need any help on pages I don't notice. Garzo has been dealing with four or five pages already (or course, he's an admin). SkyWriter (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I quoted you at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Mod_objective SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Something Deserved[edit]

Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence
Great catch on the sock-puppet problem. You were the first to catch the problem, and your documentation on the RfC was so good I had to quote it on the check user. Only question is how to fix the mess that the socks created... SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

We have a result: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Mod_objective&curid=19060106&diff=240960485&oldid=240959099

I'll post this to the RfC as well. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the barnstar, Tim, but it isn't really deserved. I only pointed out that Alleichem had accused you of sockpuppetry, and you were the one who figured out that it was a case of kol ha-posel, b'mumo posel. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I wasn't thinking about that part of it -- I was thinking of your quick identification of the problem with Alleichem when he first appeared. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello Lisa...Please see my comment on Alleichem's talk...in Help me comment...I thought I was helping but I see now it may be a sockpuppet situation. But my kudo's to you and Tim still stand.--Buster7 (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:[edit]

Ahh! Sorry I missed it! I was slightly busy ;) But I will be sure to work on problems with him in the future ;) BlackPearl14[talkies!contribs!] 01:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Another Sock?[edit]

Can you figure out where this guy is from? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/72.3454.34TT

What is this? Some kind of IPv6? SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow... he is persistent. Betcha we get back after Rosh Hashana and find his tracks all over Wikipedia. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
That's an ice cream bet (whoever wins, everyone gets ice cream). In any case, this latest is blocked already. He'll have to try again. Shana Tovah. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

with all due respect[edit]

puh-lease. 3RR? No need to tag team with Jayjg on this. Why do you guys insist on modifying a GA-qualified intro FIRST before talking about it in talk? Don't give me a 3RR warning if you won't follow common wiki etiquette concerning modifying the intro for a very hotly disputed article. I expect more from an admin to back off applying wikilaw for such an article, especially when you're involved in the dispute and not following common etiquette. It could almost be considered an abuse of power. inigmatus (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit Warrior[edit]

Lisa, it appears there is an edit warrer with an agenda on the Messianic Judaism article. He keeps changing the material so quickly that I'm having trouble following the actual consensus edits. When you get a chance, could you help me reconstruct somewhere -- maybe in a sandbox -- what the article header is supposed to look like? This guy is difficult to keep track of, and has even gone so far as to use an Artscroll Siddur footnote about excommunicated early Christians to prove that Messianic Jews are a sect of Judaism!

  1. Modern Messianics are not Ancient Christians
  2. Ancient Christians were being EXCLUDED by the subject of the footnote, and do not represent Judaism
  3. He's turned the preceding two negatives into a positive.

There's no telling what else this user is doing to the page without some help figuring out what the actual consensus would be without these bizarre edits. Thanks.

Oh, Chag Sameach. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Lisa, Sky, let's calm down here. What Artscroll material? Do us all a favor Lisa, and before you go on the warpath, actually do a cntrl+f find search on the article (now that I just undid your change) for the word "artscroll" - you won't find it. I've never added the ARTSCROLL material back in Lisa. If so, then its unintentional. Please prove which revert you are referring to that violates 3RR. This is getting ridiculous. Can we just talk this out or do you have to turn this into a battleground here? You're making threats that are uncharacteristic of a good faith editor and I suggest you either talk this out with me, or take a break from the article altogether. Oh, and Chag Sameach to you both. inigmatus (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If I recall correctly Lisa, you are banned from more than one revert per page per week. You just violated that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LisaLiel But I am not here to war. You appear to be. Please explain what content I have posted that you disagree with, and I will gladly remove it and bring it to talk. inigmatus (talk) 22:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Inigmatus, MJ is not a sect of Judaism. It is a Christian movement. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Lisa, according to your POV, yes. But for sake of consensus, for sake of this editing trip that you're on, for the sake of God and his kingdom, where on earth do you see me adding anywhere to the article the phrase "sect of Judaism" let alone any related claim? You are reverting without reading, and that's bad wiki etiquette. Let's pause for a moment and actually read what's being posted shall we? inigmatus (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Do you want the diffs for your edits in which you claimed MJ was a sect of Judaism? Here's one. I'm too bored to get the rest. But now you're just saying "sect". That's called gaming the system, and it's against the rules just as much as 3RR is. Nothing is a "sect" in a vacuum. A sect must be a sect of something. To call it a sect without specifying what it's a sect of is not encyclopedic. To call it a sect of Judaism is what you're trying to claim you're not doing. So I edited it to say that it's a Christian sect. Which after all, it is. You can try and claim that believing that JC is a messiah and a deity doesn't constitute Christianity, but by every definition in the world, it does. You can't change that by trying to redefine Christianity to suit yourself. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree it is a sect of something. In my POV (sourced of course even with Artscroll), it's a sect of Judaism. Actually I didn't call it "sect" of nothing. That was Sky's call. I was fine with it. I think it's neutrally acceptable concerning the sources that can be proved for both sect of Christianity and sect of Judaism. (Although sources exist that clearly prove that Christianity is a sect of Messianic Judaism). inigmatus (talk) 22:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
No such sources exist. MJ didn't even come into existence until recently.
Tim, I seem to have screwed up my arbcom limitations (in retrospect, I guess that wasn't the best idea, was it?). If you have a chance, would you mind posting the following on the MJ talk page for me?
Let's not forget Kwisatz Haderach. But no, it's not a common term. It's completely unknown except for a few places within the movement itself. This is like putting "Dat Moshe v'Yisrael" in to the lead of the article on Judaism as an alternative name.
Off the derech is a common Jewish term for someone who has left Orthodox Judaism. Derech Hashem is an important and widely studied book by Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto. There's no way MJ is going to co-opt that term like this. -LisaLiel (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Youch! Sorry about that. I've been away from the computer for a few hours. I'll post it and try to catch up. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ill post it for you. But we can also talk about it here. I do value your input. inigmatus (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

question from cerefhavu[edit]

Hi, This addition is straight forword with references. Please help me to see any errors. Thank you for your assistance, cerefhavu Jehovah It is claimed to be a direct phonetic transliteration, but a Hebrew biblical lexicon easily proves is not. The term Jehovah is a compound word in Hebrew. The first word of Jehovah is the Hebrew letter "yod", commonly printed "Je", pronounced "ye" (as in yes). "Ye" is a common Hebrew prefix, meaning third person future (he/she will). The name we know as Jesus was origionally Yeshua/Yeshu in Hebrew/Aramaic which was shortened from Yehoshua(Joshua). The name Yeshua is also a compound Hebrew word with the same prefix, the first Hebrew letter is "yod", pronounced "ye" which means third person future (he/she will); "shua" (shortened from "hoshua") means save or help. Yeshua/Yehoshua literally means "He will save" commonly translated in a single word, "salvation". In the term Jehovah, "ye" is a Hebrew prefix that means third person future (he/she will); hovah is a Hebrew noun meaning "ruin","desaster" or "destruction" (Strong’s Hebrew number 1943). Jehovah literally means "He will bring Destruction" or "The Destroyer" which is the opposite of "The Creator" or "I exist (I need nothing to sustain me.)". The Hebrew noun, hovah or howah (Strong’s Hebrew number 1943) meaning: ruin, disaster and destruction as in Ezekiel 7:26 and Isaiah 47:11. Similar to the Hebrew noun, havvah or hawwah (Strong’s Hebrew number 1942) meaning: ruin, destruction and calamity; or evil desire as in Job 6:2 and 6:30 which is not an attribute of the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible.

Hi Cerefhavu. Actually, this addition lacks references. Basically, you're drawing conclusions from references. You can't do that. Have you read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH? You should; it'll save you some time and wasted effort.
I will add, btw, that the verb in Job is heh-waw-aleph, and not heh-waw-heh. So it's not even a valid source for this claim in a paper or a blog. But Wikipedia isn't a paper or a blog. It's an encyclopedia. If you can find a reliable source (an article in an acceptable publication, a non-self-published book, etc.) that adduces those sources (or any others) to come to the conclusion that the Tetragrammaton means what you're claiming, you can post that claim, citing the reliable source.
But even then, I'm not sure what you're adding. The idea of the root meaning that is already mentioned in the article. Even if you weren't violating the rules against original research and synthesis, your addition would be redundant. See here. -LisaLiel (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Book of Daniel dates[edit]

Hi I noticed that you changed the dates in this article to the BCE format, even though the majority of them are BC format and the lead begins that way (it's true that not all are, but most are). It is not recommended that you do this, as per wiki guidelines: "it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is a substantive reason; the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other." I switched them back for you. Cheers, T Berg Drop a Line ޗ pls 02:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Request to amend case[edit]

I have initiated a request to amend the Alastair case, hoping to introduce some new measures which will prevent further flare ups. --John Vandenberg (chat) 01:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Please explain[edit]

How chassidim are not chareidim. I sure don't know of any chassidic group which does not consider itself to be chareidi. Or are you referring to Bat Ayin-type people, or Na Nach Nachmans? Please don't tell me you are equaling those weirdos to real chassidim. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 12:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you're kind of rude, aren't you. I was really thinking about Carlebach types. Not to mention the fact that you simply posted your opinion. No source whatsoever. That's not actually what you're supposed to do on Wikipedia. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
This editor has made a habit of this kind of rudeness. I'm thinking of taking it to wikiquette alerts. If you'd prefer that I not do this (since it would involve something directed at you), I'll respect your preference on it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
If this is his ordinary way of speaking, then yes, it should probably go to an alert. I don't have any problem with that. -LisaLiel (talk) 18:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments on the term "Torah Judaism"[edit]

Lisa, as you may have noted, I didn't do any further editing on articles with regards to the term "Torah Judaism", or even on related topics. I tried my best to explain my point of view, and give some sources. Then I took a step back to see what research and editing you and other Wikipedia editors come up with. Perhaps I'm wrong about how widely it is (or was) understood in a negative fashion. I also am refraining from editing on this and related topics as a sign of good faith - to you in specific. Although I obviously have a somewhat different view of Jewish theology than you, I do appreciate the work you've done to prevent some serious abuses from occurring in many Wikipedia articles.

BTW, do you know if there are any English translations of bible commentaries in the Da'at_Miqra series? Or anything like this? I have been looking for modern Orthodox Tanakh commentary, not just the Soncino, but anything else. Torah commentaries I've got plenty of (there is no end to their publication), but English, Jewish commentaries on the rest of Tanakh (except Artscroll) seem very hard to come by.
Take care.
--- Robert. RK (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Rktect[edit]

Thanks. I am beginning to think it is necessary to take some action to deal with this editor, who uses talk pages as forums (in fact almost as mini-articles) and pushes his OR there and in articles. What do you think? dougweller (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I suspect an RfC is the only way to go, probably involving editors such as Pico and Cush, so it would be editors who don't always agree with each other which is probably a good thing. dougweller (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
And see this [33]. dougweller (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
This is getting a little out of control Doug. Putting references on talk pages and discussing them, then adding them to an article is not against Wikipedia's policy. Try discussing something productively or adding some content and references of your own. Rktect (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I added referenced content to 3 articles at least yesterday. It is my opinion that what you are doing is a combination of OR and using talk pages to make an argument. dougweller (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Mier Kahane[edit]

LisaLiel. Your explanation is complete nonesense and is full of contradictions.

U say "There's no evidence that they were "worshippers", and much that they were planning an attack on nearby Jews.) 

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Watchlist"" Now it is known that Muslims go to mosque for worshipping their God, not to eat their launch, not to wed, and not to celebrate. You know as I know as everybody knows that they were worshippers. What else would more than 150 men (the number of casualties), of them 52 were killed, would do in a mosque at the time of down prayer ?

U claim that they were planning an attack on nearby jews !!?? Would they do that with the presence of 9 armed Israeli military in the place ? How would they attack newrby jews ? with stones? in the total darkness before down? will you say they had guns? why then did they used their hands to beat the person who cimmitted the massacre to death if they had guns? and Do U have any proof that they planned to attack newrby jews !?

At the end, U should have discuess it here before reverting it. They were wirshippers and U know it, Ill report U if you dont cancel your revert.

( PS. Its the first time I edit anything here.. I am not sure that I am writing in the correct place too. If that, I should say I am sorry because I respect the rules.

Iceq (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I was living in Israel at the time. The Arabs in Hebron had been announcing their intent to attack the Jews of Kiryat Arba for a couple weeks prior to this event, and people were in total outrage that the government wasn't doing anything to pre-empt them. Furthermore, the official investigation after the incident found an enormous cache of weapons in the cave. Muslims in Israel very often use mosques not only to conceal weapons, but to whip themselves up into a frenzy prior to an attack. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

U could say many things and provide many points that unless you prove them, they are LIES !

U didnt answer my question on why didnt they use those "guns they hidden in the cave" (very funny btw), against the committer of the massacre ? And apart from that, U have to proof that they planned what you are claiming they planned. Iceq (talk) 11:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Combination of diffs[edit]

It'd be synthesis if it was article space, but it was a combination of diffs that show the relationship.
Coren's block notice on User talk:Alastair Haines indicated that "we have received further legal threats from a person making a credible claim to be your publisher and to be acting in your interest" and referenced OTRS ticket #2009040310049955.
Coren's block notice on User talk:SkyWriter indicated that they were being blocked for making legal threats and referenced the same OTRS ticket.
I suppose there might be another explanation, but SkyWriter being, or at least acting like they were, his publisher seems to be the most logical. --OnoremDil 14:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Reading through SkyWriter's talk page, it appears that there's at least a chance that there was some misunderstanding about who submitted the ticket. Would you consider not prodding him any more over it until it's cleared up? --OnoremDil 14:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Noahidism[edit]

I've noticed your little dust up with User:RevAntonio. While I have removed comments from this user on talk pages in the past, it has always been because of personal attacks in his talk page posts. The talk page edits of his you removed today did not have any such personal attacks in them. As many issues as I have with this particular editor, I want it to be clear that you are not the end-all authority on what is or is not a legitimate issue someone has with the content of an article. You do not own this article. Like every other article on Wikipedia, the opinions and rantings of fringe "experts" will eventually fall upon the wayside as they fail to get consensus or the support of others. Besides that point, you are in no position to bring up this user's past.. I trust that this won't be an issue beyond this point. Trusilver 19:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


Dear Lisa, I had no idea RevAntonio was bothering other people. I thought he was exclusive to the Anna Anderson page. He's some kind of really terrible fanatic who is prone to long wild rants, ridiculous insults and accusations, and over the top behavior. He then begs for forgiveness, deletes his posts, then starts all over and the whole cycle continues. I am firmly convinced he is the same person using a different name who has been acting this way and also vandalizing the article, sticking stuff in the middle of my sourced quotes to change their meaning, and erasing my sourced material he disagrees with only to add his with only a person's name as a reference. I can't understand why he is even still allowed to be here. The mods have taken action on him and I appreciate it, but honestly his behavior is never going to stop and he needs to be removed forever. He wants to 'vanish' and is begging for all his stuff in the history to be deleted, which makes me even more sure he is afraid of being caught for his sockpuppets. Even if he is banned/deleted/etc. please keep on the lookout for him to return under a different name, because he likely will. Good luck.Aggiebean (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I have proof your troll is indeed RevAntonio, here's one of his posts from our fight on the AA page, some were signed, some only an IP but the same person:

i have taken leave of this wretched page and you stubborn people who have trusilver's protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.116.175 (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC

Aggiebean (talk) 02:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

He's back and vandalizing the Anna Anderson talk page now, deleting and changing comments by me and others. Will you please join me in asking this person be removed permanently? He is of no useful purpose to this site and is never going to change. Here's the latest IP 75.21.98.62Aggiebean (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Lisa I would also like to request that something be done about User:RevAntonio and his many sock guises as shown above by Aggiebean. A quick look on the Anna Anderson talk page shows a very long history of rants and other bizarre behaviour. I believe one of his many guises has recently been ChatNoir24. I really hope something can be done before the current freeze on the Anna Anderson page is lifted otherwise his grossly disruptive behvaiour will start all over again. He makes no positive contributions whatsoever and personally attacks many contributors. Thanks very much in your efforts to clear up all of this problem. Finneganw talk 02:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

ChatNoir24 and his many guises[edit]

Dear Lisa, I would like to draw your attend to ChatNoir24 and his many guises on the Anna Anderson page. He is reengaging in an edit war pushing a proven inaccurate agenda always using the same book, Peter Kurth, which has been totally discredited. He can find no other source as they don't exist. He makes no attempt to use the discussion page and has not responded to the request that the page be considerably simplified. If fact he continues to push his inaccurate agenda that Anna Anderson was Grand Duchess Anastasia. No serious historian believes this at all. It has been completely disproven. I have requested to Trusilver that the page be locked as soon as possible to avoid ChatNoir24's constant POV vandalism. I believe an investigation is currently underway. If you check his entries he uses ISPs starting with 66 and 67 of late as well as ChatNoir24. I believe he is as Aggiebean has stated, Peter Kurth. He needs to be banned like he has been from a large number of other internet sites. Certainly his inaccurate agenda has no place at wikipedia. Finneganw 01:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The troll RevAntonio and his other guises is back[edit]

Dear Lisa I thought you should know that the troll is back again on the Anna Anderson discussion page and elsewhere. He has already caused disruption using the same tactics that lead to him being blocked. He is also threatening Trusilver, Aggiebean and myself. Finneganw 13:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

ChatNoir24[edit]

I thought you would like to know that ChatNoir24 is persisting in an edit war at Anna Anderson. He refuses to take part in discussion and just abuses those who do not share his historically inaccurate obsessed POV. He continues to only push a discredited source. Can you assist please? Thanks. Finneganw 03:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Breach of 3RR by ChatNoir24[edit]

Just thought you would like to know that ChatNoir24 is breaching 3RR at Anna Anderson. I believe he needs to be blocked for a period. Please note he uses other IP addresses as shown on the discussion page. Thanks Finneganw 23:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

New warning[edit]

"Rev" is back as 75.21.124.148 and is running rampant all over talk pages, making ridiculous accusations and interjecting in the middle of other posts. He has completely lost it. Look out for this and similar IPs.Aggiebean (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

He went on quite an abusive rampage before he was gone, he may be banned. I hope so. If you didn't suffer this time you're lucky, he was terrible to us over at AA. He used IPs starting with 75 and 76. I hope he's gone, but I doubt it.Aggiebean (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Appreciation[edit]

I appreciate your excellent writing style. I've seen several of your edits to existing material, and wish I could improve on text as smoothly and effectively as you do. I've seen professional editors do far less. Or...maybe you are one??? Thanks very much. Afaprof01 (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. No, I'm not an editor, but I am a writer. Thanks for your kudos. -Lisa (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Passage of The Red Sea[edit]

I have informed Dougweller of your disruptive editing on the Passage of the Red Sea article without engaging in a discussion first. You are restoring the Rktect stuff without any consensus. Please stop forcing your or his WP:OR into the article. Cush (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Please ...[edit]

As a courtesy to you, I'm coming to your talk page and asking that you please put those tags back into the Haredi Judaism article. When there's a content dispute, placing those tags on the article is completely appropriate until the dispute is resolved. You don't get to make the final decision on these things without reaching consensus - regardless of whether you say "verdict"[34][35][36] in the discussions. -shirulashem(talk) 23:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit Summary[edit]

Regarding recent edit of the Messianic Judaism lead; I noticed your Edit Summary:

(Much as I agree with you, Tim (and I do), they'll never accept that. Let's stay with what was worked out before the last two editors changed it.)

Who are you refering to? Whoever "they" are, I'm not sure it's appropriate to make assumptions regarding what they will accept. Please join the talk page discussion so we can find out.

Peace,

JosiahHenderson (talk) 04:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI discussion concerning you[edit]

Hello, Lisa. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Doug. -Lisa (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Um, don't thank me, I raised it. Dougweller (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Really? I thought Josiah did. Either way, thanks for letting me know about it, even if it's silly to accuse me of POV when I was merely making a point. -Lisa (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh. I thought you were referring to the other one. <sigh> Fine, whatever. If y'all want to punish me for a technical violation, go right ahead. If you want an apology, I apologize. I don't even know when the ridiculous ArbCom restriction expires. The fact that I received a restriction in that case, which was against Alastair Haines, was somewhere between Orwellian and Kafkaesque, so you'll have to forgive me if I don't really keep track of it. -Lisa (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, my goodness. There's a week and a half left on the ArbCom thing? So seriously? A technical violation that clearly wasn't what the ArbCom meant, a couple of weeks before the whole thing expires? And you found that worthy of an ANI? -Lisa (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Doug -- any way you could withdraw it? It's only a week and a half, and you and I would both have probably made that revert.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 01:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Nah, it's okay Tim. I appreciate your defending me, but if Doug feels it's important enough, I can live with a week and a half ban. -Lisa (talk) 01:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Probably not important enough. For some reason I was thinking end of September. I didn't say pov by the way. Dougweller (talk) 05:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I know. When you first posted to tell me about the ANI thing, I thought you were referring to the rather silly one that Josiah posted a little earlier. -Lisa (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Jacob's age[edit]

It's an interesting question. The argument in the Mercer Bible Dictionary is as follows: 1. Isaac was 60 when Jacob was born (Gen. 25:26 - it checks out); 2. Isaac died at 180 and Jacob fled to Laban shortly before that, therefore Jacob was then 120 (180-60); 3. Jacob spent 20 years with Laban (Gen. 31:38) then returned to Canaan (also checks out); 4. Therefore Jacob was 140 at that point (120+20).

However, as you rightly point out, Jacob tells Pharaoh that he's 130 when he arrives in Egypt, many years later (Gen. 47:9). The logic of points 1 to 4 is impeccable, but the statement at Genesis 47:9 creates a logical contradiction. How to explain this? If you have Gleason Archer's explanation of all contradictions to hand (I don't) I'd be interested to see if he mentions it.

  • Off my own, and using a line of argument that Archer never would allow, I see that each of these statements - Genesis 25:26, Genesis 31:38, and Genesis 47:9 - comes from a different source, the first from the Jahwist, the second from the Elohist, and the third from the Priestly source. If you allow that, then the Mercer Dictionary is doing something that it shouldn't do, combining two distinct sources.
  • Another possible explanation is that the author/editor of the passages either didn't care about contradictions, or else deliberately put them in for his own purposes. After all, the statement at Genesis is the only explicit statement of Jacob's age - the other one has to be deduced. If the author sees his numbers as conveying hidden meanings, he might be quite happy to have a narrative contradiction.

Those are my own suggestions, and totally OR. I'm interested in this, and I'll send an email to a professor of OT studies I know and see what he has to say. Let you know. PiCo (talk) 07:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well the professor got back, but not much illumination. This is what he said: "The Joseph story might an originally independent unit incorporated as a novel into the Pentateuch. Then no harmonization. But numbers did definitely not have the same meaning to the ancients as to us today, so there might be a hidden agenda of some sort."PiCo (talk) 09:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
You say "The logic of points 1 to 4 is impeccable", but it isn't at all. Point two is mere assumption, and since it contradicts actual concrete numbers in the account, the assumption must be wrong. Isaac was old, yes. But that doesn't mean it was right before he died.
You're actually starting from the POV that the story is a hodgepodge. And yes, that's one POV. But you can't use a subjective impression (i.e., Isaac was almost 180 when Jacob fled) while ignoring the context that shows the impression to be false. -Lisa (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Pico -- as you said, your position is OR and involves a contradiction with at least one passage in the greater text. You therefore cannot simply drop it into the article as some kind of fact. If you want to quote someone who said that he was 140, that might have a place on Wikipedia -- but even then not in the location you are trying to put it, in the context of a number of times 140 is used. Further, if I understand you correctly, you seem to regard 140 to have some kind of numerical significance to the original authors or later redactors. Great -- but it would have to be an overt use of the number, rather than an inference that you derive in CONTRAST to the numbers the author/redactor later uses when he gives Pharaoh his age. Find a source, and find a more appropriate place on Wikipedia. There are a lot of sources, and a lot of articles. It shouldn't be difficult. But please stop what you are doing here, or I'll start reverting you myself.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Tim, what you call my position isn't mine at all - it's from the Mercer Bible Dictionary, a Reliable Source as understood in Wikiworld. And Lisa's quite wrong about point 2 being an assumption - its in the text of Genesis. PiCo (talk) 13:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
As I said both here and on the article talk page -- this MAY belong in another article (perhaps one on Jacob), but not in the passage you are placing it. Please find a better location. I have no objections to Mercer Bible Dictionary. But I DO have objections to your choice of placement. It may belong elsewhere, but certainly does not belong in the passage you are placing it in.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
PiCo, if you think it's in the text of Genesis, quote it. I assure you you're mistaken. -Lisa (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Why did you delete "Bible Deaths by God"?[edit]

Why did you delete "Bible Deaths by God"? this is very useful information. Were should I post it? Thank you for your time Ptrwatson418 (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I deleted it because it has absolutely nothing to do with chronology. -Lisa (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Were should I add it? Ptrwatson418 (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
What makes you think it's encyclopedic? I mean, it's pretty obvious that you're only adding it as a swipe at God and people who believe in God, right? "Look how horrible God is, killing someone for picking up sticks!" That's more appropriate to a blog than an encyclopedia.
Suppose someone wanted to add a list of every place it says "God said". That's trivia; not encyclopedia. -Lisa (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
This is a neutral information and very useful for people who study the Bible. Were should I add it? Ptrwatson418 (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
You could put it in God in Judaism, but add an introduction. It is of course encyclopedic and it helps in clarifying the character of the Jewish deity and thus the values conveyed by the religions that adhere to it. Cush (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
But is also the Christian God. Ok thank you. I will do my best. Ptrwatson418 (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, there is also the article The supreme deity in Abrahamic religions, but I am not sure your list would fit there. After all, all the divine killing is in the Jewish part of the Bible. Cush (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Take it elsewhere, kids. -Lisa (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Why are you insulting us? Ptrwatson418 (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Because she is the Lisa Liel who is well known on WP for her uncompromising adherence to the God in Judaism. She does not want that god to be presented as the killer that it is described as in the Bible. Cush (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I think we can write about her here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests Ptrwatson418 (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Pirkei Avot[edit]

  • Hi. I appreciate the comment (on the translation as well). May I ask why you believe I am doing original research? I think the book is short enough that the major principles can be enumerated. This is done for many other kinds of works described in encyclopedias, e.g., "major themes" in novels. Certainly, the Jewish Encyclopedia provides themes and quotes for almost every work. Do you see a reason that someone would object? Thanks. —Dfass (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
A paragraph, maybe. A whole chart like that... well, I won't complain about it, but I thought you should know. You're sorting various themes from inside the book and reorganizing them according to categories you've chosen. That isn't going to go over well here. -Lisa (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, let's wait and see. If they reject it here, I will post it elsewhere. (That was actually my original plan, but then I stumbled onto the this Avot article, and was sad that the article was so short, so I decided to flesh it out.) If someone objects strongly, not a problem. Thanks for the tip. —Dfass (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cush[edit]

Hi. Users who file RfC/Us are expected to sign under the "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" to clarify when they certified the dispute - merely listing your username is insufficient, and will result in the RfC/U being deleted and delisted as uncertified after the 48 hour period. If you wish to go ahead with this RfC/U, please sign (using 4 tildes so that both your username and timestamp appear) in that section. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Judaism[edit]

I really appreciate your comment on the Judaism talk page. I thought the sources I provided speak for themselves, and I have to admit I really am perplexed by people's reaction. You, Debrasser, and Malik Shabbaz are all well-informed active editors who more or less share my view and yet your comments are being disregarded and everyone is instead wondering why SL has gone meshuggenah.

What you wrote was quite clear and I wouldn't blame you if you feel that having spoken your peace you have nothing more to add to the discussion. But if this is important to you and you wish to discuss it off-wiki you can e-mail me at slrubenstein at yahoo dot com (I do not have Wikipedia e-mail activated). Slrubenstein | Talk 18:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Genesis account of creation[edit]

Response on Judaism[edit]

Please discuss on talk page. I left a response to your comment. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 21:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

can you comment[edit]

here ? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The Bible and homosexuality[edit]

After User:Yehoishophot Oliver pointed my attention to your conflict with him in The Bible and homosexuality I made an edit to that paragraph, introducing some NPOV language. I hope both of you will be able to live with this edit. Debresser (talk) 10:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yahweh[edit]

Lisa, I'm making a suggestion for some further editing on the article Yahweh. I'd appreciate your comments.PiCo (talk) 04:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Your edits on Creation according to Genesis[edit]

I have reverted your edits. Please read the FAQ regarding the term Creation Myth before making edits to this article. Nefariousski (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Needed Consensus on the Genesis creation myth page[edit]

Being a latecomer to the article, I'm unclear exactly who is committed to the article and what they are committed to. I've heard a good deal from those in favor of the "myth" title, but not so much from those opposed. Eactly WHAT would be needed for a consensus title before you would be comfortable making improvements to the article? Please let me know on my talk page. Thanks.EGMichaels (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Revert from Haredi Judaism[edit]

Hello. In case you are wondering about the time of the post, I live in Israel (yay!).

Your revert on my posting was perfectly justified; I won't contest it.

On the specific issue, suppose I get quotes from old and new dictionaries? Would that work? I'm sure there are a lot of people with those old Ben Yehuda pocket dictionaries still lying around.

My general problem is really that the opening has a prejoritive feel, which I think is wrong for a lead paragraph. The impression one gets is "haredim are fearful". Perhaps I could put the main point first, and the latter part after in parens>? BTW, note that it is ALL unsourced.

Another angle is that I have seen "haChareidim lidvar HaShem" used. I am thinking of looking up the tradtional commentaries on that, which will perhaps clariy the issue.

At the end of the day, Charedim really WAS a general term for Orthodox. I will try to get good sources. Also, the header as is, is also OR, or at least unverifiable - like many headers.Mzk1 (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mzk1. Do I know you from somewhere else? I noticed your blog comments as well.
I'm not really sure what post and what reversion you're referring to. I haven't edited Haredi Judaism for the longest time. I don't think of Haredim as fearful at all. Well, culturally, I do think of them as fearful of outside society, but I'm not sure "fearful" is the right word. But Charedi was never, to the best of my knowledge, a general term for Orthodox. Except maybe in Charedi society. - - Lisa (talk - contribs) 01:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
(Oh, that WAS your blog - I was wondering.) I wrote an addition where I tried to show it, and you reverted as OR. Fair enough. It is definitely true; the OU has had Chareidi in its name (in Hebrew) until a few years ago. My father, who is close to 80 (Bay"h) and stuck to calling himself Modern Orthodox even when the term was out of style, confirms this, and I remember it that way in the old pocket dictionaries of my childhood. (I am going to try to find someone who still has one.)
Anyway, in proper Wikipedia style, let's avoid our personal opinions, and I would still like to know what you think regarding what I suggested, assuming I can back it up.19:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, I contacted my father (who was at the time in the States), and I have some sources.
  1. R. Alkelais's dictionary, a rather famous one, 1965 (I have more details): chareidi: pious, religious, orthodox
  2. Mesorah (Kashrut Halachic Journal) put out by the Orthodox Union, in Hebrew: Ichud HaKehilot HaChareidiot BaAmerica - 5756(!)
You think this would get me out of OR?Mzk1 (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Probably. So long as it's only stated that it used to mean that. Because of course, it doesn't any more, right? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 23:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Isn't that what I said?Mzk1 (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
P.S. In France, it's the reverse, there is the official Rabbi of the Cnonsistoire (sp?) and the Grand Orthodox Rabbin. But they are both Orthodox; apparantly Orthodox in France means Chareidi. But it would be a bit too much for me to go prove that.Mzk1 (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Haredi is a notion that almost exclusively exists in Israel. It's been somehow imported in the US and France by Israeli yeshivists. So it depends the point of view. In France, there is only Reformism and Orthodoxy. Reformists don't live within the community, they're assimilated. And Orthodox don't wear the Ultra-Orthodox costume as Haredim do in Israel. You see, it all depends. ACogloc 09:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Blood[edit]

Well, after reading about family purity, it made me proud of Reform and made me appreciate your comment. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine. You be proud of Reform, and I'll be proud of Judaism. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 03:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Passover vs Passover (Christian holiday)[edit]

See discussion at Talk:Passover (Christian holiday)#Merge with Passover. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Lisa[edit]

Cush is bigotness does not belong, I removed it agains plaese lets not edit war. 22:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Lisa Could you shoot me an email the directions are in you history

Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Christian Yom Kippur discussion[edit]

Hi Lisa: Regarding serious Christian content in the Yom Kippur article, please see Talk:Yom Kippur#Theological significance and Talk:Yom Kippur#Poll: Yom Kippur and Christianity. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Please talk first[edit]

I notice you have changed other wiki articles to fit your resoning for changing others. You had changed the article on Moses to fit your reasoning for changing the Genesis creation article. Please use caution in editing as many people use wiki as an educational source. If you are unsure please discuss first then if you are correct then it would be appropriate to edit the article. I also noticed that you have altered the Genesis article over 20 times. I thank you for your contributions nut please use facts rather than opinions. Thank you.--Caenglerth (talk) 21:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken. You wrongly used another Wikipedia article as a source for your erronious statement that Jews don't view the Torah as having been Divinely authored. I looked at the article, saw that it was in error, and corrected it. You still shouldn't have used it as a source, but I'm indebted to you for having pointed out the mistake.
Judaism has always held that God authored the Torah. That Moses wrote what was dictated to him. Since the advent of heterodox movements such as Reform and Conservative, this is no longer the universal Jewish view, but only the Orthodox view. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 22:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect by your own statement Moses wrote it. If I physically write something I am the author reguardless of how I was inspired or otherwise directed. I read your source and it even states that God Almighty dictated. Dictation is when you speak to someone and as Moses walked closely with God he was made to author the entire Torah. Here is the exact quote from the source you have sited, "Since the entire Torah was dictated by God, one would think that everything in the Torah is of equal significance." As you see God dictated not authored the Torah. As God has never even appeared to man in the flesh except for the incarnation of Jesus. I hope that I have not offended your obviously strong religious views rather I merely want to make wiki better so that others are not misinformed. On another topic but same article I don't know about you but I find it very offensive when someone keeps using the term "myth" in reguards to the creation as it is fact where as "myth" would indicate lie.--Caenglerth (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No. If I author a novel but have someone else type it for me, I'm still the author. Had God merely inspired Moses to write the Torah, you'd be right. But since Moses merely wrote down the words, verbatim, as authored by God, God is the Author. Go ahead and search for Divine Authorship. I get that you're a Christian, and maybe you aren't fully informed when it comes to Jewish beliefs, but trust me when I tell you that Orthodox Judaism absolutely does hold that God authored the Torah. That Moses didn't so much as add a single word of his own.
I agree with you about "myth", though. But if you look, you'll see that the use of the term "myth" in academia doesn't carry that connotation of fiction. Those pushing for the term have used that fact as their main argument, ignoring the fact that to the average reader, myth absolutely does mean fiction. In any case, we're past that now. I've proposed that the article be changed to Genesis creation narrative, which is about as NPOV as is possible to get. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 22:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Technically we are both right as here is the definition of author.. [37] As see both are correct perhaps it would be best for us to mention that difference of interpretation in the article. My big concern is that those who do not believe in God but are currious may know the truth so that they may come to know God. It is unfortunate that they continue to use "myth" but I suppose the truth of God will stand reguardless of those who try to destroy and discount him. --Caenglerth (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Case[edit]

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Genesis Creation Myth has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Myth and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Weaponbb7 (talk)

Reply[edit]

I had to involve ALL editors who were involved, BTW please agree to it Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking. A lot depends on whether it looks like this is going to turn into a dogpile of the same folks who ramrodded the change to the current title through. If so, I don't think I'd be willing to abide by that kind of an RfM. But I'll be watching it and if it looks like it's actually going to go somewhere, I'll definitely agree to it. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 01:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Please look at my comment at Weapon's page, Lisa. And please sign up.
Mediators are not allowed to take sides and have no authority to make a decision.
If you think the mediator takes a side, or tries to influence the decision either way, confront that and withdraw.
We need you there. Keep the mediator honest and everyone else too.
Note the "religious scholars inadmissable" issue. This is a cake-walk.
So Wikipedia will allow religions to be discussed in articles, but not allow scholars of those religions to speak?
ROFL! I really don't think so.
Come to the party Lisa, and be very, very gentle.
The side you're on is so strong, the only mistake you can make is scaring people off by trying to make it even stronger.
Alastair Haines (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh, fine. You persuaded me. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 03:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Phew! I'll feel safer if you're there. But, hey, thanks! :)) Alastair Haines (talk) 03:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Lisa, another column has been added to the voting matrix since you voted. Just FYI in case you'd like to vote in that column. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 05:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the RfM is dead. What were the odds that out of that many people, there wouldn't be one who just didn't get it? Pretty high. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 11:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Sure, but a refusal to mediate is itself a step toward an eventual solution to this problem. I think as long as we continue to try to be reasonable we'll get there.EGMichaels (talk) 11:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Mediation was never the way to get the name changed, just an additional bonus.
Don't be so negative. So far, there's been no valid objection to the move.
The current poll shows clearly that "creation myth" is way down there.
Things are getting easier for a closer all the time. Courage friends! Alastair Haines (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

re:mediation case[edit]

My apologies. I misread that. I have asked the guy who closed it to re-open it and i've changed my vote on the page so hopfully we can go from there and start it again. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Ok, I have started a move request to move the article into a better title, I hope this makes up for my amazing lack of vision and misreading. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

ROFL[edit]

That's one of the funniest suggestions I've heard for a long while, Lisa. Give me a 3RR warning if I get close. Better safe than sorry. <giggles again> ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of "myth" in the body of the article[edit]

I was just wondering, if you consider the word "myth" to carry a connotation that is both negative and prejudicial, how can you have no problem with its use in the body of the article? The POV pushers who changed the article have left no room for compromise. Now, I'm all for compromise, but saying that you have no problem with something that you find to be "negative and prejudicial" doesn't sit well with me. I hope that you realize that these people didn't stop with "Genesis Creation myth" as a title. They tried to insert it all over the article, and then moved on to more articles. They had even tried to change the story of Noah's Ark to "deluge myth" before they were finally stopped. You seem to be willing to cede the use of "myth" in order to get the name change. I agree that the name change is important, and it will come. But it shouldn't come with the price of appeasing those who did something that they never should have done in the first place. All the best-Mk5384 (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Mk5384, you have the historical scenario absolutely correct. I also agree with your assessment of the "why's", based on the evidence, the sequence, and the incivility and accusations that were an embarrassment to supposedly educated, cultured editors. Notably EGMarshall and Alastair Haines, among others, have endured tremendous abuse in their stellar peacemaking efforts. This must be important stuff to generate spiritual warfare at this level.
I concur with you about the use of "myth" anywhere (title or elsewhere). However, I have been unable to find reliable sources to support complete omission of the term--offensive though I find it when referring to the very foundations of the Judaeo-Christian religions, and quotations from which Jesus himself used to dignify marriage, et al. In my literature reviews, I find a mix from even very conservative Christian authors. A few avoid "creation myth" (CM) altogether; a majority define it in its technical sense after acknowledging that it is most often found to be offensive to conservative Christians, but that it does not connote falsehood or fable. For example,that's the approach N.T. Wright takes. I am very interested in your rationale for being able to omit CM entirely from the text of a Genesis article, and the same for how to deal with the WP policies that the pro-mythers have been quoting. Thanks. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 03:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Afaprof01, the editors in question actually wrote those policies they have been quoting, and fought when I tried to make adjustments to them. They kept directing me to a village pump, when people make adjustments to those guidelines all the time without such a diversion. At the very least the term myth should have "symbolic literary structure" in it to have any hope of an academic meaning. Right now the "policy" is written in such a way that "false is unacademic" but "academic says nothing either way" -- while correct, they have no positive wording by which it could be anything but false. This is clearly not an academic meaning, while "symbolic literary structure" would. Once this is settled, I'd like some help correcting this "poliy" they invented for the sole purpose of deriding religious narratives while claiming an "academic use" devoid of useful meaning.EGMichaels (talk) 08:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I did not mean to imply that it was my position that the word "myth" must be completely omitted. I only took issue with what seemed to me, to be genuflection on Lisa's part. (And perhaps I was very mistaken.) My point was, that what these people did was so far beyond the scope of what is acceptable, that care should be taken when negotiating with them. I agree that the term "myth" is a scholarly term, which does not necessarily connotate false hood. The general public does not necessarily know this. The ones who changed the title are well aware of the publics' general definition of the word myth, which is what makes their doing it all the more despicable. And as I've said, they didn't stop with Genesis. These same people have actually called for discussion bans, and editor topic bans. The fact that this has even been permitted awes the mind.Mk5384 (talk) 03:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
A lot of words can connote a bias, particularly when used in a vacuum. In the body of the article, "myth" can be used, because it can additionally be explained that the word is being used in the academic sense of a story which explains something. That isn't possible in the title of an article. In a title, you have to be extremely concise, and can't explain anything. As such, you can't use a term which has a common connotation of "fiction", because that's highly POV.
The article never should have been changed to "Genesis creation myth." It was slammed through in a very short time, before most of us even noticed what was happening, and then the page was protected in order to lock the inappropriate title in.
Believe me, I'm the last person anyone would call an appeaser, in any arena. But Wikipedia is what it is. And myth is a legitimate scholarly term which can be used in a non-prejudicial way. Digging in our feet and saying it can't even be used in this legitimate way is exactly what the agenda pushers on the other side want, because they can use it as an example of us pushing an agenda.
Do you see what I'm saying? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 00:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I do. Thank you for clarifying that. All the best-Mk5384 (talk) 02:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
So very well said, Lisa.
By the way, I support your "state of being" edit. It's a pity if that's a surprise to you, but it's true.
May the Name bless you and keep you, turn his face to you and keep you in peace ... olam!
Shalom Alastair Haines (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Hear, hear.EGMichaels (talk) 08:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
When adjusting my own post, I believe I inadvertantly removed a post by User:EG Michaels. My apologies.Mk5384 (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"Creation story"[edit]

Hi Lisa,

In your post at the tail of the conversation I was having with Black Falcon you mentioned that "myth", "account" and "story" are all objectionable to a segment of the population. What are the objections to "story"? I'm just curious because I don't remember them, though I do remember hearing objections. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

BarnStar![edit]

"What a Brilliant Idea!" Barnstar.png What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
For coming up with the Final Compromise of Genesis creation narrative Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Wow, my first ever barnstar. I'm honored. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 03:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations!Mzk1 (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Very deserved!EGMichaels (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Just noticed this, and I agree. Congrats! You deserve it for all your hard work. Cheers, SAE (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I assume you are also the "Lisa" of the JAH? I liked that so much that I kept a printout of it for many years, until I gave it to my father a few weeks ago. I even wrote to you then, although I probably came across a but stange. (Yes, I know "this is not your blog".)Mzk1 (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Cush[edit]

[38]

I know...[edit]

Lisa, I know what you're fighting for, but you've got to really support this new lead. At least promise me that you'll think about it. Here is what it says,

"The Genesis creation narrative, found in the first two chapters of the biblical Book of Genesis, is distinguished from other Ancient Near East creation myths by its monotheistic outlook"

1. It calls it a narrative found in the Book of Genesis. That's good right? 2. It doesn't explicitly say that it's a myth, it says it's "distinguished from other Ancient Near East creation myths." I really think we need to compromise with the other side this much. I think that is you try too hard to have even this removed, that it'll end up even more to your disapproval in the end. It has come a far way, the way it is. Think about it at least. Cheers, SAE (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"Other" is my problem with that. If we take out "other", I'm okay with it. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 19:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Have a look at the compromise section on the talk page. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 19:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

caution[edit]

Lisa I'm asking you to cease commenting on User talk:Alastair Haines. Your remarks are inappropriate as they are ad hominem. Regardless of what sanction that (or any other) editor is under it is not appropriate to use their talk space to discuss them in this manner. The ArbCom has given its verdict, your 2 cents are not necessary and unhelpful. You were restricted from commenting there (by me) before because of this type of commentary. Don't replicate that behaviour further. And for the record your infractions are your burden to carry no else's--Cailil talk 00:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Cailil has suggested I leave Alastair's page alone and I will do so as well.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

13 Midot[edit]

Do you happen to have ArtScroll's Gateway to the Talmud? I do not and cannot get it but I recall it having a good treatment of R. Ishmael's method for studying Torah and if you can access it it may be a good source for the Judaism article. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't, sorry. I try and keep my distance from R' Scroll in general. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 22:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you mind my asking why? I am not a big fan myself, and have only one or two books they published. But they are popular and I am always curious to know what different people think - it is a personal question but motivated only by curiosity and I hope you do not mind my asking. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Artscroll is the Microsoft of Judaica. It floods the market with material to the point that smaller presses are overshadowed or simply can't compete. And it has a universal philosophy that I think is really damaging. An anti-intellectualism that's a bit depressing.
A couple of examples. The Artscroll History of the Jewish People in the Second Temple Era. Okay, there's a 166 year conflict in the chronology of this period between the generally accepted version and the Jewish version. I actually agree with them that the Jewish version is correct. But their solution was to move everything in Mesopotamia and Persia up 166 years, and leave Greek history where it was. Despite the fact that most of what we know about Persia comes from Greek sources, and the obvious fact that you can't move one without moving the other.
Back in the 90s, a book called Brochos came out by the author of the well known Muktza book. Not long afterwards, Artscroll put out their own. And the contrast was stunning. The first one made it clear that safek brachot l'hakel. If you aren't sure if you made a bracha (with few exceptions for brachot mandated by the Torah), you don't say it. But the Artscroll book, despite the fact that this is simply the halakha, made a case that since Chazal tell us that anyone who derives benefit from this world without a bracha is "k'ilu mo`el", and since me`ila is stealing from God and is a terrible, terrible thing, that we need to find a way to get around what Chazal said and find a way to say a bracha anyway. This is the sort of mentality that leads to Amen groups. Which in my opinion should be assur as witchcraft, since they turn brachot and saying amen into mamash incantations.
I don't deny that some Artscroll can be good. Heck, when I was in college, the first time I ever heard of the idea that Torah she'b'al peh was miSinai (I'd grown up Conservative, and they told us that both Conservative and Orthodox Jews believe that the Oral Law was simply invented by the rabbis, but that the weirdo Orthodox, for reasons unknown, decided about 1800 years ago to freeze everything and not allow any more creativity) was in the Artscroll overview to parashat Breishit. My partner uses an Artscroll siddur. But Artscroll in general has created a kind of Artscrollism that I think is a very negative thing. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate the explanation. The last time I looked at anything ArtScroll was 20 years ago, I had no idea about this going around the Chazal. I remember when ArtScroll first came out and it seemed (to a non-Orthodox Jew) like the first serious attempt by an Orthodox publisher to reach an English speaking audience. I hate their translation of Shir Hashirim, although I understand the reasoning behind it. I thought their commentaries on the Bible were a big improvement on Soncino. But that was as far as my thoguhts went, and my knowledge.

I appreciated your constructive comments on R. Ishmael's 13 midot. It looks like you are otherwise not particularly interested in the discussion on the talk page. I wish there were more well-informed Jews working on the article. Well, I wouldn't mind non-Jews who were well-educated in Jewish history and thought. But Wikipedia continues to suffer from not having a very diverse group of active editors, and there are a host of topics where there are only a handful of knowledgable editors .... I hope you had a happy holiday, Slrubenstein | Talk 17:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

NPOV question?[edit]

I think you might have a well-informed view on this question, and perhaps know other Wikipedians whose views would help. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 12:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Exodus[edit]

If you have time can you comment here? This article needs a lot of work - which I cannot do but maybe you can contribute or know who could? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

second revelation[edit]

I do not question your recent edit about Dvarim version being the second revelation. but I think it would enhance the article a lot if you put in a few notable sources. Is this found in midrash rabbah, or the Talmud? Or Rashi or Ibn Ezra or whomever - a few sources would provide valuable additional information. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you have time, can you actually look at the article Ritual decalogue? Up until now, I have been assuming that "the ritual decalogue" was an idea forwarded by "Higher Critics," part of the "documentary hypothesis." But I have been reading works by "higher critics" and they do not mention it. I am beginning to wonder if this is part of a Christian reading of the Old Testament. And welcome your thoughts. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

its a Timeward[edit]

Feeling like we stepped into a time machine? is it April again? lol Watch yourself friend We could be in for a long one again.

What has been will be again, 
what has been done will be done again; 
there is nothing new under the sun. Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Debate on Genesis creation... whatever we're going to end up calling it[edit]

I just want to make sure you know, I really don't want you or anyone else to take my comments personally. I'm not used to working in this area of the encyclopedia, and I know I have a tendency for hyperbole. I also know my reading level is extremely high, so I can come across as sounding rather pompous at times. Never again am I entering another discussion before I've fully woken up- I think I put my argument much better now. To better understand who I'm speaking with, I looked through some pages you've worked on, and you've done a lot of good work- I'm usually just a wikignome (although decapitalizing breed names is actually much harder than you'd think), and I manually patrol new pages (you wouldn't believe some of the pages that come up, I've got a couple gems now on my talkpage). Because I know no one ever gets thanked for their content contributions, I want to do just that, and may the discussion proceed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Blade. You're a mensch. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Why thank you, and I'd say the same for you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Genesis creation narrative[edit]

you wrote

...again.

A few months, during the big fight over the name, you'd done some research into the most commonly used term(s) in reliable sources. There's so much material on that page that's been archived, that finding it is a pain. Do you happen to have it available somewhere?

Thanks. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


Sorry, Lisa, I've not worked on that article. Skywriter (talk) 00:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

User talk pages[edit]

Hi, Lisa. You may want to see Wikipedia:USERTALK#Removal_of_comments.2C_notices.2C_and_warnings. Brock is allowed to remove those warnings. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 08:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

List of Messianic and Hebrew Christian congregations[edit]

I see you have tagged List of Messianic and Hebrew Christian congregations for speedy deletion under CSD G4 (recreation of a page deleted as a result of a deletion discussion). However, unfortunately, the article has not been deleted as a result of a deletion discussion. An AfD was started, but not completed, as the article was speedy-deleted, and G4 explicitly excludes pages which have only been speedy-deleted. If you want the article deleted again you will need to start a new AfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Editing concerns[edit]

Lisa, I regret to say that your personal opinion does not take priority over policy and guidelines. In this case, you have twice in the past 24 hours now reverted unsourced, duplicating material from the article Messianic Judaism. This is not acceptable. Please do not revert again, but rather do what policies and guidelines, in this case perhaps most importantly WP:3RR and WP:EW request, and receive consensus for the change before reverting again. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits at Messianic Judaism and Talk:Messianic Judaism make it very hard to avoid coming to the conclusion that you have a conflict of interests regarding the subject, as per WP:COI. I would very strongly request that you read that page and perhaps act in accord with it. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be arguing against the consensus on the talk page. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Behavior guidelines are in effect, whether there is a possibly flawed consensus or not. The only way I think we would have a true consensus is by an RfC, which has not taken place. And the phrasing of your comments, separate from the meaning, makes it quite clear to me that you do have a conflict of interests.
What's clear to you is actually your personal opinion. Do you think DeknMike has a COI? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I have an interest in accurate representation of the movement, using my skills as a researcher and historian. It is not a conflict that I am currently attending a MJ congregation led by an up and coming Messianic leader already well known in the movement, because I am willing to explore wide sourcing of fact-based research, rather than relying on opinion-based propoganda.--DeknMike (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Dude, you aren't even Jewish, right? I wonder how many MJs actually are, and how many of them are plain old Christians like yourself, doing the whole Alex Haley thing. In any case, I wasn't talking to you. I was asking John Carter if he thought you had a COI. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
You used my name, and I responded. I'm not Jewish; I have a Masters and advanced training in organizing and managing non-profits and am helping my Jewish friend lead his congregation. He's on the board of one Messianic association and has worked for several others as a regional representative. Almost all the leadership within the Messianic movement have 2 Jewish parents. --DeknMike (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Two things. 1) I doubt that's true. 2) Really? You're replying after more than 3 weeks? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 22:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
What you believe or don't believe, until and unless you can provide clear sourcing, is entirely your own concern, and really of no interest to anyone else, so I'm glad to see you added it to this talk page. And I could certainly believe that the leadership of the MJs would generally have two Jewish parents, because (1) it is generally the case that converts (and if you have 2 Jewish parents and are an MJ, you probably are a convert, or at least the child of convert parents) would be more likely to know about the Jewish customs than those from a Christian background, and, (2) as converts, they would also be more likely to have a bit more zeal for their new faith, be willing to expend more effort toward it, and thus be more likely to rise to leadership positions. John Carter (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Lisa, if you saw my talk page, you'd know I am taking a break from editing here to spend time creating a region-wide business development organization, and to get ready to start my 4th post-graduate degree. FYI: My Messianic trainers include Sam Nadler and David Sedaka, both of whom came to give private weekend workshops; I have done the same with the full board of the AMC. Peace.--DeknMike (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Origins of Orthodoxy[edit]

Thanks for changing the section head. My initial choice of words was rushed an unconstructive. All I can say is that my intention was to provide a way out of what I feared might turn into a revert war. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit war on Noachide Laws[edit]

Dear Lisa, I correctly cited my undisputable source -- whereas you provided none to back up your very personal point of view. I politely call upon you to refrain from further reverts. If you insist on reverting the article again, I will consider this as an act of vandalism and report it as such to the authorities. Have a nice day.

PS: As I can see, you have a track record of edit warring. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Alexy, as I wrote on your talk page, the citation you gave doesn't even mention the word "sodomy". Why you think that it qualifies as a source for "sodomy" being prohibited is puzzling. Furthermore, since sodomy is a vague term, and the Noachide commandments are well defined, using the term "sodomy" is counter-productive. Please stop including a term which does not belong. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 02:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

3RR warning[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -

Please note that the source I brought on Seven Laws of Noah for the inclusion of "sodomy" as one of the prohibitions does expressively mention the words "male homosexuality", and furthermore it does mention the term "sexual transgressions", which is, as you ought to know, a synonym for sodomy. If you read the lede of the article on sodomy, you'll see that sodomy can include any number of different acts, depending on context. As such, it's appropriate to use the term here, since the prohibitions are well defined -- Alexey Topol (talk) 10:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Infobox[edit]

The infobox has two fields, ethnicity and religion. The religion field should never be used except for religious identification. If it is being used for ethnicity, it is being misused. Yworo (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Revision in prohibited relations in the Seven Laws[edit]

I noted your partial revert of my changes, which I believe did not address the point I was making. (I am not always that clear.) In order to avoid edit-warring, I commented on the talk page instead of re-reverting. Please respond at your leisure; my main point was that it does make sense to refer to specific sexual acts for one prohibited relation, when it is not done with the others. Thank you.Mzk1 (talk) 22:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I've moved Judaism's view of Jesus back where it belongs. Please don't do that again.[edit]

Following message received; when all the other articles related to religions are called, respectively: "Jesus in Islam", "Jesus in Christianity", "Jesus in Scientology" and "Jesus in Ahmadiyya Islam", then it follows as obvious and self-evident that it would be appropriate to call the page describing the role of Jesus in Judaism, "Jesus in Judaism".

Surely, this is reasonable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjjjc (talkcontribs) 17:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Noahides[edit]

Hi, Lisa. I've accepted to mediate as requested by Alexey Topol. Please let me know when you are ready to beginEugene-elgato (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Hiya! This is my first time doing this mediation but i wanna give it a shot. Secondly please bear in mind it's 00:37 in the UK and i may well go to bed soon and do more tomorrow. However jus want to break the ice now! I picked up this case because i was always fascinated with Mosaic law and the Jews' relations with my own faith, the Orthodox Church- and also am fascinated with the Prophets and also those characters from the Old Testament who are not really Jews eg Job i think? Anyway, shall have to go through the edit history and see what exactly this discussion has been about, and also read all your respective comments on one another's talk pages. So please bear with me and maybe i can be of some use in getting some contributions from those who are interested to come to an agreed text?! Thanks Eugene-elgato (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the main thing was that Alexey wanted to use the word "sodomy", which was inappropriate, and didn't like when I removed it. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 03:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Lisa, I have taken a look at the revision history of that article and you are right it is a very straightforward case. That article Noachide.org indeed has a little bit to say but it is only introductory. My understanding as someone outside Judaism, is that "Sodomy" is a loose term. Obviously it is referring to the story in the bible about sodom and gommorah but it is not clear which acts were being engaged in by those people- in the old days in English law Sodomy might have been a blanket term for all those things which were accepted as being sexual transgressions, probably not including straightforward fornication but including even marital oral sex. Sodomy is mostly used today to mean male on male anal sex but this is as it is used by those for whom there are few sexual transgressions between consenting adults barring male on male sex itself. For stricter people they might still include other stuff under it.

it seems historically the authorities have denied the female orgasm for some reason. also it occurs to me buggery is anal sex. but Alexey has not yet got back to me so I will wait and see his take.Eugene-elgato (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for correcting the sloppy editing in the Seven Laws. That was pretty bad, even for me; I am trying to improve.Mzk1 (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I am not the one who removed the comments next to the laws. Personally, I would like the laws moved to their own section, but I will bow to consensus. I also think the title is wrong, as you might see from the first few footnotes that I added. (Someday I may move the footnotes to the body of the text later on in the article. One problem is if the later text is removed, the assertion is once more unproven.)Mzk1 (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Palin / misconceptions[edit]

Please see the previous talk page discussion. Thanks. Hairhorn (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it is a common misconception. If you like, I'll gather sources where "I can see Russia from my house" is attributed to Palin. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 14:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The attribution isn't the issue. This should be discussed before reintroduction, which you haven't done, despite the edit summary "See talk before deleting".... Hairhorn (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
It's there now. I hadn't noticed that Wikipedia blocked one of the links as spam. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 14:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gabrielle Giffords. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Gabrielle Giffords. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

God in Judaism article[edit]

Do not add (or restore) unsourced original research. And do not call its removal vandalism, please. And mentioning "anti-religion crusade"s is of course out-of-line. Debresser (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Ritual Decalogue[edit]

Hi Lisa. I think that it will be clearer, that the Ritual Decalogue = the Ten Commandments view is precisely that, just a view, if we could add other interpretations of Exodus 34 to the article. I mean, other interpretations of verses 10-26 (if they are not the "ten commandments," what are they?) And, how do they interpret verse 28, "And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments?"

I do not have access to the Mikraot Gadoloth, but I would think that some of the classic commentators (Rashi? Ibn Ezra?) have good explanations of the peshat, based on a careful reading of the text, knowledge of Hebrew grammar, etc. Do you have any access to these interpretations, or know another editor who does? I don't know enough to know what to add, but I would think someone at WP does, and it would make it a more sophisticated article. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You can see Rashi here. He doesn't say anything at all about it. My Mikraot Gedolot for the second half of Shemot is somewhere around the house, and I can't find it right this second.
I could point out that verse 27 refers to a covenant, while verse 28 refers to the covenant, but that's OR. I'll go over to shul later and look at a Mikraot Gedolot there. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Slrubenstein | Talk 22:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You've been mentioned at WP:Arbitration enforcement[edit]

Please see WP:AE#Request notification of User:Lisa re WP:ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 04:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Notification[edit]

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

  • Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
  • The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
  • Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
  • Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Just out of curiosity, another editor mentioned a 1RR restriction. I don't see that mentioned in this template. Is that an oversight, or was the other editor mistaken? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 12:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The 1RR restriction was imposed on all the I/P articles by a community vote in November 2010, and is logged at WP:ARBPIA#Further remedies. EdJohnston (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You've been reported at AN3[edit]

Lisa, please see WP:AN3#User:Lisa reported by User:RolandR (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. The article in dispute is Israel and the apartheid analogy. EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 48 hours from editing for violation of ArbCom imposed 1-revert-rule on Arab/Israeli articles. Contrary to your assertion at WP:AN3, both reverts reported are indeed reverts, the first being a revert of a change made the previous day. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for help[edit]

Hi Lisa. I am not sure whether you have any interest at all in the Yeshu article, but I am sure that you have more knowledge, or access to relevant resources, than I do. The question is whether Yeshu refers to Jesus. Most Christian scholars, and most Conservative Talmud scholars, believe that the word at least refers to the Christian concept of Jesus (if not the historical figure). But I am not sure whether Orthodox Jews share this view. I know that rabbis in disputations with Christian authorities (e.g. Nahmanides) argued that Yeshu and related characters *ben Pandera") do not refer to Jesus. I believe that Orthodox Jews today, or at least many orthodox Jews today, continue to hold this view.

But for me, this is the key point: Orthodox Jews can accept as authoritative interpretations of the Talmud from the Middle Ages. The fact that a commentary or some other text was written in the Middle Ages does not necessarily mean that it does not represent the views of people today. I think this is an important issue for Jewish editors at Wikipedia.

At the Yeshu article, I raised this issue on the talk page and I have been challenged by another editor [here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yeshu&diff=439878294&oldid=439878026] who insists that I provide modern sources to support the view, that Rabbinic including medieval sources cannot be used to represent the views of Orthodox Jews today. This line of reasoning is being used to justify designating what I think are "significant" views as "fringe" or obsolete views.

I hope you will consider addressing this, and perhaps you know of other editors who have the expertise that they can address this in an intelligent and well-informed way. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 11:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Source that kirvah (negiah) can apply to b'nei noach[edit]

We had a dispute a while back, as to whether one could categorically state that kirvah did not apply to B'nei Noach. I've since found a source who says it does apply, and added it at the end of [[39]].

Thank you.Mzk1 (talk) 21:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You didn't add it. You added an anecdotal claim that Aharon Lichtenstein says this. You've provided no source to substantiate the claim. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
What in the world are you talking about? I cited the book, which I have. Does your average ciatation give a quote? It's easy enough to find, as the chapter is very short; it's the middle two pages of the chapter on illicit relations, which is most of the chapter. You are free to question this and ask for specific quotes, but this does not strike me as a very polite way to ask, considering that I am not even trying to change the article.Mzk1 (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I see, sorry. I did not state the name of the book (assuming it was obvious), so you concluded I was quoting the person himself. (I did in fact meet him once, many years ago.) My mistake. It's from Seven Laws of Noah, pages 50-51, the last item in a list of 10 commandments from the Rambam that correspond to B'nei Noah Illicit Relations. It will take a bit more than this to show that it his opinion, so I will put the quotes together at a future date when I have more time. The footnote (93 in the book) is his reference to the Minchat Chinuch. Take this as a preliminary.Mzk1 (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I put the quotes from the book in the relevant section. I hope it's enough.Mzk1 (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You are cordially invited to save the world[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Capitalism Byelf2007 (talk) 15 September 2011

Sheba[edit]

Hi,

You wrote on my talk page about an genealogy image for the kings of ancient Israel and Judah. I did create that image originally, but if you look at the file history on the image page you can see that the current version was edited by someone else, who added Sheba in. I'm not sure who that's supposed to be or why that's there. I'm not really an expert on the subject so I can't help you out, but try asking Newman Luke, the user who made the edits. (Note that the image is actually on Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia, so you might have to create a new account to write on his page.) Mr. Absurd (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Rosh Hashanah[edit]

In connection with your recent revert, please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#Gilabrand_and_Rosh_Hashanah. Debresser (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for personal advice[edit]

Hag Sameach! Once before you expressed some critical or ambivalent feelings about ArtScroll. I would like to buy a Chumash with Rashi. I would like a translation of the Torah that is as close to the peshat as possible (I have my favorite English translations but none of them will ever come with Rashi), but I could benefit from any additional commentary. In my perfect world there would be a high-quality English translation of the Mikraot Gdolot, but I will have to wait for the world to come, I think. I am not in the US and do not have available to me a wide range of options. One is the Sapirstein edition. Another is the Gutnick edition. And Pinchas Doron, whom I had never heard of before. If you have any advice I would welcome it. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Slrubenstein | Talk 19:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Lisa, I will discuss this with you further when I get back in town, but your chart in Bible Chronology is almost completely erroneous. It doesn't even slightly follow bible chronology and is also historically inaccurate. But we can re-visit it in a couple of weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.176.72.189 (talk) 04:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

Hi Lisa. I was a bit shocked to see you call me a sockpuppet. See my answer, I am 101% not. I have never edited under any other log-in than my own. Nor have I ever used an IP. Nor have I ever heard of Alistair Haines. Maybe that would set your mind at rest a bit. Take care, no hard feelings on this side. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Request[edit]

In the spirit of Wikipedia, and of Yiddishkeit, perhaps you could remove the words "Trust me, I don't like you for yourself." from your recent post on WT:JUDAISM? Debresser (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Debresser (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

No, you were right. I let my annoyance get the best of me. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Chronology of the Bible[edit]

I can only conclude by your continuing to revert the page instead of discussing it in talk to indicate that your claim to wish to discuss it in "talk" was disingenuous. If I am correct in this please just let me know, otherwise, follow your own advice and discuss, then revert, don't just revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.63.35 (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do not unilaterally move pages when a RM has commenced[edit]

In ictu oculi (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Consensus and edit warring[edit]

Moved back[edit]

In Ictu, you've been butting heads with a good many editors for weeks now, all on articles about rabbinic concepts, and all with the same set of claims to back yourself up. Among the articles you have treated this way are:

Among the editors you have opposed during your month-long campaign are:

Where you have been supported by any other editors, it is because you have presented the case to them without the full context, and even so, it has been relatively rare.

Your arguments seem to be predicated on a small number of assumptions:

  • That WP:EN requires that articles be titled in English if any reliable sources can be found that deal with their subject in English, and that terms transliterated into English from Hebrew or Aramaic, despite being terms of science for these subjects, do not count as English.
  • That Google Scholar is the last word on common usage in reliable sources.
  • That if Jewish law uses the wording of a biblical verse to exemplify a legal or ethical concept in Jewish law or lore, the rabbinic concept is no more than "commentary" on the biblical verse, and that if an article's title uses that wording, the article is implicitly about the biblical verse, rather than primarily about the rabbinic concept.

You have started requests for moves without discussing them on the relevant talk pages (putting in a comment asking what the English term would be is not discussion). You have moved pages yourself without any discussion whatsoever.

Your behavior constitutes edit-warring, even if you have not violated WP:3RR on any single article. Your single-mindedness and unwillingness to be corrected in any of your assumptions, have created a situation where you are disruptive to the Wikipedia community, and getting more so by the day. Your contribution list shows that you have engaged in similar campaigns (perhaps crusades would be a better term) against Christian and other articles as well, but since I lack the requisite knowledge of those subjects, I have stayed out of them. Something, to state the obvious, that you might wish to consider yourself when it comes to articles on rabbinic concepts.

I'm asking you to stop. If you don't, the next step in dispute resolution is a RFC. That is time consuming as well, and I'd much prefer that you didn't make it necessary. Please consider the fact that you have a consensus opposing your edits, and stop now. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 00:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lisa, I got your note on my Talk page about this discussion, thank you. From what I have read so far on this particular discussion of ger toshav, I think in general that IIO is incorrectly mixing or conflating the biblical use of ger v'toshav with the Halachic concept of ger toshav. I'm not super-well educated on this topic and so can't so quickly take apart IIO's edits. But fortunately, I see that User:Musashiaharon, who seem very well-educated in this area, is trying to engage IIO on Talk:ger toshav. I think Musashiaharon is dead-on in his assessment on Talk:ger toshav that IIO is only cursory looks at sources that look like WP:RS on the surface but in fact are not that strong. Let's see how that discussion plays out before taking any further steps. Zad68 (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Here, In ictu oculi moved the discussion to Lisa's talk page.[edit]
-Musashiaharon (talk) 08:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello Lisa
  • Neither Wikipedia:Article_titles#English-language_titles nor Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) require that articles be titled in English if any reliable sources can be found that deal with their subject in English, but if English is "commonly used." Anyway this is one reason why we have the RM mechanism in this case.
  • No, Google Scholar is not the last word on common usage in reliable sources, but it does meet the requirements of WP:IRS better than websites.
  • If Jewish/Christian/Islamic law/tradition/interpretation uses a concept found in that religion's source holy text that would normally be included in an encyclopedia article.

In contrast, POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion.

Now I will make a point:
  • It is true that you are supported in your removal of WP:RS from some articles by some other editors, which is one reason why I have not reverted these removals, that does not prevent other editors from discussing removal of sources, or indeed other edits, on the Talk page.
  • As it stands, if you noticed, I am actually leaving most of these edits which I understand to be counter to the above mentioned policies and Wikipedia:Manual of Style.

Incidentally, of these articles, how many have you contributed WP:RS sourced content edits to? For example how many of these articles have you added content and provided a footnoted source from an English language mainstream published book?

In ictu oculi (talk) 02:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I would like to note that the websites of Chabad and Aish are generally better indicators of what is the common usage English language term for Jewish topics than some obscure book that you may find on Google Scholar. These are mainstream websites that are read by large numbers of people and are written in standard English (rather than Yeshivish). --PiMaster3 talk 02:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
[Because this is a discussion of IIO's editing practices, I think this should be moved back to his talk page.]
As to which of the above articles I have contributed sourced material to:
As far as I am aware, there is no requirement that quoted sources be in English to be in compliance with WP:RS. After a little search today, I found WP:NONENG, which describes the standard practices for quotes translated from foreign-language sources. I notice that it requires providing the original text as well as the translation, so I will be careful provide that in the future.
Regarding similar concepts in other faiths, unless there is extremely close similarity, I believe they should be dealt with in separate articles for each faith. This is because Wikipedia has separate articles for separate usages (ex. the legal ger toshav vs. "stranger and sojourner"), and combining different usages into one article may in fact be violating WP:NOTDIC; see there regarding homographs (and note that interfaith comparisons are not one-to-one). Unless the comparison is core to describing the subject, such comparison belongs in its own section towards the end of the article, or even (preferably?) in a separate article of its own, with a "See also" link in the original article. (As a bonus, all the comparative material can be in one place, with no need to update all corresponding articles when new material is added.)
Similar concerns apply to etymologies in Wikipedia articles, which according to WP:NOTDIC really belong in the Wiktionary. I can see reason for including them where they give more information about the subject at hand, but they are extraneous when they appear in an different, unrelated usage. Such usages should be deleted or moved to the proper article.
I am also a bit put off by the aggressive renaming of the articles. My first reaction would be to add a redirect to the article, rather than to move it. Only if I felt very familiar with the subject would I dare make a suggestion to move it. IMHO, it seems especially presumptuous to move an article based on a cursory web search. Even if the new title is a word-for-word translation of the foreign-language title, the connotations of the original are lost, as well as specificity and cultural context. Musashiaharon (talk) 06:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


Lisa, I don't understand why In ictu oculi moved this thread to your talk page.. it should be right there on his.--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I suspect it's because he knows that for an RfC, there must be evidence that an attempt to settle differences on the talk page of the person in question. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 03:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi IZAK, so what exactly is the problem?
A. on which of these pages was I proposing something counter to a specific WP policy?, and
B. on which of these pages did you not get your way? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
After once again

being pounced on by In ictu oculi, I welcome Lisa's initiative of seeking a firm method of proceeding with In ictu oculi's ill-spirited editing--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure if referring to WP:RM qualifies as "pouncing on," but I can understand that you feel like that. If I had created 20 articles with, for example, 100s of Georgian words scattered through them, Georgian-English code-switching titles, and and editor came along, talked to me nicely, and I insisted "no, my articles must contain Georgian!!" then I too would feel pounced on when my articles were nominated for wider community input. I'm sorry about this, and it's not the way Wikipedia should welcome speakers of English as a second language, but the fact is you refuse to look at any book in English and are inventing your own translations. It's okay in a WP:sandbox but it's not okay in en.wikipedia articles. Sorry. Maybe you should buy an English language Tanakh and Talmud, an English Jewish Encyclopedia and get familiar with how English texts treat the topics you want to translate/create articles for. I'm trying to be helpful suggesting that. Please don't be angry. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
In ictu oculi, you must realize that dozens of hebrew words have made and many more hebrew terms will make their way into English. Let me point out that it was only after "having your teeth drilled" by multiple editors did you agree that the term "kohen" is not that of priest (if you've in fact agreed). In most if not all cases its clear that your overly hung up on google books (and the J. Enc. of 1910 and various medieval saxonic translations of the bible) while completely ignoring the spelling conventions of competent and widely popular modern english works such as the

Schottenstien talmud, Schottenstien Tanach and very popular jewish websites such as Chabad.org and Aish.com. I'm frustrated at this and feel that your likely to find more challenges up ahead with this issue from other contributing editors who agree with me.--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Marecheth,
Thanks for answering.
One correction first - I have never thought that kohen post-70CE (or at least post middle ages) should be translated "priest." In academic sources kohen, whether it is the kohenim of Dagon, Baal or Yahweh, and whether it is Hebrew, Aramaic or any cognate language is always translated "priest" - my view has not changed, since academic sources haven't changed. And for what its worth academic sources generally use modern versions. Please see wikt:medieval and wikt:saxonic.
So you have the Schottenstein Talmud. Good. How does the Schottenstein Talmud render the phrases in your article titles? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
If that's the case then why did you change Kohen to priest in articles that are relevant to modern times like this one on Petter Chamor [50]? --PiMaster3 talk 03:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi PiMaster3. Because in your page creation you (correctly) put Exodus 31, Exodus 34 and Bekhorot 5 as sources of the practice. Please look at the article as you created it. The only other source was a deadlink to a newspaper. Exodus 31, Exodus 34 and Bekhorot 5 do not relate to "modern times." In ictu oculi (talk) 11:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Just so you know, for the most part any mitzvah that's not related to the Temple is still practiced today. That's some basic knowledge that if you didn't know you probably shouldn't be going around changing articles related to Halachic concepts. The link was not dead when I created the article. The week before I created the article there was a big Petter Chamor ceremony in Hawaii that got a lot of media coverage[51], which is why I decided to create the article initially. --PiMaster3 talk 17:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


awesome link to that Hawaii pidyon!!!--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Ussher[edit]

It is unnecessarily confrontational to claim that Ussher simply contradicts the Bible. To claim that Ussher 'contradicted a direct reading of the bible' is to say that the Bible contradicts itself. The arithmetic at Genesis 11:32;12:4 is quite clear, whereas the other scripture indicates that various children were born after a certain period, which is therefore subject to interpretation. I have restored the more neutral presentation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Find another way, or remove Ussher's opinion on this altogether. The arithmetic is quite clear, and the Bible does not contradict itself. Not everything is told in chronological order in the Bible. Ussher assumed it was and used that to contradict what it says explicitly. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
You evidently hold a theological opinion in this matter that conflicts with Ussher. I have no vested interest in saying that one or other scholars is correct on the matter (as there is no definitive evidence that Abr[ah]am ever existed). The perceived contradiction between Genesis 11:26 and Genesis 11:32;12:4 can be resolved, but you don't seem to agree with that resolution. I would therefore rather leave it out entirely than have you continuously reverting.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
To be frank, I don't really understand why you object to the wording I provided. I did not say that either source is right or wrong. I simply removed an assertion that ignored a plausible interpretation. What is the problem with simply stating the view of a clearly attributed source?--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Question?[edit]

Hi Lisa, First can I ask you again to please ease off on the WP:PA and try WP:AGF. Now I would like, with respect, to ask you the same question I just asked another User. Do you own an English language Tanakh, Mishnah or Talmud? Also - just to point out. >It's you who are attempting to change this article to a non-notable topic. This is absolutely vandalism, and I'll ask you one more time to stop. < Generally the point of an RM is to let the wider Wikipedia community input on page moves. As you can see there is some support from the wider community for using the English term where sources are 2,690x to 1x against a romanization of the Hebrew in the English text. It isn't vandalism to propose a RM, nor is it vandalism to look at Encyclopedia Talmudica, Jewish Encyclopedia, English Mishnah, English Tanakh and so on. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The sources are not 2690:1. This is why it's so hard to assume good faith. You know that's a lie. The sources may be 2690:1 for the verse, but they are not for the rabbinic concept, which is what the article is about. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 13:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Good response. Herein yet another example of In ictu oculi manipulating statistic usage.--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Please no more, no more WP:PA. But okay, you win Lisa.In ictu oculi (talk) 12:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation[edit]

Hello, Lisa. When you moved Herem to a new title and then changed the old title from a redirect into a disambiguation page, you overlooked WP:FIXDABLINKS, which says:

A code of honor for creating disambiguation pages is to fix all resulting mis-directed links.
Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, or to move an existing disambiguation page to that name), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name.

It would be a great help if you would check the other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "Herem" and fix them to take readers to the correct article. Thanks. R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that never even occurred to me. Sorry, I'll do that now. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Bible Chronology[edit]

Lisa, I was the anonymous user on Bible Chronology and have since gotten an account. I was wanting to talk to you about reaching some type of compromise regarding the chart posted on the page. I was thinking that maybe we could work out some way to represent both charts in a manner that explains where both views come from and was wondering if this would be acceptable to you and if you would be willing to work on this with me?Willietell (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


Edmund Burke2 c.jpg Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism.
Simply click here to accept! – Lionel (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


Personal attack at Talk:Chronology of the Bible[edit]

I've already told Cush his post there was out of line, so was yours. You know you shouldn't be attacking other editors, you've been blocked for it in the past. Dougweller (talk) 12:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Meh. I called him a pejorative when he was living up to it. Look at the crap he's posting even now. "Judaism is fringe." "In fact no real-world dating should be applied to anything prior to the biblical Divided Monarchy. It makes Wikipedia appear rather non-serious." He's a stinking bigot. Check out WP:Requests_for_comment/Cush and WP:Requests_for_comment/Cush(second RFC). It's like a form of Tourettes. He can't stop, apparently. Note how many of the examples given in the first RFC preceded my losing my temper and calling him what he is. If I'd called him a dick instead, would that have been okay? Considering that it's an official Wikipedia policy term? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 22:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:3RR[edit]

I suggest that you actually read the section linked to above a bit more thoroughly. While it does say that three reverts is the bright line across which people should not cross, it nowhere states that the specific number of three reverts absolutely needs to be crossed before it could at least theoretically be invoked. John Carter (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Lisa. I saw your comments at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view and responded there. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring on Genesis creation narrative[edit]

I know you've seen this notice before, and more than once, but your behavior on Genesis creation narrative is disruptive, and it needs to stop. If you change the article to say "story", or to remove creation myth, or any similar edits directly against consensus without discussion, I'm going to take this to AN3. You are not entitled to 3 reverts, nor one revert every few days. Either discuss the matter on the talk page and gain consensus for your change, or let it go. Thank you.

I didn't remove creation myth. You shouldn't claim that I did, particularly when it's so easy to check. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

the exodus[edit]

I noticed your comment on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religion#Seven_Point_Counter_Proposal. There is currently a dispute on the exodus that we could use your assistance on. Please take a look, and comment on the talk page (Talk:The_Exodus#What_kind_of_.22Exodus.22_is_this.3F) If you are interested, I could help with the Genesis issue as well.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Sandbox draft of the exodus[edit]

I created a sandbox version of the exodus page at User:Quarkgluonsoup/The Exodus/Draft. Please come over and make what edits you think would improve the page.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The sandbox version of the exodus article has been moved to Talk:The_Exodus/Draft.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Enjoy![edit]

I was going to give you a Filet-O-Fish, but this seemed more appropriate...

Notice[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Proposed topic ban of User:DeknMike. Thank you. Jayjg (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Genesis creation narrative: YHWH or the Lord?[edit]

Lisa, I do understand and sympathise with your point in reverting this, but I want to get readers - especially Christians who have been brought up on English-language bibles - that whatever YHWH may mean, it does not mean "the Lord". I understand that the longer version with vowels offends Jews and I'm quite happy to take the vowels out, but I think that Wikipedia should aim at shaking people out of their preconceptions, not reconfirming them. Perhaps our source text shouldn't be the NIV or other bibles, but a scholarly version that retains YHWH. The Hebrew bible is a Jewish book, appropriated by Christians and given a whole set of new meanings by them. We should aim educate them out of their preconceptions. PiCo (talk) 08:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

PiCo, I hear you. But is it actually that important? In this article, I mean. There are other articles where that's the actual topic. It isn't here. And... is it really the purpose of Wikipedia to educate people out of their preconceptions? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, maybe I'm putting too much importance into it. I'll defer to your wisdom :) (And actually, I DO think people need to be educated out of their preconceptions, but maybe not all the time - that article attacks quite a list of preconceived notions already.)PiCo (talk) 02:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Your accusations of vandalism[edit]

Please take care when accusing others of vandalism on the Great ape personhood article. You are incorrect, humans actually ARE classed as great apes I suggest you read the article Hominidae RegardsTheroadislong (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Lisa, could you explain your objection to this on the talk page, rather than continuing to revert? Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk)


Messianic Judaism and Passover[edit]

Hello, I'm ReformedArsenal. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Passover because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!

You changed the title Messianic Judaism to be changed to Hebrew Christianity... however a simple search reveals that [Hebrew Christian movement|[Hebrew Christianity]] is a different thing. Please exercise more caution. ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Chronology of the Bible[edit]

Shalom. For the life of me I do not understand why this chronology continues to be deleted. The first objection had to due with the use of BCE/CE for the dating rather than BC/AD because an editor considered the chronology to be a "christian" chronology (which it is not) and therefore should not be allowed to use the BCE/CE designation.

For one, the BC/AD designation is a catholic invention, and this is a Chronology from a Hebrew Bible perspective, not a catholic one. Additionally, noboby has ownership of the BCE/CE designation, and anybody who does not want to use the catholic designation is free to use the BCE/CE designation.

So then when I told that editor this explanation in summary in my reposting note, he then changed his position and stated it was an advertisement. This is not an advertisement. I was looking at bible chronology, and found time lines in wikipedia covering the last 6000 years of history to be either lacking, or not fully supported by Scriptural references.

This time line, however, covers the full 6000 years of history, and is backed at every point by a Scripture reference. And because I did not want to take from the presence of the partial time line already listed on the page, I chose instead to add this one as a link for those who would be interested in a full chronology that included both the Tenach and Brit Chadasha.

Now in your post you are accusing me of vandalism. I am sorry, but I just about blew my cork on that one. I have always liked wikipedia, but if it is legitimate like I have always thought it to be, then extremely well researched articles like this one should not be arbitrarily removed or otherwise prevented from being posted on Wikipedia just because somebody has an issue over the BCE/CE designation, or who then resorts to false accusations in follow up in order to keep it off after being reposted.

The point should be, is the chronological account well researched and supported, and likely to be accurate, or more accurate, or an acceptable alternative view to something currently posted. It should not be about whether a Hebrew scholar should have his chronology removed because he finds the BCE/CE designation to be more accurate and reliable than the catholic BC/AD designation.

As for OR. I have no idea what this means. I am just trying to post an excellently researched and verifiable chronology on the page to benefit those who may be interested in a fuller more detailed chronology of history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLevite1347 (talkcontribs) 03:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Four Craftsmen[edit]

Why are you removing stuff that is cited? The Talmud is not a single opinion. Different rabbis have different options.

Also I know my name sound a bit Christian but I am Jewish and can read hebrew.

The Messiah ben Joseph article attracts fundamental christens and thus needs a christen views section.

Also Daniel Boyarin and other are not Christian. Jonney2000 (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is another source for Leper scholar.

http://books.google.com/books?id=XWZMRRx4VQYC&pg=PA234&dq=leper+scholar&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jJH5UvbkIsa2yAHNz4GQCg&ved=0CGUQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=leper%20scholar&f=false

and here as well with a quick goggle search. Although the second one is too Christian. http://books.google.com/books?id=AhMEiGVLTMYC&pg=PA228&dq=leper+scholar&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KZH5UpmlEeW4yAG5oIGoCQ&ved=0CF0Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=leper%20scholar&f=false

Next time put citation needed tags. Jonney2000 (talk) 03:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


I suggest you read: Talmud with Training Wheels: Meet the Evil Urge: Sukkah 51b-53b. It goes over the Four Craftsmen. I know messianic thinking outside of Kabbalistic circles is limited but you may find it interesting.

http://books.google.com/books?id=PfR8UTmJc48C&pg=PA43&dq=Four+Craftsmen+talmud&hl=en&sa=X&ei=x5b5UtDuL8T4yAHb1IG4BQ&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Four%20Craftsmen%20talmud&f=false


I am writing an article about Shem and the righteous priest which you may want to look over when its done.

Righteous Priest[edit]

Hey I finished the article about the Righteous Priest why don’t you look it over. Someone tagged it as needing copy editing.

Cannabis[edit]

Please see what I wrote on the talk page פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hillel[edit]

So far as I can tell, the version I am using is the more accurate translation. Do you have a better source? HGilbert (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry; you were indeed right. I looked up the Hebrew original as well as some more translations, and though the cited source that had been there was not great, the version was indeed more accurate. I've now put in Taylor's translation (unless you know of a better, citable one), as it seems clearer than the Britannica version that had been there before. HGilbert (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing[edit]

Lisa, your recent editing behavior calls for a warning. For example if you try and delete a sourced article like this again or similar then the overall pattern of edits could/should be reviewed. I have noticed that you delete WP:RS sourced content but seem unwilling to yourself use WP:RS sources. This is an encyclopedia, use of reliable sources is paramount. If you cannot access reliable sources then seek access. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Kiss my ass, In Ictu. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 04:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Move review for Anti-Semitism:Requested move[edit]

Hi, I have asked for a move review, see Wikipedia:Move review#Anti-Semitism, pertaining to Anti-Semitism#Requested move. Because you were/are involved in the discussion/s for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page/topic, you might want to participate in the move review. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Removal[edit]

You removed an image here. Your edit summary spoke of original research. I presume that the removal was inadvertent, and suggest you reconsider it and restore the image. Best. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It was inadvertant. I'll restore the images, but not the section I deleted, which was entirely OR. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
with this dif you are now edit warring. would you please self-revert and discuss on Talk, per [[WP:BRD]? Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 10:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

edit war warning[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Shabbos App. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

You are not discussing on Talk but are continuing to edit war. Not good. Jytdog (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

LITERALLY. I can create a 3RR case right now and you will be blocked for edit warring (you are over 3 reverts in 24 hours and will not have a leg to stand on), or you can self-revert and starting talking on Talk. Your choice. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it seemed that way. I was trying to do a number of things simultaneously. Again, my apologies. I restored the original image, and did explain my actions on the talk page. It's not my intention to edit war. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
thank goodness. drama boards and blocking people is a big waste of time. thank you for acting reasonably! Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to deal with this at all. It's an awful lot of effort for such a minor article, and your efforts are appreciated. Please do let me know if I'm screwing up; feedback is the only way we learn. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
you are welcome! btw if it were my Wikipedia the article would not exist since it is all WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:GOSSIP. But i saw that it already failed deletion once and it is not clear to me that a 2nd nomination would fare any better (but it may be worth trying if you want to). But in the meantime, everybody should always behave well! :) Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Shabbos App, you may be blocked from editing. As here. We follow the RSs. Not an editor's OR. This is not the first time I've warned you for deleting RS-supported material. Even on this particular article. As here. Epeefleche (talk) 04:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Shabbos App. You keep on deleting RS-supported material. As here. Based on your POV. And your OR. That is not acceptable. As to this RS -- "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact. This is a statement of fact. Epeefleche (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's go to arbitration. You are clearly trying to turn this into a puff piece for a fringe "app" that doesn't even exist. I don't know why you have such an agenda, but it's clear in your edits. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 19:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that arbitration is the proper forum to address your repeated removals of RS-supported material. Based on your personal POV, and OR. It is disruptive. But if you persist, a block may be more appropriate. I've detailed to you, inter alia, that news reporting from RS newspapers is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact. You remove such material based on your personal point of view. That is not acceptable. You have not responded as to why you believe your personal point of view trumps the statements of RSs with regard to statements of fact. And, for example, I see that just today you also deleted RS-supported text from Popular Mechanics here.Epeefleche (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
And your most recent deletion of RS-supported material, is your last edit, here. The RS clearly supports the statement. You don't like it. But that is your POV. This is your second removal of the material within the past 9 hours. Epeefleche (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Lisa, I am sorry to say this but if the events on the Shabbos App page are examined, you are going to come out looking bad. You have some good points but you need to use the Talk page and discuss the changes you want to make, and your arguments for your changes need to be based on WP:policies and guidelines. This place is not a wild west - policies and guidelines provide a rational basis for discussion and for dispute resolution when discussion fails. The more calm you stay and the closer you hew to policies and guidelines, the more productive you will find your time spent here. and by the way, "arbitration" as we use that term in WP means ArbCom and you do not want to end up there, if your behavior has been bad in any way. ArbCom deals only with serious behavior issues (not content disputes) and they shave very closely; a history of edit warring and strong declarations on Talk (as opposed to calm discussions based on policies and guidelines) generally leads to topic bans and more. So be careful what you wish for - I for one hope you don't end up there.  :) There are many, many smaller steps from way you are now to the end of the road at Arbcom. The process (always starting with a real effort (not a brief yelling match, but a real effort) to work things out on the article talk page!) is described here: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. good luck! Jytdog (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Reminder[edit]

Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors at pages like Talk:Gaza beach explosion (2006). Dekimasuよ! 03:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Moshe Feiglin[edit]

Hi, I see that you removed Category:Israeli criminals from Moshe Feiglin. Care to explain why? To me this looks much like Moshe Levinger, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course it does, Huldra. And your bias is noted. He was convicted for blocking intersections in non-violent protests. The Israeli government of the time called that "sedition". Now... we can go through Wikipedia and label everyone who has ever been convicted of such a "crime" as criminals, but that's going to be kind of stupid. I mean, there's a category called Category:South_African_criminals. Are you going to go put that on Nelson Mandela's page, or should I? After all, he was convicted of the same exact thing in 1962. Only in his case, while he started with non-violent protest, he moved to violent acts of sabotage before being convicted. Interesting juxtaposition, don't you think? Mahatma Ghandi was imprisoned as well. Yet Category:Indian criminals is absent from his page. Given that so many people who have done nothing but protest their government and been imprisoned for it are not labeled as criminals on Wikipedia, I can only detect a biased double standard in your attempt to label Feiglin that way. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 23:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
As is your. Bias that is. About Mandela and Ghandi, (or Carl von Ossietzky, for that matter): were they convicted in a state ruled by a democratically elected government? I don´t think so. Or do you really want to compare an Israeli government, say with an apartheid one? Or a Colonial one? Now, I know many people would absolutely love to do so, but I had not thought you to be one of them? Sorry, but it is common practice to put people convicted of crimes in countries with democratically elected government in Category:xx criminals. Sooooo: do yo want to argue that Israel does not have a democratically elected government? ....or shall we put Category:Israeli criminals in the Moshe Feiglin article? Interesting choice, don't you think? Huldra (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
You show me a link to a Wikipedia policy that makes that distinction first. I'll wait. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 00:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Talk:Kings of Judah. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! - Apologist en (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets![edit]

Wikipedia Happy New Year.png Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!

Hello Lisa, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015.
Happy editing,
JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Transgender list[edit]

Hi, Lisa. I've been thinking about List of books featuring transgender persons, because as much as there were redundant entries on the List of LGBT characters in modern written fiction, I'm seeing more and more that this topic has notability of its own. Complete lists and gay and lesbian books would be endless, but it seems as though a transgender list would be finite; the earliest entry was Bill's New Frock from 1989 and with the exception of Orlando: A Biography (1928) I don't think there are a whole lot of earlier works. Anyway, I came across Transgender publications and I'm cleaning it up, but I think it's a good home for items from the previous list, with a wider scope. — TAnthonyTalk 21:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

So... should I move the entries I just added over to that article? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 00:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
No, leave them where they are and I already added them to the new list. I think in this case the two lists can coexist because of the difference in scope. Thanks for citing your entries by the way ;) — TAnthonyTalk 00:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)