User talk:Bikinibomb

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, Bikinibomb, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -- Craigtalbert 14:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Malayalee?

I'm guessing from the image on your user page that you are malayalee?VarunRajendran (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

External links / See also sections

Hi. I reverted your edit to Drummer. Please note that when an article contains a "see also" section, that it should be closer to the bottom of the page in relation to the "external links" section. You are correct that external links should be at the bottom, however there is an exception when there is a See Also section. See Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Standard appendices and descriptions for more information about this, or you can visit my talk page and leave any further questions. Thank You, Rjd0060 23:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Replied here -Bikinibomb 02:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't more clear before. That link doesn't say that they should be one way or another, it does give an example, and just says that there are other options. I just wanted to let you know, in case you have any problems with other people reverting your edits, that there is no "set in stone" guideline for this. There are plenty of suggestions about what way these sections should be ordered, but there is no "rule". Feel free to undo my revert there if you wish. I, personally, think that see also sections should be below external links, as external links are typically links specifically about the article. Everybody has a different opinion though. - Rjd0060 03:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: 12-Step Criticism

I definitely sympathize with what you're your point, and it is difficult judgment call. On second thought I might have been being a little too pedantic. The section on confidentiality is probably relevant in the twelve-step group article, as physicians might refer people to many different groups for different reasons - e.g. OA, EA, etc. But, the section on court mandated attendance should probably stay in the AA article. There's also the issue of how different fellowships handle court-mandated attendees, I don't know if practices differ in AA/NA/CA/CMA/MA, and if they do how they do. You might know more about this than I do.

Also, I'd thank you for all of the work you've done on the AA article. I know it can be difficult with the anonymous editors tendencies to be uncooperative. I get burned out on it very quickly. -- Craigtalbert 19:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Court mandated attendance, in general I agree with you, it's basically an issue with the courts. But you might find other editors will try to keep it in the article as it supports the POV that twelve-step groups are "religious organizations," as many judges have ruled that way. Additionally, it may be worth having in the article to demonstrate an example of how the Tenth Tradition works e.g. that AA acknowledges the practices does occur, but does not support or endorse it. It might just be best to leave it where it is, but I don't have a strong opinion on the topic. -- Craigtalbert 10:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Good to see you back. Don't let the bastards get you down. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Purgatory

Thanks for helping out at Purgatory-- your points were really really interesting.

Would you care to weigh in on the question of the day? All and all, was the new version a step forward from the old version, or a step backward?

I'm of course biased, since I wrote the new version. ---- Alecmconroy (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

AA Request for Comment

I have removed your comments on this section temporarily. I have explained why below. I will return them when we get some answers. 82.0.206.215 (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't, a lot of it is conjecture, opinion, and plain BS. After a quick read I stopped at pp101-102 where it insisted the stories AA members tell are actually "sermons." Hell I tell the same story to AAs that I tell my psychiatrist, maybe the author considers sharing with a psychiatrist preaching too? Dunno. And then it says "When speaking of themselves in childhood, AA members always describe themselves, with all sincerity, as “bad.”" Crap, I was a pretty good kid, I don't say that at all about myself. So yeah, the book is filled with a lot of lies. Use it if you want but be prepared for possible debate. -Bikinibomb (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh now I see it was already used for the cult criticism here. I don't have a problem with what is stated there. But other parts of the book, like I said, are pretty bad. -Bikinibomb (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bikini, I have specifically left this section (my question) as neutral as possible, so that whoever decides to comment can do so as impartially as possible. I respect your opinion and welcome your contributions, but I am going to temporarily remove your comments to see if the info contained within can be used as a source at all. Personally, I will be very selective about the info I use, if it is allowed. A lot of the book is the opinion of the authors (probably not appropriate for this article, and bound to cause heated debate and edit wars), but there are several studies that are cited in several of the books and I simply don't have the time to source the originals.

With this in mind, I am going to remove your comments and mine until someone with no previous stated interest in the article has commented. I'd be grateful if you would respect this? I will replace all comments afterwards. 82.0.206.215 (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Just wanted to say that it's a pleasure to work with you :-) Tim (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

And I second that! Egfrank (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD on Glossary

You forgot to add your vote: i.e. Keep, Delete, etc. like this:

• MyVote. I think... ~~~~.

Best, Egfrank (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Great

My first edit war. Just what we all need... Tim (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

JCM Glossary up for AfD

Hope you are enjoying your weekend. Apparently the Jewish/Christian/Muslim glossary has also been nominated for deletion. Just to let you know. Egfrank (talk) 12:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Request, be briefer in your AfD comments

Hi Bikinibomb: 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 views. 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 consise 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) 12:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've commented on IZAK's talkpage. DGG (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Big book 2nd edition.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Big book 2nd edition.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Biki , it's Pilot

Please stop by the article Bible talk page and join in the discussion ( # 34 , The Pendulim Swings ) ......... I had gone back by the discussions to see what was new and discovered that a particular Carl had taken it upon himself to delete prior work by others in the articles intro. ......... one of which I took great pains to incorperate ( the 4 sentences I added relating to testament and covenant ....... plus other valuable info. added by others prior which was the other Christian terms for Bible, Holy Bible, Scriptures, Word of God ....... I am not asking you too agree with me , only requesting your input into the edit war and discussion I am trying to have with Carl on this matter tonight ........... thanks in advance ......... Pilotwingz (talk) 07:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Avruchtalk 01:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You're engaged in an edit-war over content dispute, not vandalism. Continuous reverts will get both of you blocked, edit-warring is not part of the dispute resolution process. As I noted at whichever of the talk pages was current at the time, I've requested full protection for this article (whichever version happens to be around when the request is reviewed). Avruchtalk 02:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Naughty!

I saw that! :-P Let's try to solve this situation amicably. Getting yourself blocked wouldn't be so nice in the long run, as there's plenty of fun stuff to do on wikipedia, after all. So if you'd care to undo your page move? That would be a good idea --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Clever Bikini. I do agree with Kim, though. Lisa's successfully turned it into a Messianic Judaism page. Messianic Judaism = Lisa in this instance.Tim (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I did nothing of the sort. Jossi suggested that we change the glossary to a list, so I did that. Then Jossi started adding in the first paragraph of each article. I didn't think it resulted in a particularly useful article, but it was certainly better than the interfaith playground that Bikinibomb and Tim had created. Tim has repeatedly accused me of promoting MJ, when he's the one with the huge Christian chip on his shoulder. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That was not my statement. I also don't think that the move is particularly clever or original (I've seen rather better and more evil things... I guess I've been spoiled :-) ). I'd rather prefer to resolve the situation in some manner. Note that typically it's ok to attack the edits, but it is less ok to attack the editor, so this particular page move has to be undone. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you're lucky, Tim helped you out already. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Kim -- it was justified, unfortunately. Lisa has been a vandal the whole time, continuing the vandalism during an afd she created. It's like Pete Rose shouting to the world that he's voted against his team and then thumbing his nose at the cameras as he put all the worst players on the field. We've tried and tried to resolve this, but Lisa has been chasing Jewish and Christian editors away, and now she's chased a Muslim and Jewish editor away. The only people left are the Messianics, among whom Lisa is an unwitting promoter.Tim (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, vandalism does not justify vandalism, unfortunately. In other news, vandalism is a fairly serious accusation, can you provide diffs for this vandalism? (or link to a post where you already posted them). Also: which editors do you identify as Messianic? --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have left it, made me laugh anyway. I know all the ideals about criticism; there are ideals about censorship and POV pushing too. I know Lisa from way back, she's a dedicated antimissionary and that's her purpose in this article, and to destroy it so it gets deleted, everyone knows it, so I have no problem with chastising her and those who are catering to her and pretending not to know her motives, ideals be damned. Especially if they are doing it for the same reason. But I'm done there, you guys can have at it. -Bikinibomb (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Why would an antimissionary want to destroy your article, Bikinibomb? -LisaLiel (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I pretend not to know anyone's ideals, because that's a guideline. :-) It's a bit tricky to understand why, but with a bit of experience, you typically find that guidelines such as this one grind slow but exceedingly fine ;-) If you are right, then Lisa will end up caught in her own web. Do you think you can be patient enough to err... grind things through? --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC) I don't know Lisa, so I can't know what the outcome will be beforehand, but I do know how to find out in the long term.

Kim -- the Messianics are gone too. I tried to bring some more in so there would be fair representation, but they couldn't stomach Lisa either. As for the vandalism -- just scroll through the changes last night.Tim (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Not "fair representation". Advertisement. Agenda pushing. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm specifically looking for the edits that you personally identify as vandalism (and why you consider them vandalism). --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

In a nutshell it all started when Lisa removed my Jewish sources from aish.com and torah.org that figs symbolize something in Judaism, and put her own unsourced POV saying that figs don't symbolize anything in Judaism, apparently because figs are a big deal in Christian symbolism and she and other Jews have a pattern of denying similar concepts in Judaism, like hell, to make Judaism seem entirely different from Christianity even when it's not. It's a common antimissionary practice.

That's not what the history shows:

An anonymous person did this, to which I responded with this. Another anonymous person (I suspect that both anonymous people were Bikinibomb) did this. As I'm sure you realize, putting quotes from Mark into the Jewish column is highly inappropriate. Bikinibomb then did this, adding Jewish sources which referred to an obscure symbolism for figs (though not for fig trees), and left the blatantly Christian material. I responded with this. Yes, I removed the whole thing, rather than just the Christian part, because even the sources that Bikinibomb put in had nothing to do with fig trees.

Bikinibomb then did this, changing the name of the row from "The Fig Tree" to "figs". A more blatant example of gaming the system would be hard to find. So I did this. Note that I did not remove Bikinibomb's sources, despite the fact that they had nothing to do with fig trees. But despite that, he reverted my edit, with the comment "vandislm, rmv sourced info". The only "sourced info" I had removed was Christian material that was inappropriate in the Jewish column. This went back and forth a couple of times before Bikinibomb finally stopped.

The history is extremely clear. Bikinibomb is lying to you about what actually happened, but he can't change the history that's preserved in Wikipedia. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

So anyway she kept removing my edits putting her own views there, that's considered vandalism in any other article, and in any other article I revert freely, often many times any a day, with no 3R warnings until now. I mean WTF does it mean that any editor can remove unsourced info, if it doesn't apply to that? So yeah, right at the moment I don't have much respect for that AfD or for other editors involved who should be taking action to correct her, not against the article. -Bikinibomb (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah! The reason I was asking for diffs is that the way you describe it makes it sound like she was edit warring, as opposed to straight vandalism.

Sure, it seems like a fine line, especially since both are disruptive, right? The difference is that it turns out that often if people are edit warring (or said to be), you can often reason with them, and find a workable solution.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC) I haven't seen any diffs yet, so I can't positively identify the behaviour, or if it violates policy at all at this point. Also, no promises 'till I actually get a chance to talk with Lisa, of course. :-)

Here is a diff: Diff

Well there was no reasoning. It's like if I had sourced statements in Bass drum saying it is loud and boomy, and she kept changing it to say it makes no sound at all, no one would question that it is vandalism. Maybe because it's a religious thing there's a mindset that everything is a matter of interpretation and dispute. Well, it's not, it's the same deal as it is in all other articles, either you have sourced statements or you don't, and if you don't, anyone can remove them. And if you replace sourced statements with your own unsourced POV especially after you've been warned not to do it, that's considered vandalism anywhere else.

So either there is some ignorance about the rules here, or there's a gang mentality enforcing POV and supporting such vandalism because they agree with it. -Bikinibomb (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll provisionally agree with the "ignorance about the rules here" statement , I think, until I have further information. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC) though we possibly may yet need to sort out some of the who, when, and where together.

Bikinibomb, what you did there was inexcusable. Moving a mainspace article to such a name? I have deleted it now, but please read WP:POINT and cool it, would you? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Just talked with Jossi. I guess he noticed <guilty look>. I explained that we had already solved that particular issue and had moved on. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC) I think we missed the redirect in mainspace though, so I'd like to thank Jossi for catching that and deleting it for us! :-)

Quality stuff...

<<< Bikinibomb: it is not just about sources ... WP:V is only one of our core content policies. The others are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant. The concept was about the fig tree, Lisa replaced my sourced statements about it with her own unsourced POV that the fig tree is not symbolic at all to Jews, no one has corrected her for replacing valid sourced info with OR but instead attacked the article, that's how it all started this time, that's it.

The "charoses" should be made from fruits that were used as metaphors for the Jewish people, for example, figs, as [the Song of Songs 2:13] states: "The fig tree has blossomed forth with tiny figs"; Rabbi Lobel, torah.org -Bikinibomb (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Jossi -- the only way to make it NPOV is to put the different conotations side by side. Blending them together is the violation, not the solution.Tim (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I just checked the provided diff, and read the sources. The pure text of it doesn't suggest a bad faith edit in itself, though it may not have been an improvement to the article. I'll ask Lisa about it. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It most certainly was not a bad faith edit. On the contrary, Bikinibomb's removal of it, and his trick of changing the line from "The Fig Tree" to "Figs", on the other hand, cannot be seen as anything other than gaming the system. Both Bikinibomb and Tim have libeled me up one side and down the other. They have accused me of vandalism, when I have done nothing of the sort. They have accused me of having Jossi as a sockpuppet, which is not just libelous, but stupid. And Tim has accused me of supporting the Messianic sect, which is... well, there aren't any words to describe how lame that is. Even Bikinibomb knows better than to make such a twisted accusation. Please look at the actual diffs, which I've provided for you. Then see who is showing good faith here and who is not. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to collect all the diffs. Seen them, and replied on my user talk page. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Uncivil remarks

Bikinibomb, these posts are uncivil: [1], [2]. Please be more cautious with your remarks. I recommend that you confine your comments to the editorial contents of the article and refrain from commenting on the other contributors. Dreadstar † 06:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Dreadstar -- vandalism, strongarming, and then AfDing with NO discussion or consensus is being uncivil. Bikini's work gets assaulted -- all our work gets assaulted -- and you caution Bikini for being uncivil? That's... (to quote Seinfeld) "bizarro world."Tim (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of your accusations and I'll be more than happy to look into them. Dreadstar † 21:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

????

Are you really wasting our time?

This whole thing is a joke and that's the kind of respect it deserves, my interest in real participation with this issue is long gone. I'm just here for some cheap laughs before I move along. -Bikinibomb (talk) 05:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No, you and similar others have wasted mine, Tim's, Pilot's, and that of other sincere editors with your concessions to one out of control Wikipedian who creates disturbances with vandalism in order to create an atmosphere of controversy in which to ask for deletion of an article that is personally disturbing to her religious beliefs. This type of censorship gets the respect it deserves from me, a big fat nothing. -Bikinibomb (talk) 06:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll second that. Asking someone to be civil while you destroy months of cooperative effort is like telling a person to stop screaming while you're beating their head into the concrete. Calling it "a joke" is being civil. Jossi, if it isn't vandalism, why is it that less than 24 hours after your "improvements" the page now has near unanimous calls for deletion, even from the original editors? Think about it.Tim (talk) 13:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you make sense of this?

They returned to the differentiation of the terms. The format is different, but not the logical structure. They didn't like NPOV before. Why are they returning to it?Tim (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I was never against noting that there is a different use of terms by Jews and by Christians. I objected to (a) muddying the waters with a Messianic column and (b) trying to avoid the normal editorial process by taking the definitions of these terms out of their articles and into this page.

The "logical structure", as you put it, is radically and fundamentally different from what you did. Why do you assume that just because I disagreed with most of what you were doing, I had to disagree with all of it? As Jossi pointed out, if you'd been willing to calm down for a moment, you might have realized that we didn't disagree about as much as you thought. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Finally, if you really think that all of the work you did on that article has been wasted, I suggest that you take it (it's still there, in history), and apply each bit to the appropriate articles, and allow the editorial process to work the way it's supposed to. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No, Lisa. It didn't work the way it was supposed to. It was a huge waste of time. Your present structure no longer violates NPOV. It is inferior to the previous structure, and vastly so -- but it no longer violates NPOV like it did yesterday. The way something is supposed to work is discussion, not AfD attacks. Had you done this properly you wouldn't have destroyed the relevance. What you have now is fluff. Not in violation. But merely irrelevant.Tim (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean that it doesn't achieve the goals you were hoping to achieve with the table. Well, I can agree with that. It doesn't. But since those goals were inappropriate for Wikipedia in the first place, and were precisely what I was so opposed to, I think that's okay. Ultimately, the second AfD went overwhelmingly against your table. So unless you think that everyone who voted in that AfD is my sockpuppet, maybe it's time to relax and just accept that you tried something and it didn't fly. And move on. -LisaLiel (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Might be time to move on

I'm cleaning up some loose ends and will probably drop out of Wikipedia entirely. I'd suggest, before you get burned too bad, to consider other subjects on Wikipedia, or at least other subjects on that page. There's an enlistment going on. Regardless of your source methodology, enlistment is a tactic that makes you look like the one violating the enlisted "consensus."

Also, I'd like to point out that it's really difficult to prove a negative. I cautioned one editor I no longer name against making blanket statements such as "this doesn't exist at all." The reason for that caution is simple -- you can't sustain it. All someone has to do is find the exception.

But finding an exception does not make something normative. Do figs mean something somewhere to some Jews? Well, you've found them. But even the citations you gave weren't that compelling and you said yourself that it wasn't that important.

Think of the new format. This is not the same page it was three days ago. Last week it was important to fill every cell with every POV and document it. Now it's not that important. This is not a comparison chart as a term guide for editors. It's a list crammed together on the same page only as a residue of the previous table. The Trinity is a Christian concept. Although Jews have a view of the Trinity it no longer needs to be stated on that page. Shittuf is a Jewish concept. The comparison of the two is no longer necessary on that page. This is a different format. Figs are a minor symbol in Christianity, discussed mostly by dispensationalists. It's even more minor in Judaism. I wouldn't have included them at all for the simple reason that they lack notoriety in both religions. But in the current format the page only needs to refer to the religion that uses it the most.

Thus, "Figs", if listed at all, no longer needs a Jewish take.

I know you may be sticking to it because of methodology. Quite frankly, I agree. Sources must be found. But how exactly does one find a source that says "I'm wasting my time talking about something in order to tell you it's not that important." Most sources don't do that. Is your methodology best? Absolutely. Is it flawless? Nothing is. But in this case I'd side step the methodology issue and look at what the page now is. If it no longer needs a Jewish conotation for "Chrstian," then it certainly no longer needs a Jewish conotation for "Figs."

Find a better battle before you burn yourself out.

Take my word for it -- burn out is a pain in the tuchas.Tim (talk) 14:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

There's also an enlistment of Muslims going on at Muhammed to have pictures of the prophet removed. Some editors want to give up and just remove them. But you know, I don't care much for gang mentality and bully tactics. I'm not going to say much more about it there but I won't accept any consensus unless it's made up of more people from other religions, there has been too much bias and monkey business in that article now to accept anything less. -Bikinibomb (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If someone could find just a general statement from a decent source (aish, haaretz, etc.) saying that most practicing religious Jews (not secular or atheist) do not have views about symbolism from the Tanach -- it doesn't have to be about figs -- that would go a long way in making all these claims just more than OR.

If this view is demanded, I'm not just going to leave the Jewish view out, I'm going to state something like, most Jews don't have a view of such symbolism even though it is in the Tanach. Which sends the message that Jews don't think concepts in their own religious texts are important, or that they don't believe them. I don't think it sounds very good for Jews, but that's the alternative. -Bikinibomb (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

FIGS

I am responding to you because I still want to assume good faith on your part. I am doing so here because I think it is unconstructive to take up more space on the article talk page. You make a general point, which is that views must be backed up by sources. I agree. I will not provide sources now, because I do not have my library handy; I ask you to accept in good faith that I could find sources - the point is, concerning this principle I do agree with you. Concerning figs specifically I have said that you are not complying with NPOV because you take quotes out of context to support views that do not meet the standard of notability. here is what I mean. Yes, most Jews think that the tree of knowledge of good and evil was a fig tree, although this is claimed as an opinion, not certain knowledge. But this does not make figs important symbols because this fact has not changed Jewish beliefs or practices in any way - in other words, there is no rabbinic ruling that goes, "Because figs were the fruit of the tree of knowledge, Jews must/should/could do x y or z with figs." It is true that Jeremiah talks about figs metaphorically. But again, his account of the fig tree has had no impact on Jewish belief or practice. There is a book, we conside it sacred, in it it says something about figs. This does not surprise us because there were many fig trees in Isael - why wouldn't he use figs as a metaphor for something? There are lots of rocks in Israel too and you know what, we say God is our rock ... we use the word rock metaphorically because it inhabits our world and serves as a good metaphor. But this does not mean that rocks have some special significance in judaism. When we use rock as a metaphor for God, the important concept is God, not 'the rock. When Jeremiah writes of figs, the point is he is saying smething about israel, not figs. In short, these are just rhetorical devices used to make points about something else and it is the "something else" that is important, not the rhetorical devices. Same with the quote about figs and charoseth. it is charoseth that is important, not the figs. Figs are just one of several ingredients that can be used in charoseth; their importance hinges on their availability for use in charoseth, but it is the charoseth itself, not the figs, that is the point. in short, in all these cases your interpretation puts the cart before the horse.

Please do not respond to me. If you now understand and agree with me, swell, but you don't have to tell me. If you do not, then your position is unchanged, and therefore I alrady know it. moreover, no matter what reasons you give for not changing your mind, you will not change mind. So spare yourself the trouble, again, you do not need to respond to me.

I know at this point I have nothing more to say. I felt this before, but you recently responded to a comment of mine by asking me to clarify what I said about misinterpreting the quotes out of context. Since you aksed the question, I felt I owed you the answer. If it doesn't satisfy you, well, that's life. No need to keep going in circles about it. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There was a simple question to be answered: do Jews view figs as having spiritual symbolism? Lisa said absolutely not, the rest of you never once corrected her, but proceeded to argue that they didn't have enough of a view about it. Now here you say, Yes, most Jews think that the tree of knowledge of good and evil was a fig tree.

And then you wonder why I'm not assuming good faith. If most Jews view figs as having symbolism, and I had sources for it, did you ever correct Lisa directly, and what was all the bitching about including it? Answer that, if you want. Or not. I'm posting this in Talk so we are clear. -Bikinibomb (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Just let it go, I'm going to add what I want and we can play revert wars or whatever, sick of BSing about this POV nonsense. -Bikinibomb (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not care what Lisa said. I wrote, that figs do not have any special notable significance for Jews, and I stand by that. You still seem to think that the tree of knowledge thing means Jews see figs as having spiritual symbolism. They do not. I do not think you will understand what I am about to say, but I think that Jews use rhetorical devices including what you call symbols in ways that are very different from Christians, secular Westerners, and I have no idea but maybe even Muslims. This idea is developed at length in Daniel Boyarin's book, A Radical Jew. But to make it simple all I can od is repeat what i wrote above, which, based on your comment, I was write to suspect you would not understand: your interpretation of Jewish accounts of things like figs routinely puts the cart before the horse. In every example you provide, figs play some role in something else. You think this makes the fig important. On the contrary, it is the something else (in each instance0 that is important. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's what the sources say:

• Figs represent Torah
• Figs represent Jews
• Good figs represent Jews obedient to God
• Bad figs represent disobedient Jews
• Sitting under a fig tree represents peace and security

So if all these Jews say these things, when the question is asked, do Jews see the fig as symbolizing anything, how do you come to the conclusion that it is not a notable view? Minding that, no one ever said the fig was more important than the object it represents, or that it is a common symbol like the Star of David, those are strawmen. The only question presented was, do Jews see figs as symbolic of anything? So any answer you give is going to be notable since that is the question asked. You seem to be trying another route comparing figs to say, Moses, then saying, "well figs aren't notable in Jewish thought compared to Moses" and trying to use that as a reason for excluding information. Heck we could do that with anything, just compare it to something bigger and better then say nah, it doesn't need to go in. Macs aren't as notable as PCs, let's delete the Mac articles. Etc.

So...when the topic is symbolism, and in this case symbolism of figs, then yes, the Jewish view is notable to that topic. Not to some other topic -- weren't you just complaining that the Jesus article shouldn't be an issue to the Mohammed article? But yet you seem to be pulling in unrelated topics here then using them to compare the the topic at hand. Anyway, that's about where it stands, a lot of different arguments but I don't really buy any of them. I see no valid reason not to include sourced views on the topic, that's about it. -Bikinibomb (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

One view is that it was a fig tree. One view is that it was a grape vine. There are other views as well. It isn't true that "most Jews think it was a fig tree". -LisaLiel (talk) 02:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Figs represent the Torah. So does water. So does fire. So does light. So do any number of things. Judaism is so replete with symbolism that it's kind of silly to list every single thing that is symbolic of other things. It'd take you less time to list the things that aren't symbolic of anything (just about nothing, actually).

You're fixated on figs because they mean something big in Christianity. Well, they don't mean anything big in Judaism, sorry to tell you. -LisaLiel (talk) 03:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, guys -- figs aren't important in EITHER religion. The dispensationalists make something of it, but no one else in Christianity cares all that much. And even the dispensationalists don't make a big deal. This is / was a glossary, anyway, wasn't it? How do you USE "fig" in a sentence? Now, for that matter... since it isn't important in either religion, and since it's not really a term per se, I'd exclude it along with the other symbols. But it isn't important enough to keep out either. What I'm saying is this: a reader won't miss it if it's not there, and will ignore it if it's there. BB's found some sources. If it's that important, maybe we should pick a different battle. We really don't HAVE any sources in the reverse because most Jews don't care enough about them to write a source for us to use. So, let BB use the source. Is it helpful? Not really in this case. But does it hurt? It's not important enough to do either. And BB's too good a citation hound for us to be clogging everything up here. Make a decision about the applicability of symbols in a glossary and move on, please.Tim (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If they have articles we can include them too. It doesn't matter what the issue is -- could be MJ, could be hell, could be figs -- the problem is you and some others want OR to outweigh sourced info. I guess you can't help yourselves, you think articles with Jewish things belong to you and you should be able to dictate what goes in, just like the Muslims do with Muhammed. There's no compromising here, so I'm pretty much close to turning off the earpiece and just going forth with any edits I want to do like I do with any other article with little problem, people are usually happy with my contributions. You're an admitted antimissionary and a lot of others there are probably that too but don't want to say, so it's cool. You can do your work and I'll just edit as I please and we can play revert wars and all that. No big deal. -Bikinibomb (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You think that because within a 48 hr. period editors have not provided verifiable sources, that there are no verifiable sources, and that the editors in question have not studied the verifiable sources. This is a violation of WP:AGF. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources for what, saying that there is no notable Jewish view of figs as symbols? All I've seen are OR claims. Even HG said it should be included. So what is your real problem? -Bikinibomb (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see what's going on. When you (Slrubenstein | Talk 15:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)) went around just to Jewish editors asking for consensus, for User talk:Jayjg you said...

Please respond to Bikinibomb's comments about figs and Judaism (and, at this point, about Shirahadasha and other Jewish editors active on the page) here? It applies to the article for which the link provided is the talk page, i.e. this. Someone wanted to add "fig" or "fig tree" to the glossary, claiming that it is a notable and important symbol for Christians. Someone wanted to add that it is a notable and important symbol for Jews. Perhaps you should read the discussion and draw your own conclusions.

First of all, you kind of pumped up the original question of, do figs have any symbolism for Jews? to are they a notable and important symbol for Jews? thereby creating a strawman which to argue against. It's like asking is Teth a notable and important symbol for Jews? rather than asking is Teth symbolic to Jews as the number 9?. Then you say...

Bikinibomb by the way has stated that he is not Jewish.

So instead of just saying I'm Muslim, maybe he thought I'm Christian trying to push that Christian belief?

In the past 24 hours several Jewish editors have responded but he persists in his claims.

Probably because they came in with the notion that it wanted to be said that figs were a very important symbol in Judaism and argued against that strawman, to which I had to mostly correct them as to what the issue is. Now I see why.

My hope is that you can provide for him a more compelling argument or proof, but minimally, I think we need to show that there is a consensus among Jewish editors that his claims about Jewish beliefs are wrong.

So all I've been shown now is that the consensus was based on a misrepresentation about which they may have had their minds made up before they even came in because that is what you asked for. So I think your plan with Lisa to label me a troll backfired since anyone put in my position probably would have called you a lot worse. In other words, if I don't shut up to all of your superior religious authority, I'm a troll. I guess Jossi was also in on it too waiting to slap that archive box around it.

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) User_talk:LisaLiel

And all this time I thought good sourced information was important at Wikipedia. Pretty sad. -Bikinibomb (talk) 08:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

NPA

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Comments like this are considered personal attacks. Dreadstar † 20:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Calm down, cowboy. This whole thing is almost over. The link you gave was pretty tame compared to what's been said on all sides here (including myself). Everyone is convinced of bad faith. I've provided two escape hatches for a quickie divorce and hopefully everyone will bail out so they can get back to constructive editing. But, uh, warning BB is a bit... well... surreal.

As I said, there's a good chance everyone will just walk away from the trouble in a short spell. I sure hope so. There's some good knowledge on all sides that's wasting it's time in combat. And, uh, BB isn't a bad guy here. He's followed better methodology than all of us (including myself). And he's shown FAR more restraint than the tactics and terms on all sides. Which is worse, calling someone a troll or using admin authority in an edit war? This page was a seething pot but intact before the admin came. Now it keeps spiraling out of hand. I won't blame the side pounding on BB if you don't blame him for saying "no fair" when it happens. I'm glad I'm not a Muslim on a Jewish editorial collective. It's hard enough being a Jewish convert in the group.Tim (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)