User talk:Meieimatai: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:37, 14 July 2008

Welcome!

Hello, Meieimatai, 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:

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 on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! JFW | T@lk 06:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Mythology ref removal

No problem. I realize that the formatting I had originally used may have been confusing. Thanks for drawing my attention to that. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bold - Revert - Discuss

Please be aware of Wikipedia's Bold - Revert - Discuss editing convention.

When you have made changes (been "bold"), that another editor has objected to (and has "reverted"), the convention is to go slowly, and "discuss" your changes on the talk page, involving a wider circle of editors, until a consensus has been reached.

It is not appropriate to simply steam ahead on the article, re-inserting your changes, and pushing ahead with your POV regardless. This is considered edit-warring, and can get you blocked.

In this case, please can we restore article Torah to broadly how it was before you started, and reach consensus on what we think of your changes on the talk page first, before you continue re-writing the tone and direction of the article. Jheald (talk) 11:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that I have initiated several discussions on the talk page, and I have not reversed your edits wholesale, bit one at a time, and with appropriate edit summary. You can initiate discussion on talk:Torah any time you want--Meieimatai 12:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Mitzvah

You edited the intro to refer to "the seven rabbinic commandments." But Judaism has literally thousands of rabbinic commandments. For this reason, I reverted the edit. Please feel free to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Torah

I reverted your edits. You had altered the introduction to emphasize claims of Christian scholars that the Septuagint is the more authentic Old Testament text. However, a Torah scroll is a Jewish ritual object based on the Masoretic text. Your proposed change is likely not to have consensus and does not appear to reflect a mainstream view of what the term "Torah" is ordinarily understood to mean, as WP:Naming conventions requires. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent comments on Talk:Torah, if you intend to argue to academics that academic scholarship isn't significant, you're probably facing a losing proposition. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 09:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Septuagint

I read your rewriting of the header, and find it rather confusing.

Please note that the header is supposed to be brief, 'introducing' the subject. The information you added may correctly represent a Jewish viewpoint, but it shouldn't appear in the header. It belongs to a section of the article proper, e.g. Creation of the Septuagint.

Kindly rework this, if possible. Thanks.Dampinograaf (talk) 10:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, I find even your revised version much, much less readable. WP:LEAD#Length recommends that a lead should be condensed if possible into no more than four paragraphs. The previous version, it seems to me, managed rather a better overview in that length. Jheald (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kantor dates

The problem with Kantor's dates is they are faith-based dates, derived from taking everything in the Talmud on faith. They should, at the very least, be flagged as such -- eg "Kantor p. xxx, based on Tractate yyy column zzz".

They are not the product of a modern scholarly approach, critically assessing all the available data, from all the available sources, and questioning the reliability of any of them - because that isn't what Kantor is trying to do. Jheald (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also concerned by the phrase "based on Jewish records" which you've used once or twice. What records? And written when? If your source is the Talmud, then say it's the Talmud. Jheald (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I use Kantor as a tertiary source for the Compendium that is is. Since I am largely just starting the editing of relevant articles, I am not up to the level of detail that require the citation of secondary sources, never mind primary sources, but will do in good time.

Just a note that citing Talmud does not include specification of columns, but only place on the page as it does not have paragraphs

Kantor is most certainly a modern scholarly approach, the compilation of sources for Jewish chronology. His research is in fact invaluable as the basis for comparative correlation in textual analysis, since if there were no dates from any sources, comparative analysis would be futile in other sources

Kantor's compilation is not meant to be critically assessed since it is just research data

The data complied by Kantor comes from many written sources, including those that are not part of the Talmuds, so I am not at this stage going to cite these. It is good enough to know that he has cited all of the data in his encyclopaedia. Jewish sources are now considered historic textual records--Meieimatai 23:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

As you say, "Kantor's compilation is not meant to be critically assessed since it is just research data". So it is important, when citing it, to make that clear -- it represents raw dates from primary sources, not a critically assessed dating. Jheald (talk) 11:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dating the Bible

If you want to argue for presenting medieval traditions on equal footing with current best estimates, you'll need to come to Talk:Dating the Bible first. Also, it might be best to go through with the suggested split first, so that we'll have an article dedicated to the Tanakh, and one to the New Testament. Since your interest lies with the Tanakh, it may be easier for everyone to argue the issues involved in a dedicated article. Presenting a rationale for your preferred revision based on contemporary academic literature isn't optional, if you fail to present such an argument on talk but continue to revert to your revision, you are edit-warring. Note that I do support a detailed presentation of medieval Talmudic traditions, in its proper place. I will obviously object to any attempts to conflate medieval traditions with modern scholarship. Your approach to presenting the situation seen here,

"according to the Talmud was undertaken by the "Men of the Great Assembly" by 450 BCE, and have since remained unchanged. However, Modern era scholars are less certain, and believe that the process of canonization of the Tanakh became finalized between[sic] later."

is completely unarguable: "However, Modern era scholars are less certain" is pure editorializing, suggesting that for some reason, medieval Talmudic philologists came to more reliable results than modern scholarship, and implying that we are looking at two estimates on equal footing. The proper way to phrase the same information is:

"Modern scholarship assumes that the redaction of the Tanakh was finalized after the destruction of the temple, in the late 1st century AD. Medieval Talmudic tradition, on the other hand, placed the final redaction by the "Men of the Great Assembly" to before 450 BCE"

To place this phrasing in the lead is still questionable, since the article deals with dating the books of the Bible, not with medieval Talmudic philology. But at least, even if WP:UNDUE, the presentation is correct, and may be an acceptable compromise. Again, this discussion belongs on the article talkpage, which you have neglected to make proper use of. dab (𒁳) 09:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Actually what many people forget is that without rabbinic chronology there wouldn't be much to comment on because Greek and Latin chronologies take a lot of assuming also."

again, let's use the article talkpage. You have heard, I trust, that the Middle Ages are over, and that the Hellenistic chronologies are not taken at face value today, or have been for the past 300 years or so? Your statement does not seem to make any sense in the light of this. Do you agree that Wikipedia should reflect current academic thinking, rather than medieval scholarly mainstream?

"All I'm trying to do is include the data from the cultural context pertinent to the article."

I disagree. You are presenting the "cultural context" as a competition to the actual estimates. I have no objection to a section dedicated to medieval traditions or cultural context. You are conflating actual estmates with the cultural history of the topic. Don't do that. Build a section dedicated to "Talmudic traditions", and I'll gladly help you develop that. dab (𒁳) 10:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you seem so threatened by my edits to include rabbinic chronology?--Meieimatai 10:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

"For the father of a multitude of nations have I made thee"

Can you please explain at Talk:Abraham why you are repeatedly removing the idea, going back to the Talmud, and on the face of it rooted in the plain text itself, that these words are an allusion to the explanation of Abraham's name ? Jheald (talk) 11:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I copy your response to Talk:Abraham, or will you respond there yourself?

And please supply some external sources to support your (extreme minority) view that these words do not apply to Abraham, rather than just your own WP:OR. Jheald (talk) 11:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Torah

Hi, I think that's about 90% of the major structural changes I thought were in order. Sorry if I moved too quickly. And thanks for your corrections to my use of language. You can now resume the theological argument you were having. :) Best, Kaisershatner (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you help, however, you may not be surprised that there is way more to do. I have finished the new outline today, and will work on preliminary expansion tomorrow. I'm going to insert yet another reordered sections version. Please humour me on the weekend since this version is very temporary. BTW, the renaming of a section into academic includes all academics? :-) There is after all a perception that rabbis, because they do not hold university degrees, are not qualified--Meieimatai 14:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The Torah will still be there Monday, so I am prepared to take it slow. And by "academic" I meant studied in an educational/analytic mode rather than a primarily religious one. It would include rabbis. Best, Kaisershatner (talk) 14:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious about this edit " The Septuagint Greek translation of the Torah is also known by Christians as the Pentateuch. "

The Septuagint was the Latin name for a variety of Greek translations, of various parts of the Tanakh and other works. The Pentateuch was the Greek name of the first five books translated into Greek, these being Torah. It seems to me that neither have any place in the article that is supposed to deal with the Hebrew version of the text--Meieimatai 14:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Meieimatai. I may simply be wrong about my usage of Septuagint in this instance. However, pointing out to the uninformed reader that Christians are familiar with a translated version of the Torah as the "Pentateuch" strikes me as directly relevant. I would disagree with you, the article is about the Torah, not merely the Hebrew version of the text, although the Hebrew/original and its role in Judaism should clearly be the major focus of the article. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have been accused of being overly representative of the "orthodox" point of view, however from the orthodox linguistics point of view it is an article dealing with a document in a specific language version. As it happens the Torah, thanks to missionary activity of other religions, can be said to exist in 2,287 languages [1]. I think it would be inappropriate to mention Greek simply because that was the first translation! By the same token it seems to me that mentioning the name by which Torah is know in every language is supposed to be taken care of in the section below with all the interwiki links? Clearly the Greek version is important to Christianity, and I note it is still the official text for the Eastern Orthodox Church. I suspect that the Eastern Orthodox Wikipedia readers my be a tad surprised when they fins that their standard text has been replaced by the Jewish version in Hebrew! Just a thought :-)--Meieimatai 14:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abrahamic religion

This edit summary makes no sense. It's a reference to the book from which the claim originates ... that is on its face a citation. This edit summary similarly makes no sense. Abrahamic religion is one of the classical divisions of religion in academic studies and is most certainly not a term used in political science, nor one used for the principal purpose of political propaganda. I am simply baffled and at a loss for words. Where is the disconnect arising? Vassyana (talk) 03:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abrahamic religion is one of the major religious divisions used in comparative religion. (Synonyms such as Abrahamic faiths are not uncommon.) Your assertion otherwise indicates that you are unfamiliar with the current or historical scholarship on the topic. I do not mean that as an insult, as this is an amateur volunteer project and not everyone can be expected to have academic training in the subjects that interest them. However, I would encourage you to avoid making arguments about scholarship unless you have familiarized yourself with the scholarship in question. This is simply not the place to debate amateur theories and pet ideas.

Regarding the citation, if a citation is lacking, please do not simply remove the citation but leave the text obviously dependent on it. Please leave the citation in place, but mark the item for other editors. For marking items of concern, here is a nice list of cleanup templates: Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. In this instance, {{page number}} or {{Verify source}} would serve the purpose perfectly. Vassyana (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? So there must be lots of Comparative religion courses in universities on Abrahamic religion? And because I'm such a dummy according to you, I looked at the Comparative Religion For Dummies by William P. Lazarus and Mark Sullivan (2008), which mentions it twice! The Complete Idiot's Guide to World Religions, 3rd Edition by Brandon Toropov, and Father Luke Buckles doesn't mention it once! Even a book that has it in the title, MisGod'ed: A Roadmap of Guidance and Misguidance in the Abrahamic Religions, has no chapter of section so titled. The A Magic Still Dwells: Comparative Religion in the Postmodern Age by Kimberley C. Patton, Benjamin C. Ray (eds.) mentions it once. And if you search in Amazon.com for Comparative religions Abrahamic textbook, you will get two texts, The World's Religions: Our Great Wisdom Traditions by Huston Smith which mentions it twice also, while the The First & Final Commandment: A Search for Truth in Revelation Within the Abrahamic Religion by Laurence B. Brown says "MONOTHEISM (Section I) Judaism, Christianity, and Islam constitute the three Abrahamic faiths" (page 24). I suggest you read the rest of that paragraph.

In regard to citing, you will note that I put the author's name in the heading of the paragraph! That clearly says where the opinion came from, and where to find it; in the further reading section. This is the academic standard of writing I'm used to, and is a far better method then plastering templates all over the article. So far as I'm concerned any article that has those templates belongs in the sandbox--Meieimatai 23:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Between this exchange and the Torah talk page, it is plain that you are quite unfamiliar with the academic study of religions. Please take some time and research to familiarize yourself with the basics before even coming close to debating the scholarship of the topic. There are plenty of universities that explicitly teach about the Abrahamic religions as such. A few examples: [2]REL 330 REL 324 It is also a distinction usually taught in the early 100-level classes. A couple of examples: REL 102 REL 101 Here's even an example of an entire university project for the study of Abrahamic religion: [3]. I will not continue to humor you with the full evidence and replies I have provided here and at the Torah talk page. I strongly encourage you to do some research and study. Vassyana (talk) 01:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really need your humour. Different academic departments take a different view of what terms they use; should I do a survey of all English language universities? "Abrahamic" has not replaced monotheism, nor is it mainstream terminology in use in comparative religion study that involves comparing faiths, and not grouping them.

I note the explanation why this term is used by Lubar Institute

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (as well as the Baha'i Faith) comprise a family of religions. A number of terms recognize their historico-theological links: the popular label "Peoples of the Book" underlines the central role scripture plays among their adherents, while scholars of religion sometimes categorize them as the "three major monotheistic faiths." The term "Abrahamic" has advantages over both usages; it focuses on a more specific affinity than does the first and avoids the categorical and interpretive controversies that may arise over the second while emphasizing the paramount place that Abraham holds in all three traditions.

This "paramount place" is far from established, particularly in Christianity--Meieimatai 01:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a scholarly term. Your reply does nothing to negate the fact it is a term that finds common usage in academics and basic undergraduate education. Vassyana (talk) 01:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I direct you to the title of this section which you wrote! Abrahamic religion must, and always does refer to the so-grouped faiths as Abrahamic religions, in all the undergraduate sources you show, and in all the texts I can find. It is a grouping of religions that are compared due to their similarities. It is not a "religion". Before you start lecturing me, make sure you get your terms right. As a term used for grouping, it is an academic term, and that academic term was adopted for political reasons, initially within Islamic publications, and later in the Academia for largely political reasons. I am not about to get into review of literature since 1947, but if you find more than three authoritative academic sources from before 1947 citing this sources as a grouping of these faiths, you can consider yourself lucky. Before you accuse me of ignorance, please consider calmly asking why I had done something rather than attacking me for lack of education--Meieimatai 02:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This is way off-base. You are adding the claim to the article. It is not up to me to prove the claim is inappropriate. It is up to you to justify your claim with on-topic reputable sources. Based on my understanding and knowledge of the topic, I expressed deep reservations. I ceased reverting to tag the issues of concern and discuss them. Please do not remove the tags until the matter is discussed to resolution. Vassyana (talk) 09:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least read the Wikipedia articles--Meieimatai 10:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I have. I am also familiar with post-modernism from my studies in philosophy. I have seen nothing in my studies that indicates "Abrahamic religion" is a post-modern term. Additionally, even if it seemed appropriate, we don't make that claim unless a reliable source explicitly does so for us. Vassyana (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I can't find the origin of the term elsewhere, so it seems that the term is an invention that transferred the previous meaning of Abrahamic Covenant to the wider application of claimed affiliation to Abraham, although not the Covenant. This is why the article was flagged for deletion to start with. The term is meaningless--Meieimatai 01:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Just because you cannot find sources detailing the origin of the phrase in scholarship does not mean the term is meaningless. Since it is part of both introductory college-level religious studies classes, a focal point of upper-level university coursework and a broadly written about topic in reliable sources, it's not been held as a meaningless by expert scholarship. We follow reliable sources, not the opinions of uninformed editors. Vassyana (talk) 02:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Veiled insults don't particularly affect me. If the term is used in "reliable sources" by expert scholarship, it ought to be easily definable, right?--Meieimatai 06:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

This is really getting quite ridiculous. There's no dispute over its definition, and it is easily defined regardless. Vassyana (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whats ridiculous about it is that the very definable and common "Abrahamic Covenenant" for which I can find lots of citations, has been transformed into Abrahamic religions, for which I can't find any citations as a term. Regardless of the fact that it means different things to all three (four) members of the group, it is used rather liberally by the expert scholarship as a turn of phrase--Meieimatai 21:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

@@ Line 134: / Line 134: @@
 :::::Veiled insults don't particularly affect me. If the term is used in "reliable sources" by expert scholarship, it ought to be easily definable, right?--Meieimatai 06:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 ::::::This is really getting quite ridiculous. There's no dispute over its definition, and it is easily defined regardless. [[User:Vassyana|Vassyana]] ([[User talk:Vassyana|talk]]) 15:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
+:::::::Whats ridiculous about it is that the very definable and common "Abrahamic Covenenant" for which I can find lots of citations, has been transformed into Abrahamic religions, for which I can't find any citations as a term. Regardless of the fact that it means different things to all three (four) members of the group, it is used rather liberally by the expert scholarship as [[Idiom|a turn of phrase]]--Meieimatai 21:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)