User talk:Lisa
Editing concerns
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 which gains a consensus among editors. --Kukini hablame aqui 19:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- My apologies. I didn't know how to report him, so I thought that taking care of his mess would be helpful. I'll stop, since his vandalism has been noticed by you and others. LisaLiel 19:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia!!!
|
Re: New Covenant reversion
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Thank you for the Jokes you left on my talk page. Jon513 (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Judaism and Christianity
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)
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 01:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the article needs help, but edit-warring against consensus of involved editors (and moving the article without discussing it first) is not going to solve a content dispute. If I remember correctly, I voted to delete this article - but whether it stays or goes, edit warring against 3RR is unacceptable. Additionally, you should be aware if you are not already that administrators have no greater weight in content issues than anyone else. Avruchtalk 02:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
you and Tim
- 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 (talk • contribs)
Bible and history
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
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
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 (talk • contribs) 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
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)
Warnings
Older warnings may have been deleted, but are still visible in the page history.
[Admin: block | unblock / Info: contribs | page moves | block log | block list]
March 2008
- You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:2008 Republican presidential primaries delegate counts. 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. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. If a consensus of editors agree with your position on the talk page, I will go along with the decision. If a consensus agrees with my argument, I ask you go along with that. I'm not the only editor who reverted your edits and whose edits you have reverted. Please allow enough time for the other editors to weigh in on the talk page.--Bark (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Ron Paul
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Please can you help expand this article. ephix (talk) 10:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Invitation
.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) |
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
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
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
- Reimers: God masculine in Tanakh
- Kaplan: Jewish use of masculine pronouns implies nothing
- "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
- Thanks for contacting me. I've replied at WT:JEW#Shituf Page. Good luck. HG | Talk 04:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Dr. Berger
Sent
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
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
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
Sent
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
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
|
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.
|
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
Alastair
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
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)
WikiProject Judaism Newsletter
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||
.jpg)
This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list.
- Newsletter delivery by xenobot 02:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
3RR warning
Lisa, you have already exceeded the 3RR limit and been given two warnings.
If you revert again I will report you.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -->
Do they HAVE a 7RR warning?
Testing...
But if that doesn't work...
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -->
Blocked for 24 hours
I'm sorry LisaLiel you have broken wikipedia's policies on edit warring at Gender of God:
- Version reverted to 3:04, 3 August 2008
- 13:41, 3 August 2008 [4]
- 13:57, 3 August 2008 [5]
- 14:39, 3 August 2008 [6]
- 14:53, 3 August 2008 [7]
- 15:05, 3 August 2008 [8]
- 18:09, 3 August 2008 [9]
This block will expire at 21:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC).
I'm making no comment on the content of your edit - just the fact that you have edit warred. I do not see how your revert could fall within the exceptions to WP:3RR as there is no apparent copio-vio or blatant vandalism that I can see. However, if you can point out something that I have missed please email and I will consider unblocking you myself. Also feel free to request unblock as normal--Cailil talk 21:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Also I realize that you may feel singled out but you are not I have warned all parties engaged in this edit war[10] and will be investigating matters further. Please consider seeking dispute resolution before reverting in future - regardless of who is right breaking WP:3RR is disruptive to the project--Cailil talk 21:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Please note also that issues related to this edit war have been raised at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_war_at_Gender_of_God. This thread is not be about content issues just editing behaviour - BTW it is not focussed on you but on all parties--Cailil talk 22:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Lisa (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
My "reversions" were only restorations of a simple edit I made this morning, which has been reverted without discussion by two editors working in collusion (a total of six reversions of my edit). Please see the section following this one for a list of diffs which provide context.
Decline reason:
I am sorry, good faith or not, you made 6 reverts in a day after you had clearly been warned about the WP:3RR policy. You shouldn't revert without discussion; discuss your issues on the talkpage. Regards — Woody (talk) 23:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Lisa (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I believe that ganging up on an editor to block her edits without reason constitutes blatant vandalism. A section which was well-sourced was changed to be essentially sourceless. Given Wikipedia's focus on reliable sources for articles, how is this not vandalism? In addition, if you choose not to unblock me altogether, I would appreciate it if you would at least allow me to post the section on recent edits on the Talk page of the article in question, so that it will be visible to other editors.
Decline reason:
Your block expired about 3 hours ago. There is no need to maintain this unblock request. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
{{unblock|Although the block has been lifted on my username, the block on my IP (it is not a shared IP) has not been lifted. May I request that it be lifted as well? Thanks.}}
- Autoblock lifted. - auburnpilot talk 16:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Recent edit history in Gender of God
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: [11]) 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: [12]).
- 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: [13]).
- Alastair replied to this edit by posting a scolding on my talk page (diff: [14]) 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: [15]).
- 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: [16]). 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: [17]). 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: [18]).
- On July 8, 2008, I edited out the two sources I'd put in (diff: [19]). I then placed those sources in the Judaism section, where they more properly belonged (diff: [20]). 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: [21]).
- 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 [22]).
- 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: [23]). 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: [24]). 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: [25]).
- At about that point, I noticed what Alastair had done, and I went in to fix it (diff: [26]). 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: [27]).
- I then restored my edit, which Alastair has labeled a reversion (diff: [28]).
- 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: [29]).
- 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: [30]). 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: [31]). He then added a citation which says that God is both male and female (diff: [32]).
- 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: [33]).
- Without any discussion, Tim reverted my edit (diff: [34]).
- I restored my edit once more, but this time omitted the irrelevant paragraph about Mesopotamian myths (diff: [35]).
- 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: [36]).
- So I restored my edit one more time (diff: [37]).
- Then Alastair reverted my edit for his third time (diff: [38]). 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: [39]).
- 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.
Thank you for your email I am going through it and since you have posted the same links here any other reviewing admin can review them also. Please note that you are not banned you are temporarily blocked for 24 hours - when this time is up you will be able to edit as normal. But please bear in mind however well intentioned, 6 reverts of the same edit is a breach of WP:3RR--Cailil talk 23:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your consideration. I would like, once more, to request that you protect the page. I strongly believe that Tim and Alastair will take advantage of the 24 hour block to revert my edit again, knowing that I can do nothing about it. I would also like to know what I can do in the future in a situation like today's that is within Wikipedia policy. The two of them were completely unwilling to discuss their reversions of my edit, and insisted on reverting it every time. When two editors acting in collusion are unwilling to cooperate or even discuss the edit in question, and insist on just blankly reverting it, what recourse does an editor have?
- Alastair has shown that he will not accept any third-party mediation unless it is in full agreement with him.
- Please, please protect the page until some sort of mediation or arbitration can be brought to bear on this situation. -LisaLiel (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- This is why I have opened the ANI thread and why I asked Slrubenstein to comment. We may decide to fully protect the page and we may well decide to take measures against editors. All will be investigated. I will add a link to your above diffs at the ANI thread--Cailil talk 00:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for getting involved Cailil. The page really needs a cool-headed, experienced outsider, preferably several of them. Several misrepresentations of fact (regarding behaviour and motive) have been circulated and the air needs be cleared by settling those facts once and for all. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
unblocked
Per your commitment not to break WP:3RR again [40] you have been unblocked.--Cailil talk 11:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the email and your points are noted. Also I take it that your IP is no longer blocked?--Cailil talk 14:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately not. I still get this:
You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia.
This is because someone using this internet address or shared proxy server was blocked. Your ability to edit pages has been automatically suspended to prevent abuse from the other person.
The other user was blocked by Cailil for the following reason (see our blocking policy):
Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "LisaLiel". The reason given for LisaLiel's block is: "Edit warring". This block has been set to expire: 22:04, 4 August 2008.
Note that you have not been blocked from editing directly. Most likely your computer is on
- I've been able to post by terminalling to another location and posting from there, but I still can't post anything from home. Can you please check? -LisaLiel (talk) 15:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Lisa!! I'll just suggest calling for help earlier, if you think you're in a difficult situation. The fact of the matter is, WP:3RR tends to be enforced very impersonally. No matter who was right and who was wrong or how many reverts each person did, the last person holding the revert bag tends to get blocked. I'd suggest asking other editors to take a second look, trying an RfC for the page, bringing an admin, trying mediation, or one of several other possibilities. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- If it helps, I haven't been editing since it blew up, except for putting back one of Lisa's own edits that another editor took out. And I won't be editing as long as Lisa isn't either, if that will help make things easier for her. It's just being fair (although honestly I'm not sure what I would be putting in right now anyway). However, I'd really like, after this, for there to be an easier future than the past.Tim (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Re:Alastair
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Gender
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)
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
The verses from Deuteronomy do not mention shituf anywhere. If someone wants to present a reliable source that says that these 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 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, I won't engage in an edit war with you; instead, I'll report you for a violation of WP:OR. Jerryofaiken