Talk:Michael Lerner (rabbi)

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

Rabbinical status[edit]


If people whose semicha isn't universally recognized aren't called by the title "rabbi", then by this logic, no Conservative, Reconstructionist, or Reform rabbis should be called "rabbi". I added "rabbi" back in at the top. Dreyfus 01:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Dreyfus, as well as others disgusted with RK's repeated anti-Jewish-Renewal edits on this and other articles, will be pleased to know that RK has been banned from editing Judaism-related articles for one year.
    —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2004

November 2010: Somebody using the ID "contacteeperson" now appears to be going through all the Jewish Renewal and other alternative rabbis and removing their credentials as rabbis -- I was first alerted to this happening on the Yonassan Gershom page, then went to contacteeperson's contrib page, and found that he/she/it had done the same on Michael Lerner, Arthur Waskow, Lynn Gottlieb, Goldie Milgram, pages, and many others. Clearly this is somebody with a non-NPOV agenda vandalizing the Renewal pages. Rooster613 (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I looked into this person's list of contributions and sort of suspected they were up to the same, but am not sufficiently familiar with Jewish Renewal to be sure of this. I'm mainly just familiar with Lerner (whom I worked for in the summer of 2007 [I created the stub of the "Left Hand of GOd" article at that time]) and Art Green (whom I took an undergrad course for in 1974).--WickerGuy (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Followup: Contacteeperson is a confirmed sockpuppet and has been banned, along with a whole sockfarm under the same puppetmaster, many of whom were vandalizing here also. Rooster613 (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

rabbinic ordination[edit]

rabbis have been historically defined as those who have recieved the Jewish tradition from another who has received it... going back to the first rabbis. Since the founder of Aleph, Zalman Schecter-Shalomi, unquestionably received his simcha in an acceptable, orthodox manner, those ordained by him should also be fully recognized as rabbis. The term "rabbi" does not connote any clerical role, but only that one who knows the Jewish tradition and is a teacher of it.
While the Aleph program of study is less rigorous than other yeshiva programs, it should still be recognized so long as affiliation is mentioned to avoid confusing him with an Orthodox rabbi.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2004

"Reconstructionist" comment refactored from "Error in the Lerner article" section[edit]

For the maximum convenience of some of the more careful editors (& talk users), the full context of a contrib made where it was off-topic is included (albeit struck thru) in the following.

Apologies if this is posted in the wrong spot - I'm not too familiar with the Wikipedia editing system. Anyway, there is I think an error on this page, since it states that Lerner supports a binational state in Palestine/Israel. Lerner has in published articles specifically opposed a binational state on the grounds that in it, the Jewish people wouldn't have national self-determination. I haven't been able to find any reference outside this Wikipedia article that states that Lerner supports a binational state, nor anything in his writing that suggests it. 19:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)Dale Whitmore

I've gone ahead and made the deletions that Dale suggests. To include the reference to Lerner's support for a binational state, I think the editor should provide a footnote that can be checked. I've also deleted the category Reconstructionist rabbi because Lerner is not one. Though one or more of the rabbis who sat on his beit din may have been ordained Reconstructionist rabbis, that does not make him a Reconstructionist rabbi. He is not and never was a member of the Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association (RRA). The RRA does not accept "private semichah" candidates for potential membership. Sam* 04:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)The preceding contarib was originally place in the "Error in the Lerner article" secn, and refactored to here.
  • I've refactored Sam*'s half-off-topic contrib. AFAI can see, it is a response to one of our discussion topics, followed by starting a new discussion on another one. If i've missed some relevant context in my refactoring, i trust colleagues will correct my error.
    --Jerzyt 05:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Recognition by Orthodox community?[edit]

I will repeat my question: why is it important to mention that representatives of the Orthodox community do not recognize the rabbinical credentials of someone who does not claim to be an Orthodox rabbi? How is this "crucially important for his authority"?
CJCurrie 01:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I notice attempts to give Mr. Lerner more reputation than he has in reality. Not to note that this "rabbi" is not-recognized by any Orthodox Jewish authority is POV.
Humus sapiens ну? 01:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • How many Reconstructist rabbis are recognized by representatives of the Orthodox community?
    CJCurrie 01:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • You mean if I don't come up with a number, you'll remove the factual phrase here to support you POV edits in New anti-Semitism?
      Humus sapiens ну? 01:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, I was (and remain) quite willing to take this discussion as a standalone argument unrelated to NAS. My point is that it may not be especially notable if someone from the Reconstructionist community hasn't been given rabbinical accreditation from a representative of the Orthodox community.
        CJCurrie 01:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Sorry but in this case, your POV is "especially notable". Thank you for expressing it.
          Humus sapiens ну? 01:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm not sure what you mean by "my POV". My argument is as follows:
            (i) It is (presumably) not unusual for individuals recognized as rabbis in the Reconstructionist community to lack accreditation from representatives of the Orthodox community. (If I'm mistaken on this point, please correct me).
            (ii) Therefore, it is not unusual for individuals who identify as rabbis to be denied accreditation from representatives of the Orthodox community.
            (iii) The fact that Lerner lacks such accreditation is therefore neither surprising nor noteworthy, and does not invalidate his authority.
            (iv) Therefore, there is no compelling need for us to mention that he lacks such accreditation.
          The article already includes extensive discussion of his credentials. Mentioning this as well appears both unnecessary and gratuitous.
          CJCurrie 02:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Why should WP undermine mainstream Jewish beliefs? Let me guess: because it would be NPOV. LOL. ←Humus sapiens
            ну? 03:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
            • Are you saying that Reconstructionist Judaism is non-mainstream? (And don't tell me that it's statistically small -- we both know that isn't the same thing.)
              CJCurrie 03:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Reset indentation
  • More to the point ...
    This article already notes (in more detail than is probably necessary) that the institution from which Lerner graduated is not accredited by many in the Orthodox and Conservative communities. Throwing in "non-recognized by any Orthodox authority" elsewhere in the article is at best superfluous, and at worst a sneering aside.
    CJCurrie 03:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • See above: he is not even a Rec. rabbi. WP should not give Mr. ML superfluous authority. ←Humus sapiens
      ну? 03:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I didn't say he was a Rec. rabbi. I'm saying many people who *are* Rec. rabbis likely aren't recognized by representatives of the Orth. community either, and that Lerner's status on this front is far from unique. Also, I don't believe it's for us to determine whether Lerner's rabbinic credentials are "superfluous" or not. If you want to comment on the AAJR's status in the Jewish community, perhaps you could write an article on the group rather than re-inserting an unnecessary aside here.
        CJCurrie 04:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
        • The justification for clarifying his credentials outside the Jewish Renewal world, especially Orthodoxy, is that the article cited "Orthodox rabbis" as a partial basis for his credentials. Therefore, either the point is left in and made NPOV or it is deleted. I (Narcissus14) chose to leave it and make it NPOV. But simply reversing my edits is not wiki-ish, my friends. Be honest, fair, and NPOV.
          —Preceding unsigned comment added by Narcissus14 (talkcontribs) 21:58, March 26, 2007
          • Your initial edit which I reverted cited no references, and therefore seemed to be based on your own POV and WP:OR. Now that you've included references, it is clear that that was not the case, although I'm not familiar with allexperts and I don't know whether it's is a credible source with respect to matters of halakha. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 17:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
            • I reviewed the Michael Lerner article at and in my opinion it's not a reliable source. Its comments about Lerner's semicha are vague and unsourced: "Lerner identifies himself as a duly ordained rabbi, although many of his critics [who?] dispute that claim on grounds that he was given a private rabbinic ordination by a beit din consisting of three "Jewish Renewal" rabbis, whose ordinations are recognized only by those within the Jewish Renewal community and Reconstructionist Judaism, the smallest of American Judaism's major congregational bodies. ... Orthodox Judaism, the Reform movement's Central Conference of American Rabbis, and the Conservative movement's Rabbinical Assembly typically consider such an ordination invalid. Although that process, known as semicha, was common in the past after years of independent study, it is much less frequent in the United States these days. To pursue the structured rabbinic training seminary or institution background is more typically the norm." As I wrote, the statements are vague ("typically", "less frequently"), unsourced, and worst of all, they're not specifically about Lerner. I edited the paragraph to say what the source, a news article, can support.
              If you can find other reliable sources that say that (a) the Orthodox, Conservative, or Reform movements never accept private ordination and therefore must reject Lerner (because his ordination was private), or (b) the movements specifically reject Lerner (for whatever reason), or something else about Lerner, put it back in. WP:BLP has tough rules about what you can write about a living person, and writing negative things that are vague and can't be attributed to reliable sources can't be included. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 02:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

--> We keep throwing the word "invalid" around here. I have not seen a reliable source stating that Reform, Conservative or Reconstructionists view private ordinations as "invalid." The Orthodox movement's Rabbinical Council of America has a list of Rabbis who, if you hold a private ordination from them, you are eligible for membership in the Council. So, if Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionists view all private ordinations as invalid, does that mean they consider Orthodox ordinations which are fully accepted by the Orthodox movement as being invalid? No. Not allowing a Rabbi with a private ordination into your rabbinical association is NOT the same as considering a Rabbi's ordination "invalid." You can get ordained by HUC or RRC and not simply go and join the Rabbinical Assembly (conservative), likewise, graduating from the Jewish Theological Seminary (C) does not guarantee you'll be accepted into the CCAR (Reform). The issue has nothing to do with validity, it has to do with those movements simply wanting to ensure a little quality control. By restricting membership to their own seminaries they control what their Rabbis are taught and can be assured that they are educated to a standard set by the movement. That has NOTHING to do with considering a private s'micha "invalid" which has never been said by any reputable Reform or Conservative source (go ahead, try and prove me wrong with a reliable source). TimOliv (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


Lerner is very prolix about all his accomplishments and Jewish learning (on his website). But about his ordination, he merely states that the rabbinical court that granted it consisted of three Orthodox rabbis, all of whom had, in turn, also been ordained by Orthodox rabbis. But Lerner has consistently refused to identify these rabbis, so his claims to an Orthodox ordination are, on their face, invalid. Credentials whose origins are kept secret are not credentials. (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Error in the Lerner article[edit]

Apologies if this is posted in the wrong spot - I'm not too familiar with the Wikipedia editing system. Anyway, there is I think an error on this page, since it states that Lerner supports a binational state in Palestine/Israel. Lerner has in published articles specifically opposed a binational state on the grounds that in it, the Jewish people wouldn't have national self-determination. I haven't been able to find any reference outside this Wikipedia article that states that Lerner supports a binational state, nor anything in his writing that suggests it. 19:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)Dale Whitmore

Re the part of the following contrib that is struck thru, see Jerzy's contrib below it.
I've gone ahead and made the deletions that Dale suggests. To include the reference to Lerner's support for a binational state, I think the editor should provide a footnote that can be checked. I've also deleted the category Reconstructionist rabbi because Lerner is not one. Though one or more of the rabbis who sat on his beit din may have been ordained Reconstructionist rabbis, that does not make him a Reconstructionist rabbi. He is not and never was a member of the Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association (RRA). The RRA does not accept "private semichah" candidates for potential membership. Sam* 04:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This section concerns the claim of a "binational state" error. I have struck the off-topic material thru, here at its original location, and copied it in to a new subsec'n #Reconstructionist in the "Rabbinical status" section above, in the interest of ensuring it is not missed by those with no interest in the b'l state discussion.
    --Jerzyt 05:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


This reads too much like a promotional article. Not to the point where it's ridiculous, but definitely to the point that it's unencyclopedic. --Leifern 20:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC) This is true. Plus, when I added quotations from Lerner most recently published book, thyey were removed. Someone seems to police the page in a way that keeps an article on a minor but controversial political figure reading like a press release form Tikkun. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Evidence-based (talkcontribs) February 11, 2007.

Your paragraph was deleted because it was plagiarized from a newspaper article. When you put it back, I edited it so that it was no longer a cut-and-paste version of the Forward article.
Please, please think about what I wrote on your Talk page:
I hope you've had a chance to see the changes that have been made to your contributions, especially those at Tikkun (magazine), Michael Lerner (rabbi), and Jewish Voice for Peace.
I hope you'll take a little time and (a) review the change logs on those pages and (b) read the links at the top of this page, especially Wikipedia:How to edit a page and Wikipedia:Manual of style.
Your contributions are important, but you shouldn't copy and paste material directly from your sources. Review some of the ways in which other editors have changed your contributions to see how to turn your links to outside sources into footnotes or external links. ...
As I've written before, if you have questions, please ask. There are plenty of people who would like to help. Every article has a Talk page (click on the Discussion tab). You can post a message for any editor on her/his personal Talk page as well. Malik Shabazz 19:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Malik Shabazz 23:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the original source of the article, but portions of it seem like they were copied from press releases, especially all the quotes that praise Lerner. I added a tag that flagged the article as "unsourced." I tidied up the article this week -- in the process, I deleted rave reviews for several of Lerner's books -- but I have neither the time nor the interest to research Lerner's life to find reliable sources for this article. Maybe somebody else will do it. Malik Shabazz 23:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Hagiography has its place, of course, but not on Wikipedia. Objectivity and all criticism seems to be diligently expunged form this page.Historicist (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Those are pretty serious claims, and they are demonstrably false. Are there specific issues in the article you think need addressing? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theorist[edit]

I just removed the section entitled "Conspiracy Theorist." It was copy-and-cut plagiarized [1] and hopelessly POV. However, the facts themselves were basically true. If someone wants to add the section back in, it would provide some balance to the article. Unfortunately, articles indicating his real beliefs are scattered all over the Internet. - Pingveno ( talk | contrib ) 11:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence-based (talkcontribs) restored the paragraph you removed, word for word, in another section. I've been editing the article for the past few days, and I edited the paragraph from the Forward so (a) it isn't a cut-and-paste job and (b) it's NPOV. Malik Shabazz 22:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Reorder and change level of heading "Criticism of leftist antisemitism"[edit]

I first moved said heading just below the "Lerner's Views" item, and then changed the heading level to make it a subheading of "Lerner's Views", since it seems to me that Lerner's "Criticism of leftist antisemitism", whether or not one agrees with such criticism or characterization, falls under that category. I'll have more to say about that later, but this is just a technical note about a technical edit. --Davecampbell 07:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

A note about Lerner's "Criticism of leftist antisemitism"[edit]

First an apology - the following is mostly either my opinion or my personal factual knowledge or both. I was involved in a different organization (Bay Area United Against War, aka BAUAW) during the period in question when ANSWER is accused of "barr[ing] him from speaking at their rallies ... because of his criticism". I have my own criticisms of ANSWER, and my own criticisms of Lerner, but the actual basis of denying Lerner personally a spot on the platform, is that, because of the rancor between the various organizations within the anti-war movement, a custom had arisen as a peace-keeping measure to not have such rancor broadcast from the rally stage. The broad mass of the anti-war movement were already sick of the sectarian infighting, as well as the principled discussions that invariably devolved into sectarian infighting, and demanded in numerous ways that we organizer-types concentrate on stopping the (insert expletive) war. Lerner had already made a habit of trashing ANSWER from numerous platforms; it was decided not to invite him to do so from theirs - and the rest of us agreed, in an open letter (which may still be extant, but I'm not up for researching it at the moment). ANSWER and others talked it over with the Tikkun organization (which, as noted, was a member of the ANSWER coalition), and another representative spoke at the rally instead. The only party who expressed dissatisfaction with the result was Lerner.

It is interesting to note that, while on one hand Lerner is forced to fend off attacks from the ADL and others who equate any criticism of Israel with antisemitism, he yet insists that any criticism of the idea of Israel, of Zionism, is "leftist antisemitism". He is entitled to that opinion. He has many vehicles for expressing it. But the fact that such a disproportionate number of the organizers of the anti-war movement (including some of the more vociferous critics of Israel) are Jewish, and as such we do not take kindly to real antisemitism, might be taken into account. As for the occasional picket sign (which the newspaper and TV cameras always seem to focus on) which could be considered antisemitic (the swastika = Israeli flag pops up way too often), most of us are put off by that sort of thing, but we can't control what signs people carry. From the stage, I can't testify personally (because I frankly don't pay attention to the speeches, I'm too busy trying to organize), but I'd be surprised if anyone would ever get away with pulling a Mel Gibson; I find it much more likely that, again, the anti-Israel rhetoric went further than Lerner is prepared to go, or allow.

--Davecampbell 07:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I live on the East Coast. I read about the Lerner/ANSWER spat second-hand and I also got the impression that there was more to it than he said. But in my experience, the speakers at ANSWER rallies spend an inordinate amount of time bashing Israel and blaming the Iraq War on Israel. It makes me very uncomfortable and unwelcome, and many fellow Jews feel the same way. At the last big rally they had in Washington, Rabbi Arthur Waskow led a separate march that met the bigger rally so that Jews and others could show that we were opposed to the Iraq War but also opposed to the anti-Israelism and sometimes antisemitism of the ANSWER crowd. And when ANSWER invites the same speakers who make the same speeches every time, they can no longer claim that they have no idea that their speakers will be bashing Israel and the Jooooz. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 17:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Working for the Clintons?[edit]

In another article on the Seattle Seven, Learner was reported to have later been on the Clinton's advisement council. Any verification?

This seems a significant claim.

RRM MBA (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't know[edit]

whether to mention this (and how) on the mainpage: Rabbi Lerner's Response to Amma.

Austerlitz -- (talk) 12:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • That's a dead link at the Tikkun site. Here's a no-hits search trying to find a replacement within their site. A Google search suggests it relates to coverage of Mata Amritanandamayi that is probably at least referred to in old revisions of her WP bio.
    --Jerzyt 04:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This entry on Michael Lerner sounds as if it was written by Michael Lerner.[edit]

I have rarely encountered a wikipedia article at greater distance from the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

When I was personally working for Michael Lerner and told him I was a registered WP editor, he said he was unhappy about this article and asked about changing parts of the article and I said we couldn't because it would be a conflict of WP conflict-of-interest policy. So unless you are speaking metaphorically/rhetorically, no- he did not write it.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • WG's expressed attitude is exemplary, and in fact overdone: Lerner objecting to content isn't a reason for leaving it as it is; his or his agent's or friend's objections could be very valuable to our decision making about the article --
_ especially if labeled as authorized by him (both bcz his concurrence as to questions of neutral or unfavorable fact makes him often a convincing authority, and bcz acknowledgment of self-interest helps us cut to the chase in weighing his view of himself against conflicting views, and
_ especially if relevant credible sources are provided.
That said, i'm disappointed with the logic: WG says "he did not write it", without even telling us that his boss seemed sympathetic to our stds, or is just too principled a guy (in light of, perhaps, WG's years of working hand in glove with him) to get someone less principled than WG to do it, or even whether the revision in question still has the dissatisfying info and which edits removed it, if not.
--Jerzyt 04:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I should probably fess up that while working for Lerner, I myself created the very very short "stub" article on his book The Left Hand of God. I felt that if it was confined to two brief paragraphs (essentially an style description) and not a detailed analysis (let alone critque), I was not violating conflict of interest guidelines. Longer analysis (and critique) could be added by other hands. Since then, virtually no one has worked on it. However, I kept my hands off the Lerner article proper (this one) religiously.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Having said what i have abt WG's preceding contrib in this secn, i feel obliged to acknowledge WG's high principles in following up, w/in less than a half-day, with the qualification disclosure. I haven't inspected our The Left Hand of God (book) article, but i find the restraint WG describes to be everything WP ed's should expect of one another.
    --Jerzyt 04:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
    • [snicker] But please edit NPoV'ly, rather than religiously. [grin]
      --Jerzyt 04:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the article could really use someone close to Michael Lerner providing some data - his birthday, for example. And on the subject of dates, It has him graduating from high school one year before he enteres the seminary - probably not right. Just a minor typo, but I don't think anyone close to Michael Lerner has been editing this. Alexgriz (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"Criticism of Leftist Anti-Semitism"[edit]

I know there's already two headings in this talk page with that same title, but they're old and I think this deals with a different subject.

That being said, the language being used is outrageously NPOV. Take this sentence: "...that has risen among some leftists." Which leftists? Who are they? How are they anti-semitic? The language is taking this charge as granted and is basically implying that Mr. Lerner is pointing out objective reality.

This sentence is also written in the same fashion: "...the left often denies antisemitism". Could there be a more biased sentence? This could all be fixed with a simple "he asserts" or "believes that", and I would be more than happy to do so, but the article is locked, and as such, the problem can't be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

antisemetism in the new left is a well documented fact, the old left had also its antisemites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:8600:B080:C1C2:A679:AFDC:4CDD (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

He is only a "self professed" Rabbi[edit]

He never graduated from any rabbinic seminary and has no rabbinic ordination recognized by any branch of Judiasm.[] Membership in the Board does not mean anyone has acknowledged one’s rabbinic credentials as bona fide; to join only one pays annual dues.[]

He has no Rabbinic training and was never ordained as a Rabbi by any Rabbinic training seminary or institution. [] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Contacteeperson (talkcontribs) 23:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

In no way do these fit Wikipedia's criterion for reliable sources. They are blatantly partisan sources. However, JWeekly states The Board of Rabbis of Northern California has accepted Michael Lerner who received ordination from Aleph, the Alliance for Jewish Renewal.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Admin: Please change or delete[edit]

Admin: Please change (or just delete)

"Some local rabbis disagree with his credentials. The president of the Northern California Board of Rabbis and JTS graduate Rabbi Alan Lew states "That is arrogant nonsense" "I spent six years in extremely rigorous, round-the-clock study in the classic texts of our tradition. Authentic Jewish spirituality is in the texts, not in some fancy New Age ideas or watered-down kabbalah [Jewish mysticism]" [13]


Some local rabbis challenge Lerner's decision to not be educated in a classical Jewish Seminary, although Lerner has said that the nonseminary track is one taken by "every Chabad rabbi takes, & every ultra-Orthodox rabbi". When Lerner attacked seminaries for being "more interested in producing organizational men for Jewish life than spiritual leaders connected to the deepest spiritual and social-justice minds", rabbi Alan Lew said ""That is arrogant nonsense...I spent six years in extremely rigorous, round-the-clock study in the classic texts of our tradition. Authentic Jewish spirituality is in the texts, not in some fancy New Age ideas or watered-down kabbalah"[same citation]

The quote in the article in no way challenges his ordination, and as it stands it is unclear what "credentials" mean and the cited quotation is wayyyy out of context.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

At the discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Michael_Lerner_.28rabbi.29, User:FormerIP agrees that User:SevaSevaSeva has doctored his sources. Please remedy.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
So put the entire quote in. --SevaSevaSeva (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
That is not an appropriate solution. When you two come up with one, use this: {{editrequest}} (but don't include the tl| visible in the edit box). If any admins happen to be watching here: the passage Seva has added is indeed improper and should be removed per BLP while this discussion takes place. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────SevaSevaSeva now blocked: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ Dougweller (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I was just getting started with a civil and friendly conversation with him on his User talk page.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Added a lot of references[edit]

I've added a lot of citations to this article. I'm not sure if they are enough to justify removing the tag at the top of the article, but they will certainly discourage overzealous dissidents from deleting large chunks of material on the grounds that it is uncited.

To uncite is to incite deletion by the excited.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is a talk page for?[edit]

I have given up trying to edit Wikipedia, it is solidly under the control of leftists. Now I only post rants my opinions on the talk pages, exposing the hypocrisy and bias of the Wikipedia's liberal controllers. But sometimes when I do, libs come in and revert it because of the explanation "not a forum for general discussion." Even when I make numerous references to the article and how to make it better. The same happened on this article, an admin reverted my edit after I asked why there is no section for "criticism," the way there would be if Lerner was not a liberal.Winston S Smith (talk) 23:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The Criticism section on the Wikipedia article on Al Sharpton is much longer than the Criticism section in the article on Bill O'Reilly. Although there is no "section" as such, there is plenty of criticism of left-wing film director Oliver Stone in the article on him, and hardly any criticism at all in the WP article on William F. Buckley. Maybe you should be careful about scapegoating the alleged liberal bias of the editors of Wikipedia.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion[edit]

I'm looking to see if we can merge the relevant information from Beyt Tikkun Synagogue, the synagogue Lerner founded, here. There's not a lot of detail about the synagogue to sustain an article, but lots about Lerner contained in its references and it might improve this article too. Thoughts? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose merger. Beyt Tikkun Synagogue has survived two AfDs. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Even so, does that mean it's better as a stand-alone, or better here? That an article is not deleted is not an argument against merging. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)