Talk:Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Christians and Gentiles 2 Admin 3 3RR 3.1 Figs illustrates the problem 3.2 Figs? Judaism? 3rr? Lame? 3.3 Figs as symbols 4 AfD Closed/ Moving forward 5 Requested Move (2) 6 Being Civil 7 Differentiation 8 Maybe oops? 9 Normal mysticism? 10 Does 'Isaiah 7:14' belong? 11 VOTE: Split the glossary into two 12 No vote yet, constructive discussion first!! 12.1 Feasibility and policy questions 12.2 Excellent points, HG 13 Under Construction 14 Options 15 Table = Image? 16 The Core of the Conflict 17 Final Word on Telushkin 18 The Core of the Conflict, Part Deux

[edit] Christians and Gentiles

I'm curious to know what the reasoning is behind Tim's ridiculous assertion that "'Christian' means 'Gentile' to a Jew". Or that "'Christian' is a Jewish term meaning 'Gentile.'" He posted this on Jossi's talk page, and he's alluded to this strange belief of his many times before.

But Muslims are Gentiles. So are Tibetan Monks. Tim knows very well that there are Jews who espouse Christian beliefs. Not many of them, but they exist. Aaron Lustiger of Paris, for example, is a Jew, despite his Catholic beliefs. Some members of the sect calling itself "Messianic Judaism" are Jewish as well (though many of them are actually Gentiles who claim Jewish identity for deceptive purposes). So it's patently obvious that Christian is not a Jewish term for Gentile. Rather, Christianity is a Gentile religion. One of many. Having spent so many years as a Christian preacher, Tim may have a view of Judaism that is tinged by that background. For all I know, he may think that goyim means "cattle". That's another odd belief held by some people which has nothing to do with reality -LisaLiel (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask what the point of that post is, and how it relates to the construction of this or any article? Avruchtalk 22:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure. This is a talk page. We're talking. I pointed out on Jossi's talk page that Tim's statements were not true, and Jossi asked that we take it here. So I did. Is discussion now off limits on talk pages? -LisaLiel (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that for some reason no one ever put the talk header on this page. You'll note it directs people to discuss improvements to the article, not participate in a general discussion about the subject of the article. The reason is that we are here to improve the encyclopedia, not debate eachother. If you want to argue about which one of you believes what and why, this is not the place - and I submit that the fact that this has been going on is a significant part of the reason why you are at such an impasse. Avruchtalk 23:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a ridiculous assertion. Jews make the mistake all the time. "The Trinity is idolatry for Jews but not for Christians." Lisa herself made a citation that said that. A Jew who believes in Jesus IS a Christian, by Christian definition -- but not by Lisa's definition. Ask Lisa -- or do a word search on the talk page archives where Lisa INSISTS that Jewish Christians are not Christians! Is it wrong? Of course it is. That's the whol point of the glossary, though -- to show the kinds of ways these terms are used. Lisa is the one being disingenuous here.Tim (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The Trinity is idolatry for Jews, even if they identify as Christians. That's what the article said. And please, do the search that Tim is suggesting. If you find any place where I have ever said that self-identified Jewish Christians are not Christians, either on Wikipedia or anywhere else on the Internet, I pledge to print out a copy of that statement, and eat it. If Tim really believed his claim was true, he'd have dug up the quote himself. But he's been attributing things to me that I never said for months now. I don't expect him to stop any time soon. I do hope that some of you will call his bluff, and actually do the search. -LisaLiel (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's one, from [1]

"Tim, my choices aren't dictated by you. In the first place, as I've stated, Telushkin's comments do not refer to Orthodox authorities. I own that book, and have read it, and you are beginning to wear away at the good faith assumptions on Wikipedia by repeatedly misstating what Telushkin says. In the second place, a Jewish convert to Christianity is neither a "Messianic" nor a "Christian" in the sense used by Jewish authorities. He is a Jew who is sinning. He is a Jew who is committing idolatry. For you to accuse me of suggesting that he is a "Messianic" when you're the one who keeps pushing the MJ agenda here is both personally offensive and patently deceitful.

The way I presented the source does not eliminate the apostasy. It points out that adopting Christianity is far more than simply apostasy when done by a Jew. You want to block the fact that Orthodox Jews consider any Jew who espouses Christian beliefs to be an idolator. I can only think of one reason why you'd want to do that. V'hameivin yavin. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)"''

I've added the bold. This whole debate occurred because you were giving a Kaplan citation that said the Trinity was okay for Christians but not okay for Jews. I pointed out, and continue to point out, that this use of the word "Christian" does not include "Jewish Christians" but only Gentiles. Have a good printer?Tim (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Another dishonest quote. I was explaining to you how those terms had been used by Jewish authorities, such as Tosfot. Folks, I invite you all to take a look at the example Tim has produced, and to judge for yourselves how honest he's being. I think it speaks for itself. -LisaLiel (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh gosh... is this what this is about? A "Christian Jew" (whatever that means) and a Jew having a theological discussion? Please no, not here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if Tim is a "Christian Jew". He claims to have converted and to be an Orthodox Jew. I've taken him at his word, though he clearly has a lot of Christian baggage. But yes, while that's not exactly the case, Jossi, this whole thing has been due to Tim and Bikinibomb (and a couple of others who dropped out a few weeks ago) to push the "Messianic Jewish" agenda here, and give them far more visibility than is appropriate. -LisaLiel (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

To add some clarity, Judaism (Orthodox Judaism) operates according to certain legal presumptions. Among these is that someone espousing Christian beliefs is assumed to be a non-Jew. Like any legal presumption, specific proof to the contrary in specific cases is recognized, but Jewish legal authorities have indeed used the term "Christian" to refer exclusively to non-Jews who espouse Christianity as their religion. And it's a reasonable usage. Tim wants us to specify "Gentile Christians", as though his beloved Messianic sect is significant enough that "Christians" isn't a sufficient descriptor. But even though it's presumed that the average Joe Christian is a Gentile, Christian has never been used, ever, by anyone, not now and not in any Jewish legal sources, as another word for "Gentile". It's only ever meant one particularly type of Gentile. -LisaLiel (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

We all have our viewpoints and bias, but we are here to edit an encyclopedia. I would love to have an article that explains the differences between messianic Judaism, Christianity, and Judaism, but it will need to be written based on available literature on the subject, not a collection of sources about each of these religions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Last edit for the night. I'm not a Christian Jew. I'm a Jew. I'm not pushing a Messianic agenda -- Lisa is (unknowingly) by blending Christian and Jewish terms together without differentiation. And no, I do not want you to say "Christianity is okay for Gentile Christians." That's silly. I want you to say "Christianity is okay for Gentiles." But don't say "The Trinity is okay for Christians" because it only excludes "Jewish Christians" to an Orthodox audience. To a Christian audience, it's unintelligible. For the last time -- I want people to read EXACTLY what you mean, and not something you don't intend. I'm insisting on clarity as an editorial concern recognizing the fact that we should write in such a way that the majority of our readers are not misdirected. And now, GOODNIGHT.Tim (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What a mess... If instead of trying to be right, people would have listened to each other's concerns and assume good faith, we would have discovered that most of us are in violent agreement..! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It'd be nice if Tim would have the minimal honesty to admit that I never said what he claimed I did. Mice are mammals, but that doesn't mean that "mouse" is another word for "mammal". Christians are Gentiles (with rare exceptions), but that doesn't mean that "Christian" is a Jewish term for "Gentile".

And quite frankly, I'm tired of assuming good faith on Tim's part. I had been doing so, since it's only Bikinibomb who is clearly a game player, but I find it hard to continue seeing Tim that way after the multiple instances of libel he's leveled against me in the past few days. -LisaLiel (talk) 01:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

We all make mistakes... Now that the issues have been clearly raised, I think we can extend the courtesy of a second chance, don't you think? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm Muslim, I'm not interested in pushing the Messianic agenda, since of course most believe in Trinity and Muslims don't go for that. I just don't like to see antimissionaries bully their way around as they do everywhere they go, and on that principle I'll be around to throw a monkey wrench in their efforts to dominate and distort MJ articles. If there's any game it's disrupting an article to create an atmosphere for controversy and deletion as Lisa has done. Utter and complete horseshit. -Bikinibomb (talk) 05:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Bikinibomb, Please note that that Wikipedia is not a soapbox and that we expect a civil debate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Expect all you want. I call it how I see it. -Bikinibomb (talk) 05:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not me that expects that. It is expected of you if you want to participate; and if you do not want to do so, you will get booted out the project sooner or later. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never been blocked by a puppet. Does it hurt? This whole thing is a joke and that's the kind of respect it deserves, my interest in real participation with this issue is long gone. I'm just here for some cheap laughs before I move along. -Bikinibomb (talk) 05:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I will not/cannot exercise my admin privileges in a content dispute, but these type of comments may be grounds for an uninvolved editor to oblige... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm out of it here, it's a dead horse, but I'll probably delve into the general problem more on my Talk page to see what steps need to be taken to avoid this type of censorship. I stand by everything I said. -Bikinibomb (talk) 06:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Bikinibomb, generally at Wikipedia accusing someone of being a sock-puppet is taken very seriously. If there is good reason to think someone is using a sock-puppet in an edit war, that person can be banned. Given the severity of the penalty, you should be able to understand why accusing someone of being a sock-puppet without good reason is itself considered to be a serious offense. Now, I say this to you in good faith and believe it or not, for your own good: Jossi is not Lisa's sock-puppet and if you continue to accuse him of being one, he would have good cause to file a complaint against you and you will loose. Now, if you think I am just being a jerk trying to silence you, I have alternate advice. Instead of throwing around accusations casually, which only makes it look like you are trying to dis or hurt someone's feelings (something I would think jews, Christians, and Muslims would in general rather not do), if you genuinely think Jossi is a sockpuppet, do this: go an check out the WP pages on sock-puppetry and find out what kinds of evidence a user can accumulate to make a prima fascie case. Do so, and then request a check-user, and see what happens. If you are right, you will have good cause to file a complaint at ArbCom. But don't waste time here just throwing around hurtful accusations. If you really believe this, then accumulate evidence and request a check-user and file a formal complaint. Then you will know for sure. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

We've already moved past this one, thanks. -Bikinibomb (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin

How nice. Walk in, vandalize a page that's taken months of collaboration. When an editor reverts the vandalism you pull an AfD much to the delight of a solitary fifth column that's been waiting for months to destroy the work.

And you want a second chance -- with what? The page is destroyed. The goodwill is destroyed -- all because you used your admin privileges. Did you do so on a content dispute? No, you did it on an asassination.

Worse, the content you now how is a complete violation of the no blending rule. You've created a page meshing Jewish and Christian terms as if they are the same thing. Judaism is NOT Christianity.

And you have the temerity to threaten someone who's upset about it?

How about one day someone comes in and strong arms several months of YOUR effort into oblivion. Think about this: we had Christians, Muslims, and Jews all cooperating peacefully. We even had some Messianic sympathizers. And one by one a single individual has knocked them all out. No one can stomach her any more. And I doubt several of us can stomach Wikipedia any more.

You had NPOV by the cooperation of multiple groups that do not normally cooperate that way. You listened to one destructive POV.

The only way to start over is to ban the offender, not the offended.

But I doubt that would even do it. If Wikipedia really does have people like you for admins -- God help it.

I have a minyan to catch.

Good day.Tim (talk) 10:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I can see that you are upset, and take your comments in that light. Just note that I have not used any of my admin privileges in this dispute: Any editor can edit an article, delete content, and submit articles to AfD, comment in talk page and that is all what I have done here. If you have any issues with my behavior as an admin, you can place a notice at WP:AN/I.

You forget that this article was strongly challenged way before I got involved. Just refresh your memory here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms, so your argument that the article was NPOV, does not fly... sorry. The article was a POV and OR disaster.

If you are interested in interfaith issues, I would suggest you start a blog or something where you will have more fun and will not be pestered by the need of complying with the content policies of this project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, please see my lessons learned entry on Kim's talk page. This isn't a matter of interfaith dialogue. It's a matter of editorial clarity. That was the motivation for the page. I've used the anti-messianic justification angle with Lisa to try to get her to understand that she's working against her own stated interests. My wiki-problem with Messianism isn't theology, it's terminology. But even without Messianism there is still a problem between Christian and Jewish use of terms. Again, the "Christian" term sometimes used as "Gentile." I showed where even Lisa made that slip. It's a reflex born from a culture in which all the gentiles WERE Christians back in the European day. It's not a Christian or Jewish problem or even a Messianic one. It's not a THEOLOGICAL problem. It's a Wikipedia problem in the use of terms. The last AfD happened when I tried to get Lisa to use terms that meant to the readers what she meant as a writer. She used a Kaplan quote that said that the Trinity was idolatry for Jews but not idolatry for Christians. A Jew will read that and understand "the Trinity is idolatry for Jews but not idolatry for Gentiles." A Christian will read that and understand "the Trinity is seen as idolatry in Judaism but not idolatry in Christianity." When you have a mixed audience, you should, as a Wikipedia editor, be clear in what you say. If you mean Gentile, say Gentile -- because both Christians and Jews will know what the heck you are talking about. The result? The first AfD.

Christian is never used as a term for Gentile. Tim keeps saying this, but it's not true. What's true is that when the word "Christian" is used in Jewish sources, the assumption is that we're talking about Gentiles. This is because the existence of a fringe group of Jews who have been misled into following Christianity is not sufficient reason for us to have to start qualifying our terms. If 99.99% of Christians are Gentiles, then it's perfectly legitimate to disregard the remainder when using normal speech.

Tim is lying, again, when he says that I used the term "Christian" to denote "Gentile". I never did. I used it to denote the run of the mill Christian, who is a Gentile. Certainly there are exceptions. A handful of poor, misguided Jews who've been deceived by missionaries, or who've been raised by Christians, like Aaron Lustiger.

I use the term "Christian" to denote Christians. Just the same way every Jew (and non-Jew) does. Except for Tim, that is. He would say (if he was being honest) that I use the term "Christian" to denote "Gentile Christians". Or "Christian Gentiles". Which is true, but only Tim would put it that way. I don't see the point in qualifying "Christian" as "Gentile Christian", simply because there are some Jews who've espoused Christianity. It would be like calling the average American a "non-pedophile American". It's true. Most Americans are not pedophiles. But some are. So why not insist on labeling the vast, vast majority as "non-pedophile Americans"? But we don't, because that would be stupid. It would be raising up pedophiles to the position of a kind of norm that needs to be addressed in ordinary speech. By the same token, saying "Gentile Christians" only makes sense to someone who is obsessed by the Messianic sect as Tim is.

I understand the idea of assuming good faith. But how many times can Tim tell blatant and demonstrably false lies about what I've said before I can no longer chalk it up to poor reading comprehension skills? -LisaLiel (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Now for the present AfD. The tabular format is the only way to have Jewish and Christian terms on the same page. Some terms do not mean the same thing. "Christian Bible" is another example. A Christian will think "Old and New Testaments." A Jew will think "New Testament."

Except that most Jews just won't give a damn, Tim. The place for such a distinction is in the New Testament article. Or in the Bible article. Creating this glossary is nothing more than an exercise in interfaith discourse. Personally, I don't see a reason for interfaith discourse, but I recognize that others do. However, it does not belong on Wikipedia.

From the very first, Tim, this has been the issue. You think it's okay to create an interfaith playground here. I don't. You insist on judging what I've done within the context of that interfaith playground, and that's just not right. Because sure: if you're going to do a big interfaith thing, it's certainly important to have a glossary of terms like that. It might even make sense to put in an MJ column (though I'd argue otherwise). Virtually all of the claims that you've made, Tim, including your criticisms of everything that I've done here, are legitimate. If we're talking in an interfaith activity context. But it's that very context that I disagree with. And WP:NOT is on my side. If you don't like it... well, you don't have to like it. But that's the policy of Wikipedia. You can't do your interfaith stuff here.

I will admit that I have a bias. There's no question about that. I am an Orthodox Jew, and I abhor missionary attempts against my people. I consider the Messianic sect to be a foul, foul thing. But so what? Everyone has biases. The issue isn't whether people have biases; it's whether they introduce them here inappropriately. I don't have the right to go to the Messianic Judaism article and add a note saying, "These people are a bunch of frauds and idolators". And I never would. Because despite the fact that I think so, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia.

This has been your problem all along, Tim. You and I, we could debate this outside of Wikipedia until we're blue in the face, but we're never going to agree, and that's fine. But on Wikipedia, there are rules. And you've been flouting them because you see interfaith stuff as important. You can't do that. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The glossary was ultimately not a statement of ultimate denotation (which it now is). It was a comparison of conotation to keep both readers and editors from missing each other's meaning.

Are the Messianics the biggest problem? ANYONE who uses one religion's terms with another religion's meanings is a problem for Wiki-editors. And the blending that you've now done is a problem for Wiki-editors.

Nonsense. What I did was change the page to a simple list. Not the state that it's in now, which was done by Jossi, but a simple list of terms, each of which has a link to its own Wikipedia article. Where clarifications can be made by those wishing to do so.

I could see putting a note next to "Messiah" in the list, saying, "Jews and Christians use this term differently. See Messiah". That's a legitimate way to do this. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's immaterial by this point. The truth is, I'm worn out fighting to keep someone from destroying something. Destructive energy is far more effective than constructive energy. It takes teams of people, engineers, artists, workers, managers, salesmen, and inventors to bring a car to your driveway. A chimpanzee with a bat can destroy it all by himself. You can't fight that sort of thing. You need admins to help the constructive energy, not the destructive energy.

Did you know? No, you didn't. But you could have, and should have -- by engaging in dialogue first. If not first, then second -- after my revert. The AfD was the last straw. The last one was exhausting. I can't keep doing these every time Lisa wants her way in a cell.

NPOV issues? You have it backwards. The presentation of mutiple, sourced, POV side by side does not violate NPOV. It establishes it. Your present version is the disaster. The last AfD failed. This one will succeed. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.Tim (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, I understand that you are upset, and also understand that you may have perceived my actions as destructive. The presentation of multiple POVs side by side in a manner that has not been described in published sources is original research, and in some instances not neutral for the same reason. I asked editors to address the concerns raised in the first AfD, but all I got was a barrage of accusations of vandalism, and a declared reluctance to make the necessary changes. So, I applied WP:BRD. I got reverted immediately, and I did not engage in edit warring: instead I asked for further community input via a second AfD. All you had to do so salvage this article was to say: "I hear you, and this is the plan I propose to make this article compliant." Unfortunately, you did not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Lisa please: do not intersperse your comments with the comments of others. It is bad etiquette and gets messy. Consider replying on your own section. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Unless some of you think this post mortem is going to lead to a rescue of this article, or a new similar article with constructive cooperation, it is not necessary to continue to debate eachother here - particularly not when folks are getting emotional about it. Clearly, the result of this AfD will be delete. Time to move on. Avruchtalk 17:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Like I said I'm out of it. But someday I'd like you to explain how I was violating the 3R rule by removing Lisa'a unsourced statements that fig trees have no symbolism in Judaism -- Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. -- and replacing them with my sourced information:

The "charoses" should be made from fruits that were used as metaphors for the Jewish people, for example, figs, as [the Song of Songs 2:13] states: "The fig tree has blossomed forth with tiny figs"; Rabbi Lobel, torah.org

I do the same thing all the time when vandals hit drum articles and replace sourced statements with their own unsourced, and yours is the first warning I ever got. So what is the deal, can you or can you not freely remove unsourced information here on Wikipedia if it is apparent no cites can be had to support it? If someone can find a decent source to counter mine saying that "fig trees have no symbolism in Judaism" I'll eat my words, but until then I'd like an answer. Thanks. -Bikinibomb (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, WP:3RR has only a few exceptions and removing unsourced information from an article that isn't about a living person is not one of them. Read the policy.--agr (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wonder why he didn't just remove her unsourced statement himself instead of taking the time to give me a warning, seeing that a big complaint of this article has been that it has too much unsourced OR.

So if I put that Moses had horns, and if only one other editor saw it, he could revert three times then he'd have to leave my information for 24 hours. Ok. Would you personally give him a 3RR warning if he kept reverting my contribution? -Bikinibomb (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Moses had horns gets close to the edge of clear-cut vandalism. I would look to see whether the edit seemed in good faith. If it was just stuck somewhere random or replaced a chunk of text, I might agree it was clear-cut vandalism, but if inserted in a sensible place in the text, then, yes, i'd issue a 3RR warning. The 3RR rule is intended to terminate edit warring and force editors to try other ways to resolve disputes. --agr (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What if I believed Moses had horns, just as Lisa believed no Jews see symbolism in fig trees even though I gave sources showing they do. Would you remove the horn reference yourself, but leave her unsourced POV as was done here? The difference being not based on lack of sources, but personal beliefs and dislikes.

See, here's the lesson I'm learning, the most important thing is to form gangs of editors with similar beliefs so I can call on them to help do reverts so I don't get those warnings. Or to prevent others removing my unsourced info, to hand out warnings to editors who try to remove it, and to perform other functions like AfDs and voting if I don't like an article. So it's not real important to find sourced information for Wikipedia articles or really follow the spirit of all these policies, just to make alliances. Isn't that about right? -Bikinibomb (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Folks get blocked for gaming 3RR in teams. Avruchtalk 20:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't be that, it would be getting more people to be interested in watching an article so it's not left up to just one person to remove bad info. That's not gaming, it's called ensuring quality contributions. If admins won't take care of such things, then another solution has to be found. Be bold, that's the mantra here, right? -Bikinibomb (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Bikinibomb, I think you do not understand our policies. NPOV requires that we must include all notable views. V says that all views must be verifiable. It seems that prom this you are inferring that any claim that has a verifiable source can or should be included in Wikipedia. This is not the case. All views must be verifiable, but this does not mean that we include all verifiable views. So which verifiable views do we include? NPOV requires that they be notable. Also, a point of view must be clearly identified and explained. My fear is that you are (1) using only one source and (2) it may not be a notable source and (3) you are taking it out of context. For example, I can find a source - in the Talmud no less! - that says that on the first night of Hannukah on should light eight candles; on the second night seven, and so forth. This is a verifiable view. But it is not a notable view - even though it comes from a good source, it is still not a notable view because no Jew accepts this practice. It happens to be included in the Talmud not because it reflects normative Jewish thought or practice, but because the Talmud is a record of arguments among rabbis and includes manority views as well as views totally rejected. If someone sayd, "According to the Talmud, on the first night of Hannukah one lights eight candles" the sentence would be accurate but would violate NPOV because it is (1) expressing a non-notable vieww and (2) taking the quote out of context, and thus mis-representing it. Do you believe me so far? If you do not, then all I can say is, you really do not understand our policies. If you believe me, then the next question is, does my point apply to the figs question. I think it does, and I think many othe editors here knowledgable about Jewish thought will agree. Figs may be a perfectly acceptable ingredient in Charoset, and one reason is because it is mentioned in the Bible. But most people's recipes for Charoset does not include figs. What is most important is the symbolic meaning of charoseth, and this can be achieved using any number of fruits, that is what this rabbi is talking about. And based on the quote you provided, there is no indication that figs have any special meaning beyond the fact they they are one among many possible ingredients for charoseth (the symbolic value of charoseth does not depend on it including figs). And this is the opinion of one rabbi. As the example from the Talmud I provied makes clear, one rabbi never speaks for all Judaism. If this were an article on Rabbi Lobel's views, the quote might be important. But if you want to talk about notable symbols in Judaism, symbols that are generally notable among Jews, one quote from one rabbi simply is not enough. Now, I have written at length not because I disrespect you and want to lecture you, but because I want to assume good faith and explain myself fully to you. I hope you respect me enough to assume what I wrote was well-intentioned and well-informed. I do not know you, I have beef against you, and have no reason or deire to bullshit you. I just want to explain to you why the fig thing is not notable enough to include in this or most Judaism-related articles. Don't take it personally. If you were my mom I would have written the exact same thing. It is not about you. It is about Judaism, and Wikipedia policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem though is that if a section is about fig symbolism in Judaism, then a notable view is that the entire Jeremiah 24 talks about it and rabbis say figs represent the Jews. Like I just asked Tim, don't Jews study books chapter by chapter as Christians and Muslims do? Since I've discussed it myself with many Jews over the years, I know for a fact anyway Jews know about this.

Regardless, I didn't object to someone adding in there that it was obscure, even though I don't believe that. What I objected to was Lisa saying it has no symbolism at all to any Jews. So you've written a lot here but you just skipped over that one issue. If an article is about fig symbolism to Jews and Christians, you can't just pretend it doesn't exist for Jews, especially when there are sources saying otherwise. If you want to say it is obscure, for compromise I say fine. But you can't say it isn't there. -Bikinibomb (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I think what you are trying to say is like, are tassels a burning issue in Christianity? No, but is it correct to say they don't know what they are? Of course not, since Jesus talked about how Pharisees lengthen them, Christians at least have a view about them. Any Jew who has read Jeremiah 24 knows about the symbolism of figs too. Now if you wanted to say "Jews know about the symbolism but most don't believe it" that's a different story. I might accept this considering that so many Jews are secular and don't even believe in God these days. But to say it means nothing at all to any Jews, you know...that's nonsense. -Bikinibomb (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I never said Jews mean nothing at all. I said they are not important symbols in Judaism. You say it is a notable view. But a notable view must be somebody's view. Whose notable view is it that Jeremiah's chapter-long discussion of figs holds an important place in the symbolism of Judaism? I just know of no conetmporary source that holds this view. I guess a historian of religion could use Jeremiah to argue that at the time Jeremiah wrote - or even at the time his work was considered canonical - figs were important symbols in Israelite religion (Do you know of any major historians who say this? Evenso, that would be for an article on the religion of Israel, or Jewish history). When people talk about Judaism, they are talking about the religion practiced today. While I would not doubt that there are Jews who give symbolic importance to figs today, I do not believe that most Jews consider them important symbols. It doesn't matter whether jews study the Tanakh chapter by chapter or even if they have memorized it. Judaism is not a fundamentalist religion - the Tanakh is sacred but that does not mean that everything in it is equally meaningful to Jews today. An article on the book of Jeremiah could legitimately say that figs were an important symbol for Jeremiah without violating NOR. But simply to claim that because figs were an important symbol ofr jeremiah, they are important symbols in Judaism today is not justified. So far we have one rabbi saying that because of Shir HaShirim, figs make for a good ingredient in charoseth. I continue to believe that you will find very little evidence that figs are a prevailing ingredient in charoset, or that Jews generally esteem the fig as a symbol for Judaism. look, God said to Abraham that his children would be like the grains of sand in the sea. Sometimes when I walk on the beach I even remember this and smile. But is sand an important symbol in Judaism? I don't think so! Why not? Nu, some things we pick up on, some things we do not. Maybe one day sand will become an important symbol. Judaism is a living religion of the Jewish people, it is not set in stone! Slrubenstein | Talk 20:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

My contributions never said they were an important symbol in Judaism. The cell was for the view, and those were some views about it in Judaism. If there are references saying that Jews view it as symbolic, who is any editor to step in and say that those views are too minor especially when they exist on well-known Jewish websites? If you are saying it just because you are personally Jewish and you don't hold those same views, then that's just pure OR. When valid cites exist there's not a whole lot you can say, especially if it appears you are pushing your own POV as a Jew.

Here are some more references about figs, just for kicks. So who wants to still come right out and say Lisa was right to state that fig trees mean nothing symbolic at all to any Jews?

• Figs, she commented, were actually the fruit of the tree of knowledge, not apples, and it was fig leaves that were used to cover nakedness in the Garden of Eden. "There are things we hate and want to push away," she observed, "but they can make us grow."'Fig Tree of Knowledge
• According to one tradition among our Sages of old, the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad" was a fig tree. Fig Tree of Knowledge
• Why are the words of Torah likened to a fig tree? Just as a fig tree - every time one handles it, he finds more ripe figs (the fruits of a fig tree ripen at staggered intervals), so too with the words of the Torah, every time a person studies them he finds in them new flavour. (Gemara Eiruvin 54b) Rabbi Hoffmann
• Rabbi Yochanan said: What is the meaning of 'He who tends a fig tree will eat its fruit'? (Proverbs 27:18) Why is the Torah compared to a fruit tree? Figs on a tree do not ripen all at once, but a little each day. Therefore, the longer one searches in the tree, the more figs he finds. So too with Torah: The more one studies, the more knowledge and wisdom one finds. (Talmud - Eruvin 54a) Seder
• In Song of Songs, the Jewish people are compared to: apples, pomegranates, figs, dates, walnuts and almonds. Jews as figs

-Bikinibomb (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

But is sand an important symbol in Judaism? I don't think so! Just to address this one, would you object about a cell for SAND if someone said some Jewish views of it as symbolism are that Abraham's seed would be multiplied like sand, as in Genesis 22:17? Would you think that view is too minor and unimportant to include, don't any Jews believe that one either? I really kind of doubt you would complain, which is why I'm having a hard time buying all of your arguments. -Bikinibomb (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

For like the millionth time, this is all just another clear-cut case of denying real concepts in Judaism that might lend too much credence to Christian ideas. Same problem happened with Gehenna. POV pushing and censorship. So like I said before, the only way to fight it might be to put together a gang to come in and enforce things to override the current group, unless some editors here get some honesty and neutrality and back off. -Bikinibomb (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"My contributions never said they were an important symbol in Judaism" Okay, so you admit it. NPOV has a standard of ´´notability.´´ The view that figs are an important symbol in Judaism is not notable. I do not care what Christians think (though the sases, the founders of modern Judaism, no doubt did). For the millionth time, this is not about denying real concepts in judaism, this is about representing Jewish views accurately. Of course I would object to someone adding sand as an important symbol in Judaism, didn´t you read what I just wrote, that was my point.! Stop assuming bad faith on my part. i have bent over backwards to treat you with respect and you basically shit on whatever I say. (1) wikipedia´s standard for inclusion is notability. (2) figs are not notable symbols in Judaism. Why on earth does this bother you so much? You are getting so emitional, why? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I said I didn't state in the article that they were an important symbol -- I didn't say they weren't. No one has ever established for me that figs are not notable symbols in Judaism. I on the other hand have given abundant sources showing they are notable. If you want to prove non-notability you need to come up nearly empty-handed in a search for that concept, and you can't because I've just scratched the surface on Jewish material about it in a matter of minutes.

So what are we going to go with: the OR of some editors who may or may not (some definitely do) have an agenda of distancing Judaism as far as possible from Christianity, even if it means lying about it? And when I know better than that since every Jew I've talked to in interfaith forums for the past ten years knows about the metaphors whenever they are discussed?

Or do we go with outside sources? We go with outside sources. I'm not necessarily trying to shit on you, but I don't buy that you would complain about the sand, and I'm overruling you and saying that your personal statements really have no bearing on the article content, they are OR. We go with outside sources and conclude that it is a notable enough view to include in an article. -Bikinibomb (talk) 23:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Gah! Stop talking about it, already. You want to make comments about Jews and figs, go to Fig or The Fig Tree and do it. And deal with the normal editorial process there. It's irrelevant to this article. -LisaLiel (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No, trying to push your OR over outside sources, not just with this concept, is a pattern here and is likely to happen again. It needs to be resolved. This is a fine place to do it since we're all snuggled up together right at the moment. -Bikinibomb (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Lisa has not violated NOR. The most you can accuse her of is failure to acknowledge a notable POV, and you have not proven this. You however have violated NOR by cherry-picking quotes out of context and putting them together to advance your own view. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah she did, she inserted her own statement that fig trees mean nothing symbolic to any Jews despite sources saying they do. What quotes do you think I ignored to advance my view? What is out of context when the quotes were about symbolism, explain what is out of context. Did you see some quote saying they mean nothing symbolic for Jews, did I cherrypick over that? -Bikinibomb (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Your only source is one rabbi in an on-line drash, taken out of context. Hardly proves anything, certainly does not demonstrate notability. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I just posted five more sources of symbolism I gathered in a few minutes. It proves notability more than just your personal claims that it does not, as a Jew who may or may not want that view to support anything the NT says about figs. Yeah, I know you don't want it in there. Which is why I always say a lot of people should stick to working on articles not about their own religions because they can't help themselves in trying to present their own special version of that religion, rather than relying on outside sources. -Bikinibomb (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You just posted? Posted where? I checked the edit history and couldn't find them. I see evidence of what everyone knows, which is that Jews have given meaning to figs. this is not the same thing as saying figs are notable symbols in Judaism. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You are grasping at straws. The number and quality of sources shows that figs are notable as a symbol used in various ways. Everyone also knows about the fig leaves of Adam and Eve which tie in with all that symbolism, according to the sources. If you are speaking as a secular or atheist Jew ignorant of Judaism then maybe it's not notable to you. Like here, if something is often considered by people, that indicates notability, as the Rabbi says:

The Bible tells us that in the time of King Solomon, "And in Judea and Israel each man sat securely under his vine and under his fig-tree from Dan [in the far North] to Beer Sheva [in the far South] all the days of Solomon." (I Kings 5:5.) This is often considered the description of an idyllic perfect existence. Rabbi Meir -Bikinibomb (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

As it would be considered even if it said "olive tree". The type of tree isn't the issue here. No wonder you want people to only work on religion articles that aren't their own religion. You fail to realize that Judaism is not just words on a page that anyone can come along and pick out of context. That's the whole concept of our Oral Torah. You must have a context to work with, or you'll come up with foolish ideas like this one. Neither figs nor fig trees have any significance in Judaism other than the fact that figs are one of the 7 species that the Land of Israel is praised for having. Figs are no different here than dates, pomegranates, olives, grapes, barley and wheat. All 7 of those are considered symbols of Israel's fruitfulness. Period. There is no spiritual meaning given to any of them in particular. You are intent on finding ways in which Christianity and Judaism are the same. Blurring the obvious distinctions. And you've accused me over and over of doing exactly the opposite. But frankly, Bikinibomb, I know a hell of a lot more about it than you do. You're coming from the outside and trying to say what a non-Jew would think about Judaism if he had no Jews around to correct him. Well, there are plenty of us here to correct you.

Now. We've been asked to stop with discussions that aren't pertinent to this article. This discussion is one of those. As I said, if you want to go and stick your uninformed opinions and misunderstandings of Jewish sources into the Figs or The Fig Tree article, go right ahead. The normal editorial process will deal with it if you say something this goofy. But since we aren't going to be introducing your OR into this article any more, there's really no point in continuing this debate.

I said it before, what you say as a Jew means nothing here. You need to speak with your sources, not your OR, when it comes to what actually goes in the article. The source I just gave says being under a fig tree is symbolic of an idyllic perfect existence. So you're wrong again and just making up more OR about olive trees. The fig tree term is still here so I think we need to talk about it more in case changes are made, in case once again you slip in there that it means nothing symbolic to Jews. -Bikinibomb (talk) 01:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And Slrubenstein, for a peacemaker, you're making a big mistake here. Calling on people to help argue with him is just going to feed into his need for attention. -LisaLiel (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

LisaLiel - you may be misunderstanding SLR's actions. I was asked to comment, not to "help argue". Bikinibomb is correct that Judaism attaches symbolic meaning to figs, but there are 100s of comparable symbolisms in Judaism, and figs certainly do not stand out. For instance, certain symbolic foods are eaten on the eve of Rosh ha-Shana (Jewish new year). Figs are not amongst them, but pomegranates are (and the head of a fish or sheep, for instance). The Bible lists figs as one of the species of the Holy Lnad. There is certainly no hierarchy of symbolisms, but figs don't seem to be specifically prominent in Judaism. JFW | T@lk 01:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct, no one is saying they are a real important symbol in Judaism. Only that there are views of them as symbols in Judaism. I hope the issue can get a rest now, thanks. -Bikinibomb (talk) 01:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I think the problem here is that Judaism doesn't really work on a standard parable system the way Christianity sometimes does. There are stories told for particular times amd places. Jeremiah used parables; the Midrash used parables; the Baal Shem Tov used parables, Nachman of Breslov used parables. I think a much more modern example might help put things in perspective. One of Nachman of Breslov's famous aphorisms was "The whole world is a very narrow bridge, and the essential thing is to have no fear." This a rather famous saying of Nachman of Breslov. But it would still be inappropriate to have a Wikipedia article say "according to Judaism, a narrow bridge is a symbol for the world." It's a symbol to one person in one context; it was remembered and remained important to that person's followers, and anyone today is free to use it. Judaism simply doesn't work in terms of a pallet of standard symbols in anything like the way Christianity does. To the contrary, in Judaism the more binding the prophecy, the less symbolic -- Moses spoke face to face, Jeremiah dismissed dreamers and spoke of fire and a hammar that strikes rock; it was the lesser prophets who had the most dreams and visions. Judaism has standard laws, not standard symbols. Symbols tend to be non-standard and somewhat ad-hoc. There's simply no standard this-means-that allegory. It would be a bit like going through various symbols in various literary novels and describing them as "American symbols" While many people might recall a particular novel and remember the symbol, that would hardly be proof the symbol was ingrained in American culture. American popular culture is not particularly based on literary novels and there's no reason to assume that just because something is in a novel that's on some educator's list, it's become a popular symbol in its own right. Same here. Frankly, many religious Jews have never read the portions of the Prophets that aren't included in a Haftorah. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional note: One of my personal favorite symbols is the association of water with Torah, and a mikvah with hope. Jeremiah is full of this association; it's attributed to Ezra in not letting 3 days go without a Torah reading; Rabbi Akiba used it both in describing his education (if water could trickle through a rock, he could learn) and in describing the nature of repentence ("the mikvah of Israel is Hashem") and very explicitly in explaining his martyrdom (for a Jew to be without Torah is like a fish without water). A Modern Orthodox rabbi used it in an Edah article where he described the nature of Orthodox faith as taking a plunge. Yet it would still be OR for me to personally string these things together and claim the existence of a standard Jewish symbol. --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Of all the sources and symbolism mentioned, figs in Judaism represent Jewish growth, happiness, goodness. Barrenness or rotten figs represent bad stuff. There's definitely a common theme in Judaism which is stated simply enough by the sources without having to synthesize. No one needs to say there is a standard symbol in order to get that there is from the sourced statements.

Within the scope of Judaism and Christianity, if we mention all these sources but then give the view of editors here that "Christians know about these symbolisms but most Jews don't" makes Jews sound ignorant of their own religious writings, and Christian more knowledgeable. I don't think Jews here really want that either do they? -Bikinibomb (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand what you are saying. Shirahadasha and Jtdwolff have just expressed a profound understanding of Judaism, one that cannot be conveyed in a glossary, but which nevertheless revelas deep understanding. You seem to be suggesting that if a symbol is in the book of Jeremiah or Song of Songs - namely, books that are both in the Hebrew Bilbe and in the Christian New Testament - then they must be of equal importance to Jews and Christians. Obviously this is not the case. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying importance is equal, I'm saying that there are Jewish views about figs as symbolism, period. Same thing I've said all along. As I said, do you really want to say that Christians have a view of figs as used in Jeremiah 24, but most Jews have no view of it? So the reader thinks wow, Jews don't even know their own books or listen to their own rabbis, when they see those sources from aish and torah.org. That doesn't seem fair to Jews either, to say Christians know more about Jewish symbolism and agree with rabbis more than most Jews do. So what is it you are really asking for, do you just want to say most or all Jews have no views on it, or what? -Bikinibomb (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like three separate issues are getting mixed up. First, some symbols are more important than others. Second, Jews do not have a central authority - no dogma, no centralized Church, and no single authoritative interpretation of the Bible, and this means that something can be very important to some jews, and totally unimportant to others, and there can be a range in-between. Perhaps these are two different ways of saying the same thing. But they lead to a third point, which is this: sometimes I wonder whether there is a slippage in your reasoning, where you move from thee being a view expressed in certain sources to "What Jews believe." I wonder whether you make this slippage because when I read over the last few things you wrote, it sounds like you are suggesting one of two things: either (1) that if certain sources (e.g. Jeremiah 24) say something, then this is a "Jewish view" and (2) if Jews say they do not have this view, it is because they are ignorant of their own sources. In both cases you seem to think that Jewish beliefs ought to coincide with what certain sources say, and if they do not, there is some kind of problem. But what if we just do not make this slippage? What if we do not assume that just because something is in a Jewish text, it is therefore a "Jewish belief?" What if it is possible that Jews have all read Jeremiah 24 and don't think figs are important symbols because they (1) do not read the chapter the way you do or (2) do not give it the importance you do? Then, there is nothing embarassing (to Jews) about Jews saying figs are not important symbols. People read the Bible in different ways at different times, and get different things out of the Bible at different times. Anyway, I think the thing to do now is to ponder what Shirahadasha, JTDwolff, and Jayrav have recently written. I do not know them personally but from what they have written it sounds to me that (1) they know the Hebrew Bible - i.e. the sources to which you refer and (2) don't think that much of figs as symbols. Why does this make them look bad? Why should ever Jew agree with what any given rabbi believes? Why should all Jews read and interpret and accept the bible the way you do? Why is it embarassing if a Jew does not read the Bible the way you do, and does not fully agree with a couple of rabbis? I personally am proud that they don't! It is a part of Judaism i love, that makes me proud to be a Jew! I bet Shirahadasha, JTDwolff, and Jayrav are all proud to be Jews, and proud of their understandings of the Bible, and proud of their attitudes towards the claims forwarded on these websites. Why not? Slrubenstein | Talk 04:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with JFW, Judiasm has many other fruits that play a role. Pomegranate and olives have more prominence. Jews and Christians do share carobs from the John the baptist and Shimon bar Yohai stories. If you do a Google search for Jewish symbols, then figs do not come up. They do not figure in synagogue imagery, or coins ancient or modern. If we look at Song of Songs- myrrh, cypress, ceder, and dates play a much bigger role.--Jayrav (talk) 03:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to make one more comment, this time in a more religious vein. Orthodox/traditional Judaism makes a big distinction between the way it treats Moses and the way it treats other prophets. All of Moses' prophecy is regarded as eternal -- speaking just as much to the future as to its own time. But this is not so for other prophets. Other prophets and other prophecies can be specific to particular times and places. Some of Jeremiah's prophecies are currently regarded as being about anticipated future events. The symbols in those prophecies have great traction in contemporary Judaism. Jeremiah's reference to Rachel weeping for her children has great traction with Haredi Jews who bring their children to Rachel's tomb for bat mitzvahs. So are the references to "numerous as the sands of the sea and as the stars of heaven," the redemption parable and the promise that the Land of Israel will someday be redeemed, and the reference to Ephraim as "my darling child". Other of Jeremiah's prophecies, however, are not. The fig symbolism just isn't currently associated with an anticipated future event. Maybe it was only about a brief future ahead of its own time and has seen its day. Maybe someday its importance will again be perceived as having contemporaryy relevance and will come to life. But today, it simply doesn't have the traction that symbols in Jeremiah's "live" prophecies do. This is different from Christianity, which tends to see a more uniform continuing relevance throughout Biblical prophecy. The symbols in the "live" prophecies are much more likely to be enduring and to be picked up in Talmudic, medieval, and modern sources. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 07:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that there are sources saying there is a current Jewish view of fig symbolism, but editors here seem to want to use their OR to say there is none in order to keep that information out. As I've said before I've spoken with Jews for years about it on various interfaith forums so I'm afraid my own OR, coupled with valid sources, is going to outweigh for me. All I've seen so far is conjecture with no outside sources backing it up. What you say sounds ok for Jews that are secular and atheists and see God Himself as being unimportant, but not from the perspective of a Jew active in Judaism with knowledge of such symbolism, which is who these terms really apply to. -Bikinibomb (talk) 08:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

At this point it appears that you ar being disruptive, because you state "What you say sounds ok for Jews that are secular and atheists and see God Himself as being unimportant" when Shirahadahsa has just made it very clear that he careas about God, s not an atheist, and is Orthodox. Moreover, you continue to accuse people of OR wish is a failure to WP:AGF. In fact, you are doing OR because you are cherry-picking quotes out of context and using them to promote your own view. You insult Jews by calling all of those who have responded to you ignorant. At this poiknt it sounds like you are just anti-Jewish. Anti-semitism is not a good basis for working with others on this article. If I am wrong, you can prove me wrong by assuming good faith (WP:AGF) on the part of Lisa, Jtdwolff, Jayrav and Shirahadasha. You especially owe Shirahadasha an apology, given the way you so deliberately misrepresented him (he quite clearly identified himself as religious in his 2:20 and most recently in the 7:29 post, to which you responded by accusing him of being a secular atheist). Also, Shirahadasha and I have taken time to try to explain Judaism to you in his 2:07 and my 4:09 posts, which you refuse to respond to. If you cannot comply with WP:AGF, then do not expect anyone to assume good faith on your part. You now have a choice: respond defensively and angrilly, or dismissively, to this post, or to assume good faith on my part and respond thoughtfuly and respectfully. Let's see. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being disruptive in your eyes by not bowing to gang OR. I'm waiting until more people of other religions review the sources so we get a neutral consensus until I close the issue. I'm not the one who wants to imply that Jews are ignorant of all the views I listed in the Jewish sources, you are. Explain what quotes I've cherrypicked, if you have more sources that counter what I said, let's see them. -Bikinibomb (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Also what is out of context, since you keep claiming this but won't give any examples. Did I use a quote about grapes and apply it to figs? Be specific. -Bikinibomb (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

After looking at this long discussion about figs, I am not sure what all the commotion is about. What I do know is that figs are not a Jewish "symbol." The fig tree grows wild in Israel, the fruits of the tree were part of the diet in biblical times, the imagery of the fig and fig tree is used in the Bible, and the fig is depicted in ancient mosaics. Figs may appear in a parable or invested with symbolic meaning in a specific context, but they are NOT a Jewish symbol --Gilabrand (talk) 13:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No one ever said figs were a Jewish symbol like the Star of David. Sources from aish, chabad, and more have been provided saying that Jews have views about the symbolism of figs. Two different things. -Bikinibomb (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If you look among the voluminous writings of Judaism you will no doubt find some author somewhere who finds significance in just about everything Jews ever ate or drank in their history. However, JFW, Slrubenstein, Jayrav, and every other Jewish editor on this page (from all over the Judaism spectrum) are correct, it doesn't play any notable role in Jewish symbolism. It may be important in other faiths, but trying to place weight on it in Judaism is an obvious violation of WP:UNDUE. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

My own OR says a lot of Jews I've ever talked to on interfaith forums over the years have views of the fig being the Tree of Knowledge with Adam and Eve covering themselves with its leaves, so no, I don't believe these guys here are correct. Maybe they don't get out and about much to know a lot of different Jewish views. If there is an article about dates or almonds or something else in the Bible we may also include it here, along with the Figs in the Bible entry. So it is here anyway. Is the Jewish view of it nothing at all? Or are there Jewish views of it? My sources say there are Jewish views of it. So if the entry is here anyway, and there are sources saying there are views of it, give me a real good reason why we shouldn't say that some Jews have a view of that symbolism. The only thing that is UNDUE is the weight given to editor OR. -Bikinibomb (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Figs illustrates the problem

Hi. Doesn't the debate over "fig" illustrate an underlying problem with the article? Folks are mostly discussing the inclusion of "fig" through either their personal knowledge or their selection of primary sources. However, Wikipedia should be based mainly on secondary (or other tertiary) sources. Has anybody identified some reliable glossaries (etc) of Jewish&Christian terms as the grounding for this article? Or at least reliable definitions to set some criteria for exclusion? For instance, should "fig" be included because of its article in the Encyclopedia Judaica (EJ) or should it be excluded because it isn't in the EJ's own glossary? If the former, then you've 1000's of entries, if the latter, then very few. Thanks. HG | Talk 02:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Folks are mostly discussing the inclusion of "fig" through either their personal knowledge or their selection of primary sources.

Not me, I've provided secondary sources from aish, chabad, etc. discussing fig symbolism. I'm not just pointing to Jeremiah 24 or Song of Songs saying "see, it's there." Secondary sources need to outweigh any OR saying, "well I'm a Jew and it's not important to us." Heck if that ruled the day I could say "well I'm a Muslim and we don't believe in violence" and strike out any references to violence in Islam articles. That's why this whole thing is dumb. You can get a million Jewish editors in here saying it means nothing in Judaism, SO WHAT? That's still OR, just a lot more of it.

Give me a SOURCE saying at least something along those lines, it doesn't have to be about figs. Find something that says, "some symbolism is important to Jews more than other symbolism." Anything. Or wait for more editors from different religions to give a neutral consensus, like I said.

As for inclusion of terms, the idea is now that if there is a Wikipedia article about a concept we are including them. There is Figs in the Bible, so it's here now. So the question is, do we want to say "some Jews view figs as symbolic of certain things" or do you want to say something like "most Jews do not view figs as symbolic of anything" like Lisa had, even though there will still be the Christian view and discussion of Jeremiah 24? If you go with the latter, the message is, Christians accept Jeremiah 24 but most Jews don't. So which do you really prefer? -Bikinibomb (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, while I agree with you that "fig" is a notable Jewish term, my reasoning is different. My source would be e.g., Encyclopedia Judaica. To me, Aish and Chabad are not high-level secondary sources, they are primary sources for their respective approaches to Judaism. To me, your selection of Aish and Chabad is a bit random, no offense. Anyway -- you say let's include concepts with wikipedia articles. But how would that be different than a category like Category:Judaism? Would you have us transclude the definition from each article and, if so, why do it? (Well, that's the question below about the type or purpose for a glossary.) Thanks, Bikinibomb, take care, HG | Talk 04:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

At a glance you can see what each concept is about (assuming there are good concise entries here), if that's what you are looking for then you can go to the article to read more. If you just browse a category you have to go into each article to see if that's the one you want, especially true of unfamiliar Hebrew entries. It's just another way to help readers find information as fast as possible. -Bikinibomb (talk) 05:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It sounds like you'd like a list, which would consist of selected entries from Category:Judaism with concise annotations. Likewise for Christianity, or do you need it integrated with the Christianity list for some reason? (Why not with Islam?) Am I reading you correctly? Thanks, HG | Talk 05:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I originally proposed having Islam in this article too, but another one was made for Judaism, Islam, Christian terms, it got deleted. I'll expand more below. -Bikinibomb (talk) 13:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Figs? Judaism? 3rr? Lame?

This is all pretty lame. Figs are one of the Seven Species and they are eaten on Rosh Hashana and Tu Bishvat, and they are widely used metaphorically throughout Hebrew literature. I can't believe people are edit warring. They are not a symbol, but they do have significant importance. Should they be in this list? Why not? Lobojo (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Rubinstein keeps moving this. It is very annoying. If people don't like my comments or section break, they can ignore and keep adding above, or create their own ones. This is too petty for words. Lobojo (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Figs as symbols

As has been pointed out, Judaism contains not binding theology, but binding laws. So figs would only be a Jewish "symbol" if their use was compulsory in some legally binding or widely prevalent ritual. For example, one could reasonably speak of the apple used on Rosh Hashanah or the haroset used on Pesach as symbolic. There is no equivalent use of figs, except perhaps on Tu Bishvat, where the object is to amass as many fruits as possible. I have never heard of them being eaten on Rosh Hashanah (and I celebrate the full shebang, including black-eyed beans, leeks and pomegranates). They may occur in a few versions of haroset, but that tends to use the local ingredients whatever they are: in Surinam it includes coconut, but no one would call the coconut a Jewish symbol.

That said, figs do occur as a literary trope (not a "symbol" as in an allegory). It is a typical fruit of the Holy Land and is one of the Seven Species. In a way it represents peace and prosperity, as in the ideal of everyone sitting under his own vine and his own fig-tree. They could legitimately figure in a list of Jewish topics, but not in a list of Jewish symbols.

I see that the article has been renamed "Jewish ... terms". That cures the particular objection, but I cannot see how a fig is a "term" for anything in either religion: it's a fruit. Perhaps I should be more radical still. I cannot see any purpose for this article at all, and propose its deletion. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Jews have views of the symbolism of figs as used in Jeremiah 24 and elsewhere, there's no claim it is used as an official symbol like the Star of David, those are two different issues. That's already been explained and would have been clear with a reading of existing Talk. If the simple difference between "symbol" and "symbolism" is misunderstood then I'm not sure how usefulness of the article can be adequately understood either. -Bikinibomb (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:DNFTT. Sir Myles, I second your proposal. There is no purpose for this article at all, and never has been. But it's undergone two AfDs. The first ended with no consensus, based on a hope that the editors would change it from its OR/POV style, since that was the primary objection. The second had a solid consensus for deletion, but when Jossi and I took the bold step of removing the worst of the offenses by changing it from a table to a list, an admin closed it on the grounds that the article that had been proposed for deletion no longer existed. She added a caveat that any new AfD within a week would be deemed "disruptive". -LisaLiel (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you shot yourself in the foot by being so bold, you should have left it so it was deleted. -Bikinibomb (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Closed/ Moving forward

I closed theArticles for deletion discussion for procedural reasons, since the article under consideration was not the article that was submitted to AFD. Content, intent and page location were all different. Submitting the current article or some other version to AFD at a later date might still be considered. But that's for another day. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Can you delete all the misleading redirects listed on the AfD page? Avruchtalk 20:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that the AfD was closed, I am interested to hear proposals for moving forward. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

So is the rule now that only the first few sentences of main article intros allowed, no interjecting or funny stuff? And if someone thinks information should be changed it has to be done in the main article first, right? That should be made really clear first.

This might be a useful thing anyway to see where intros are weak and can be improved in main articles, too many of them are long-winded and don't get to the point. I'll probably still work on it, I just don't care for the way some things have been handled here. But I'll get over it. -Bikinibomb (talk) 18:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No, there is no such a rule. You are welcome to add more material and sources (although it would be more useful to add new material to the corresponding articles) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

And it probably wouldn't be a bad idea, in line with Tim's comments, to add This term is used differently by Christians and by Jews to items where that's the case. -LisaLiel (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The limitation is to avoid was is referred to as a POV fork. See WP:POVFORK. That's all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, you did say:

Go ahead... If a summary of each term is needed, then editors must summarize the existing articles on the subject in a couple of sentences as per WP:SUMMARY. Otherwise this list is not only in violation of NOR, but in violation of WP:NPOV as a POV fork≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

So I assumed that meant that you can't have new info here that isn't already in the article, otherwise it would be a fork. Based on that, I think the rule should be, if it's not in the main article it's not getting in here otherwise there will just be new complaints of forking. -Bikinibomb (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said, you can add nw material here if that material is not a POV fork. That is why it is better to add material to the corresponding articles, were it can be summarized together with existing material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Bikinibomb is trying to feel out the parameters to see where he can play his games. He'll pull some stunt, and then claim that it was justified because of something you said, Jossi, so measure your words carefully. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC) _{You should consider striking this out, in the interests of AGF and moving forward rather than backward Avruchtalk 20:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)}

I'm trying to avoid a third AfD since I don't think you are done yet. If you go back in history most I ever added was from the main articles, and sourced. Unlike you.

So anyway, I'm not sure how new material wouldn't be forking, if there is a main article about it but it isn't in that one. I think it needs to be in the main article first, and that the juiciest parts of an article can't be cherrypicked. The question is how do you make sure of that if it's not limited to the intro. -Bikinibomb (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You've had some bad experiences, but you seem to be learning fast :-) .

Note that not everyone agrees on the One True Way To Do Things, so in general you just need a lot of diplomacy. Do whatever, if someone disagrees, explain it, if they still disagree, convince them, if they still disagree, one or both of you may be doing something wrong, get an outside opinion, if they still disagree, call in a dispute resolution expert. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) LisaLiel, "Assume Good Faith" means just that - assume. An assumption is not justified by empirical data, or experience, it is just an assumption. It does not matter what Bikinibomb has said or done in the past. If you prefer, think of WP:AGF as act in good faith. You do not have to mean it, it can be an act. The point is, intentions and motives can't be an issue here, indeed, Wikipedia is premised on the idea that fellow editors will have motives and intentions other editors find abhorent. Content and behaviorla policies are meant to provide a framework that allows people who thin each others beliefs are wrong or hateful to be able to work together, and yes, this means acting, some times. With all due respect, languag about games and stunts will not help anything. Whet we can all agree on is that the article must comply with Wikipedia policies. Trust is not an issue. Let's assume that at some point or another each of us will make or propose an edit that violates a policy. Let's assume that at some pont or another each of us is going to have to say to someone else (even someone we like and respect), "You can't do that, it violates a policy." We definitely have to comply with NPOF and NOR, and avoid POV forks and emphasize views in proportion to their notability. Bikinibomb, if you are unsure about whether an edit you want to make is complying with these policies it is good that you raise it on the talk page and we will all assume you are taking the policies seriously and asking in good faith. If a number of experienced editors tell you an edit would violate a policy, respect their experience and understanding of the policy. Likewise, let's all assume that if you raise questions about say one of my edits complying with policy, your only intention is to ensure that the article complies with our policies. If we can focus on the policies rather than one another, maybe we will make progress ....? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested Move (2)

Now that this page has survived its second AfD, which it did because it is now a list of Christian and Jewish terms, the title should be changed to match. The current title (Glossary of Messianic Judaism terms) was put on it as a personal attack, and should not be left as it is. See this diff, and the comment "moved Glossary of Lisa's terms to Glossary of Messianic Judaism terms over redirect: It's enough. In this case, Messianic Judaism = Lisa." -LisaLiel (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Being Civil

Let's see... how about I change the page back to it's previous NPOV format instead of the current Messianic one... and THEN when you revert it I pull an AfD?

And THEN when you complain I tell you to be civil?

Can anyone honestly say this isn't a bad thing?Tim (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The spirit of compromise and reconciliation lives. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Differentiation

I just looked at the page. Identifying the terms as Jewish, Christian, shared, or controversial is a different format, but essentially the same as the tabular differentiation. As such, it currently does not violate NPOV, because it simply reformats my original differentiation.

Since you guys are going back to my original NPOV, why are you dropping the AfD? You didn't like NPOV before, and now you go back to it? It's now right back the way I had put it, but in paragraphs instead of a table.

However, with the hijacking, bullying, AfD, etc, and the fact that Lisa is still not banned -- I'm gone -- unless someone gives me a big fat apology right now with an Admin credential to himself.

I'm serious. If your problem was that you couldn't read a table and needed to put labels on paragraphs instead, you could have discussed it.Tim (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

If you think that putting a notation on these entries is a bad thing, I'm willing to discuss it. If you think that it's the same thing as having table cells presenting POV views of each entry according to Christian and Jewish positions, I think your pique has gotten the better of your judgement. Saying "there is a controversy over the use of this term -- go and check it out if you're interested" is vastly different from presenting your personal OR about what each position is. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for whatever you may have perceived to being improper with my actions (If that would be a good apology or not, I am not to be the judge...) Now, can we go back to editing and make this an article we can all feel proud of? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Almost. I'd appreciate an apology for making huge changes without discussion, and then pulling an AfD without discussion when I reverted back to the previous NPOV. That's all. Don't try to kill something without trying to understand it. The table was there to preserve NPOV. The current labels accomplish this. But that's just a content dispute. My problem was lack of discussion. Lisa's corrected my content complaint with the labels. All I'm asking from you is an assurance that you'll talk before pulling out an electric chair.Tim (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think that Jossi's boldness was exactly what was needed, and he has my gratitude for it. If you'd been willing to consider ways of resolving this without holding onto that table, and the OR, POV and UNDUE that it created, much of this unpleasantness could have been avoided. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried to avoid you. There just wasn't any way to do it.

And boldness uses discussion, not strong arm tactics.Tim (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

So now you're calling me "unpleasantness". Nice. Do I need to report you again, or will you stop the personal attacks without that? -LisaLiel (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Lisa, the page didn't hijack itself. The "unpleasantness" was done by human beings, not random bytes in the ether. You were waiting to do it the whole time. Go ahead and report me. Keep on reporting me and using every Wikipedia bullying trick in the book. That doesn't mean that it's right or appropriate to disrupt a page the way you did. I'm not waiting for an apology from you for two reasons: 1) you can't be trusted, so it's irrelevant, and 2) I have no intention of communicating with you or working with you ever again. I'm only waiting for an apology from Jossi because he represents Wikipedia, and without that apology I'm not comfortable with the integrity of Wikipedia itself. It couldn't contain you. If an admin didn't learn anything, then Wikipedia (as represented by that admin) didn't learn anything.Tim (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I was there in Judaism and Christianity when Tim presented the original table concept for consideration and discussion ....... It was well recieved and Tim was encouraged to proceed ....... I thought it a great idea with tables side by side to lay a foundation for this work to progress on ...... it was a great idea Tim and you have done well ....... I have followed every single word spoken in discussion ( not missed a one ) , every single cell added , edited and re-edited , every single action that has taken place on this project from it's conception foreward , the who's , the what's , the when's , the how's and as best I could discern , the why's ....... I was the first person to make a comment on the first talk page , occasionally I made some very minor edits , engaged in discussions when they stayed on track and know the whole history here without predjudice of my own ......... I trusted and was determined to watch this little article develope because I believed in it , because I trusted it's main workers , because I was certain I could gain good Wiki. experience from this to be able to do my part better in the future here ....... I have been watching in the background for like ever now and was inspired some months back to engage in the work force part by a few who truely impressed me with wisdom and honesty ........ I'm , I'm tired now , forgive me ........ Pilotwingz (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to remind people that talk pages are for discussions related to improving articles, not recriminations. How about starting the Roman New Year on a clean slate and putting the energy into improving the article?--agr (talk) 23:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Arnold, I'm not waiting for a reason to continue with this -- irrelevance. I'm done with the page. I'm simply waiting for a reason to continue with Wikipedia. That's all. I want that admin to say, "I'll THINK about communicating first." That's all. But for the page? It's fluff. No longer in violation like it was this morning, but still fluff.Tim (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters. See talk page guidelines.

Start the New Year on a clean slate (all forgotten and forgiven)

• Support ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• I reject this blatant POV-pushing as New Year's starts at sunset Sept. 29 this year!!! Just kidding ;-) I am all for Jossi's proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support I think that's about as livid as I've been since December 1998. What is it about December...? Time forgive now that I'm not completely forgotten.Tim (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe oops?

I saw something in "recent changes" that led me to this page and, without checking on the Talk Page first (never even considering that a list of terms could be controversial), I made several additions to the list. I meant no offence to anyone, and do not, by such additions, join in any side of whatever the current argument may be. If I have offended, please make the appropriate deletions. And may 2008 be kind to us all! Bielle (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Normal mysticism?

This doesn't strike me as remotely notable. Can we please take it out? -LisaLiel (talk) 05:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we see what others say? If others agree I will not object. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. It just seems like a fairly specialized term, used by a single person, and one which probably would not be recognized by about 99% of Jews in the world. Or by anyone else. Don't you think? -LisaLiel (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is used by someone who has an article in Wikipedia, and the reason he is noteworthy enough to have an article is because of this concept he introduced. As to what percentage of Jews know it I wouldn't dare guess, but the words themselves describe something that is I believe well-known and real in Rabbinic thought. Be that as it may, let's see what others say ... Slrubenstein | Talk 15:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

So... do you want to include "Lonely Man of Faith"? Or any other catchphrase used by someone with an article? -LisaLiel (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think so, because it describes a particular response to Jewish modernity ... for the same reason I wouldn't nominate the Eternal Thou or the Star of Redemption, or Leap of Faith. My point about Normal Mysticism is that it is an English term meant to describe something basic in Rabbic - what I take to be "normative" - Judaism. If you are asking me what else I might nominate, I'd say Derech Eretz and Musar, although arguably more modern concepts, are also attempts to crystalize key concepts in normative Judaism and might be good to add to the glossary, what do you think? Be that as it may, I do not see any prima fascie reason to exclude English terms for Jewish concepts and stick only to Hebrew (or Aramaic or Yiddish). I just think they should correspond to important concepts or values in either Israelite religion or Rabbinic Judaism. But these are just the criteria I propose ... as I said twice before, if others disagree with me I will not object, I just see no reason not to give others time to weigh in. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that if you were to grab 1000 Orthodox and Conservative Jews and ask them if they recognize the terms "Derekh Eretz" and "Mussar", you'd get a 100% positive answer from the Orthodox, and a fairly high result from Conservatives as well, particularly if you choose well educated ones. But if you were to ask the same crowd about "Normal Mysticism", you'd probably only get a positive reaction from people who went to JTS or had read a book by the guy who created the term. It's not even in standard usage among Conservative Jews.

And for the record, it doesn't look as though anyone else is interested in weighing in. Maybe I'll ask the folks you brought in to debate Bikinibomb and see what they think -LisaLiel (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. And, if you want to add Derech eretz and musar, go ahead! Also, if you do not want to use English terms, do you know of a specifically Rabbinic term that conveys the idea? Or - unless you are opposed to the very idea of compromose how about making the entry a hybrid, "Normal Mysticism/Halakhic Man" (or, reverse the order of the terms) ... I think Rabbis Soloveitchik and Kadushin are getting at the same idea or set of closely linked ideas that are very important in normative Judaism. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Normal Mysticism is a term invented in the 1950's by Max Kadushin to explain Rabbinic Judiasm, it found its way into scholarship on the Jewish background of Jesus in the 1970- see E. D. Sanders. This entire list of terms is guilty of OR- there is not an external list that corresponds to it or that can be used to judge it. It is a mixture of Symbols, Biblical terms, scholarship, denominational terms, polemics, with no clear criteria. I agree with LisaLiel that if normative mysticism is included than most terms from Buber or Bultman need to be included. But I still dont get the goal of the list. Maybe every term from Buber and Bultman should be included? Most ordinary people dont know scholarly terms or theological terms- and most scholars would disagree with most of this list. It seems OR and arbitrary.--Jayrav (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You are addressing two issues: one is specifically the term Normal Mysticism. As you point out it is a valid term used in academia and there is no violation of NOR to refer to Kadushin as one view or source among many in any discussion of Rabbinic Judaism (or Jewish Mysticism) (as I suggest, I think Soloveitchik is an equally valuable source on this topic). You are raising a second issue concerning the glossary as a whole, and if I understand you correctly the problem is that the process of selecting 9and excluding) particular terms and rearranging them in a list is probably either arbitrary, or pushes some POV, and risks being some kind of novel synthesis that violates NOR. This is a serious and valid set of concerns. If you look at the history of this article over the past two weeks you will see that it has changed form and name a few times, I think precisely because of these problems. I am not sure what the ideal resolution would be but I think the more people participate in a discussion about this, the better. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this article intended to address terms in regular religious use or is it intended to cover terms whose principle use is in the academic study of Judaism? I would suggest distnguishing the two. A number of Conservative English terms have widespread popular currency in religious use -- "Egalitarian minyan" and "ingredient kosher", for example, and perhaps "Tradition and Change." There are English terms with traction in Orthodox Judaism -- "Centrist Orthodoxy" and "Normative Judaism", for example (and both are very close to this one, although with prescriptive rather than descriptive connotations). There's no inherent bar. But if this article is supposed to be about religious as distinct from academic use, I'm just not sure there's evidence that this English term has caught on (outside of academic scholarship) the way those other terms have. --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, some lists in Wikipedia present obvious problems of OR, or POV, and this is one of them... I understand the concern raised by Jayrav, but do not know what would be the solution at this point either. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the archived discussion of this entry and see that it started as Jewish-messianic and has become Jewish Christian. I offer a modest proposal for this entry. There are lists of Jewish -Christian terms such as Leon Klenicki, A Dictionary of the Jewish-Christian Dialogue. This entry should not just list Jewish terms or Christian terms, because then it would be 1000’s of terms. Rather it should only list shared terms or terms involved in conflict, or border terms. Also instead of just writing (shared- conflict-controversial), these terms should be the core of the article. Every term should all have at least two definitions. Border terms from academics like Boyarin or Kadushim can be included as well as common words or ethnic demarcations. Also to avoid this very long discussion page in which everything needs to be arbitrated if it should be included or is OR, we should require a referenced source as a shared term, where an external source considers it a shared term, for each entry.--Jayrav (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Shirahadasha and Jayrav both make very constructive points. I am glad to see this discussion moving in a thoughtful direction. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

A term or concept shouldn't be included unless it is notable enough to have its own article, otherwise there could be millions of them. That should be the criteria for inclusion. Like Figs in the Bible has, ironically. We do the same thing in List of drummers, each entry must have its own article or it is removed. -Bikinibomb (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Does 'Isaiah 7:14' belong?

I think the reference to Isaiah_7:14 should be removed because any scripture reference is *not* a glossary term. This is just a pivotal verse about which Christians and Jews disagree. Are there any objections to removing it from this glossary article? Wesley (talk) 06:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to let it stay. I mean, if there's a Wikipedia article on it, that makes it notable enough (I'd think) for it to have an entry in this list. I don't feel strongly one way or another, and I'm not the one who added it, but I don't really see a reason to remove it.

That might be a good rule of thumb here. If there's a Wikipedia article about it, it's legit for the list. If there isn't, or if there isn't at least a section in an article (such as shituf), then either such an article should be created, or maybe it doesn't belong in the list. Thoughts? -LisaLiel (talk) 14:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I appeal to Lisa's reasoning above (sort of), I agree with Wesley's reasoning here. I propose an alternative: we should include in the glossary the word almah, which is the reason this verse is important; almah is a glossary term and it is precisely what is at stake in this verse. The accompanying explanation can review the context for the word (i.e. Isaiah's prophecy) and controversies over its translation e.g. this Slrubenstein | Talk 15:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, though I think both should be kept. The average Christian would never have any idea of what "Almah" is. -LisaLiel (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If there isn't an article it's not really notable enough to include. The list might also be changed to "concepts" instead of "terms" since Isaiah 7:14, Saint Peter, and similar aren't really terms, but all entries here are about concepts. -Bikinibomb (talk) 04:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] VOTE: Split the glossary into two

This is so unwieldy! It looks like high time that this glossary was split. It is confusing. Let each religion have its own articles and terms and glossaries, otherwise these kind of convergence of information "articles" are starting to look like some users want to promote some sort of highly controversial and POV "interfaith" and/or even a Messianic Judaism agenda. The Christianity and Judaism and Judeo-Christian articles and their Category:Christian and Jewish interfaith topics and Category:Judeo-Christian topics are just fine, why do we need artificial tables that contort and bend over backwards and try to foist perceptions that do not exist in the real world? Simply put, Christians do not think like Jews and Jews do not think like Christians and never the twain shall meet because Judaism and Christianity are religions that oppose each other more than they agree and they have vastly different ways of looking at things, in spite of what these latest "glossaries" and tables are trying to teach. Enough with this simplistic non-real push to homogenize the un-mixable. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposition that this glossary be split into a Glossary of terms used in Judaism or Glossary of Jewish terms and on the hand create a Glossary of terms used in Christianity or Glossary of Christian terms. IZAK (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Support separate glossaries (add reasons)

• Support for above reasons. IZAK (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support for above reasons. I think that the article as it is now is preferable to the tabular article that preceded it, but that does not mean that I think it is a good article. IZAK is exactly right. In truth, I think the best option is to just delete the whole thing and be done with it, but there've been two AfDs, and the only thing that there seems to be a consensus on is that the table was a Very Bad Thing. If anything like this should be kept, splitting it would at least leave us with something useful. But I would like it on the record that I consider this to be a second-best option. Deletion is still preferable, IMO. -LisaLiel (talk) 02:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support if you are willing to include Messianic Jewish views in the Judaism glossary, wherever they use Hebrew terms to describe Jesus things. when monkeys fly out of my ass :) -Bikinibomb (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment While this is a classic example of how seriously Bikinibomb takes things, I'm willing to agree that we should do what he suggests if and when monkeys fly out of his ass under the conditions he mentions. -LisaLiel (talk) 05:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

LisaLiel: Just a note of caution please. You have to cut back on statements like "if and when monkeys fly out of his ass" against any editor on Wikipedia because you put yourself at risk for being blocked for violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL which the Wikipedians take very, very seriously. You have vast knowledge and an excellent capacity to express it, and good debating skills, but you must learn to be patient and play by the rules of the road so that your great contributions can be continued. Thanks for taking note of this. IZAK (talk) 05:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. I've corrected it. I thought that since Bikinibomb had just suggested that condition, it would be okay to agree with it. I'll be more careful in the future. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support splitting into separate glossaries. The current format has the terms together as a residue of the earlier table, but without the differentiated columns of the earlier table, the new combined list is entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia. Christianity and Judaism are NOT the same religion, and do NOT use terms in the same way. Combining Christianity and Judaism in a sigle list becomes an effort to foist Messianic Judaism on the unsuspecting -- since that is the only known religious group that attempts to use the two sets of terms together. I know this is not the intention of the persons who did this, but it is the result of such actions. The differentiated headers barely avoids an AfD call for violation of NPOV, but it is still entirely inappropriate as a single list.Tim (talk) 08:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support separate glossaries, per reasons above and in this case, being seperate religions a simple glossary such as this should be seperate. Epson291 (talk) 02:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose separate glossaries (add reasons)

• Support because keeping them as a joint glossary helps readers distinguish Judaism from Christianity thereby increasing mutual understanding.--Drboisclair (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Drboisclair: Wikipedia seeks clarity it is not a commission to "increase mutual understanding." Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, I think that both are desirable; however, having a joint directory would be novel.--Drboisclair (talk) 13:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support oppose separation as an attempt to fork out MJ POV. -Bikinibomb (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Bikini: This glossary is just a confusing comparative mumbo-jumbo which is like comparing apples with oranges. No-one will be fooled by this stealth effort to foist Messianic Judaism on the unsuspecting and it will always be a POV magnet and a source of constant WP:EDITWARS as you see here all the time. For the sake of peace let the glossaries be split allowing each one to be clearly understood in its own terms. It is not a case of "forking" it is a plea for clarity, individuality and ultimately sanity. Readers will be smart enough to click to two or three pages for comparing glossaries if they are that interested, and if the readers are that lazy or ignorant that they need such fake comparative glossaries then they will only be confused even more by this attempt to merge two opposite religions. Give up your quest to merge Christianity and Judaism on Wikipedia and concentrate on creating clear articles not set up to be webs and traps for unsuspecting readers to join up with the Messianics. Wikipedia is not a missionary station for Messianic Judaism or any other group! Thank you, IZAK (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    • It's not a Jews for Judaism antimissionary outpost either. We know most Jews despise Messianic Judaism and want to censor and kill it off completely. Having Jews dominate an MJ article is like having a fox watch the henhouse. So until there's a better and more neutral mix of editors in here, there's no final decision or anything like that. That's what's nice about Wikipedia, it can all change in a moment's notice. So go ahead and do what you want now, it's not the last word on it though. -Bikinibomb (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion.' As stated below, this proposal may be a good start for a Request for Comment. If so, I'd suggest encouraging folks to clarify their reasons in terms of applicable WP policies/guidelines. Also, maybe better to frame as a consensus-seeking discussion rather than a vote. Thanks. HG | Talk 17:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No vote yet, constructive discussion first!!

No !votes, please

•  !Voting is evil. If you want to discuss this, please do so.... Also see the two AfDs and their discussions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment (this is not a vote, I agree with Jossi about votes!) The struggle here seems to be, what should be the focus of this list? What it should *not* be, imo, is a comprehensive list of all conceivable terms used in either Judaism or Christianity. That is too broad and unmanageable and drowns out the useful terms that might shed light on the similarities and differences between the two religions. I think if both religions are going to be in the title, the list should limit terms to those that are either 1) significant to both religions, or 2) specifically used by one religion to differentiate from the other religion. Based on this criteria, some of the terms discussed above would not belong on the list (e.g., fig tree, normal mysticism, ingredient kosher). Meanwhile, I'd like to mention that it seems to me there has been progress since the initial AFD. I know people are frustrated, and it's certainly not "there" yet, but the format and title seems to be slowly shaping and improving toward a useful list. --MPerel 18:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Glancing over the current list, I would say roughly the terms defined as "shared" or "controversial" should be the ones on this list. Exclusively Jewish terms or exclusively Christian terms not related to the other religion would be better placed on their own lists as IZAK mentions above. So perhaps this list should be divided into *three* lists. --MPerel 19:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that this is the direction being proposed by a few editors. I think there is merit on these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Jossi about the voting; however, I did not want the position of keeping the glossary from being split to die without support. I also think that the glossary must not be bloated with terms, which is really easy to allow to happen. My hope that it remains a joint Judaism-Christianity glossary.--Drboisclair (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? It's already been pointed out that the reasons you gave for voting in for "keep" are not valid reasons for Wikipedia. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It may have been said that they were not valid reasons for Wikipedia, but not shown to be invalid reasons on the basis of WP principles. When I spoke about mutual understanding I was speaking in terms of WP:NPOV. By keeping the glossaries together this policy is supported.--Drboisclair (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case -- and people are considering my original idea (and not the bloated thing it became), then I would assist with the disambiguation.

Lisa's objection was primarily a Messianic column, so that would have to be excluded. As I mentioned to MPerel and Kim, the idea is to focus on terms that could be taken differently. My only suggestion is the inclusion of a disambiguation entry.

For instance -- "Christian Bible" is a potentially shared term, meaning "Old and New Testaments" to Christians and "New Testament" to Jews. Obviously disambiguation is called for, which was the only thing I was trying to accomplish in the first place.

However, it would have to be discussed and agreed on before Lisa and I could work together. If not, I'll leave Lisa alone and not be included. I have no intention of cross purposes or edit wars. But this proposed direction is EXACTLY what I've been trying to communicate on several talk pages today. Thanks, Jossi, for getting it. I was losing hope you would.Tim (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate IZAK raising these basic issues, but agree that a vote is premature and unconstructive. But we do need sane and constructive discussion. I especially welcome MPerel's very thoughtful comment. I am cutting and pasting recent comments by Shirahadasha and Jayrav, above, to here, because there comments really contribute to this discussion. I have been very active the past couple of days here and need aa break (and suspect some of you want a break from me) but I hope MPerel, Shirahadasha, Jayrav and others will continue this discussion in this thoughtful and constructive tone; I think it will lead to something slightly different, but also much more appropriate and useful. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this article intended to address terms in regular religious use or is it intended to cover terms whose principle use is in the academic study of Judaism? I would suggest distnguishing the two. A number of Conservative English terms have widespread popular currency in religious use -- "Egalitarian minyan" and "ingredient kosher", for example, and perhaps "Tradition and Change." There are English terms with traction in Orthodox Judaism -- "Centrist Orthodoxy" and "Normative Judaism", for example (and both are very close to this one, although with prescriptive rather than descriptive connotations). There's no inherent bar. But if this article is supposed to be about religious as distinct from academic use, I'm just not sure there's evidence that this English term has caught on (outside of academic scholarship) the way those other terms have. --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the archived discussion of this entry and see that it started as Jewish-messianic and has become Jewish Christian. I offer a modest proposal for this entry. There are lists of Jewish -Christian terms such as Leon Klenicki, A Dictionary of the Jewish-Christian Dialogue. This entry should not just list Jewish terms or Christian terms, because then it would be 1000’s of terms. Rather it should only list shared terms or terms involved in conflict, or border terms. Also instead of just writing (shared- conflict-controversial), these terms should be the core of the article. Every term should all have at least two definitions. Border terms from academics like Boyarin or Kadushim can be included as well as common words or ethnic demarcations. Also to avoid this very long discussion page in which everything needs to be arbitrated if it should be included or is OR, we should require a referenced source as a shared term, where an external source considers it a shared term, for each entry.--Jayrav (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

(This is a record for me -after 5 ec) (After ec) Then there are the words that exist as "only Jewish" or "only Christian", but that have concepts or origins in common, and that commonality is significant. I am thinking, for example, of the ritual bath of purification in Judaism Mikvah and the Christian rite of Baptism. What would become of them? If listed on "Only Jewish" and "Only Christian" one of their important aspects is at risk of lass and yet they are not "shared" in the sense that User:MPerel means. Bielle (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes! Yes! Exactly! Again, there would have to be consensus and ground rules, and formatting agreement before we return to my original disambiguation idea.Tim (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

A good way to start would be for there to be an opening section- something like the following: Judaism and Christianity have both commonalities and differences due to scripture, first century Judaism, medieval encounters, and contemporary dialogue. Some of these are similar but take divergent paths that are a disambiguation. Some retain their commonality Others became opposite contradictory border terms Others are scholarly or theological terms that shift in the course of dialogue..

For specific Biblical passages-or proof texts see separate entries. This article is on terms.

An example of organization would be:

Covenant- a disambiguated term-

in Judaism it refers to specific covenants of circumcision, Torah, Sabbath, and Sinai, see xxx

In Protestant thought, see Covenant Theology

In Roman Catholic thought – see Covenantal Theology (Roman Catholic). --Jayrav (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Feasibility and policy questions

Hi. In responding to the invite for comments, I've looked over some of the contentious discussion. While it's hard to step into the middle, I'd like to ask some questions. I'm having trouble understanding why this article exists, given current WP policy, and -- if the article is kept -- how writing it would be feasible.

1. Type of article. How is this article different than a category listing of all articles that do (or should) explain terms in Judaism and Christianity? If it functions like a category, why is the article needed? WP is not a dictionary; yet a glossary is a type of dictionary. How is this article really different?

Looking at various "Glossary" articles, I notice: (a) articles with a very narrow scope, like golf, (b) articles shifting to Wiktionary, like architectural terms, (c) glossaries to help readers of other Wikipedia articles, and (d) articles based on secondary sources = other glossaries. If you don't mind my saying so, this glossary is more problematic than the others I've seen.

2. Definable scope within OR and WP:RS. What is a "Jewish term" or "Christian term" as defined for this article? WP depends on reliable sources, not original research (OR). I don't see a clear and feasible definition set forth in the article. Nor can I think of a definition myself except by gathering the inclusion criteria from various established Jewish or Christian dictionaries, encyclopedia, glossaries, etc. But then you're facing countless 1,000s of terms. If you're wanting to limit it to the most important or notable terms, then again, how is this different than a listing of articles that meet notability criteria?

Let's suppose that the article intends to include only terms that are shared: both "Jewish" and "Christian"? Well, maybe. However, if you don't mind my asking, are there any reliable sources that attempt to define and crosslist such dual-usage terms? Frankly, I'm skeptical that a clear and feasible distinction can be made. For example, which terms would be excluded from getting a "Jewish" label? Surely, there is bona fide Jewish discourse that addresses and mentions all sorts of (supposedly) "Christian" terms. For instance, Jewish philosophers, rabbis, and scholars will talk about "original sin" or "salvation" (currently listed as "Christian" in the article.) Likewise, Christian authors often utilize traditional Jewish terms, like shechinah. To avoid original research, are editors here limiting themselves to reliable secondary sources that deal with the problematic definition of dual-usage terms?

If the article represents an ad hoc effort to clear up possible confusion about Jewish and Christian terms, then isn't such ad hoc effort what we call original research? Why not just clarify any contested or confusing Christian and Jewish meanings for terms in each term's article?

3. Alternative idea. I'm wondering: is it possible that this glossary is primarily needed to help WP editors discuss and clear up their own understanding of Jewish and Christian terms? Such an internal glossary maybe quite helpful for editors working on a wide spectrum of articles. If so, then it doesn't need to be a WP article at all, and there'd be less concern for using secondary sources and avoiding original research. Instead of an article, this could be a useful subpage of the Judaism and/or Christianity projects. Would that be a constructive outcome for the work that's gone into this article? Thanks. HG | Talk 21:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Excellent points, HG

The original intention was an editorial guide so that Wikipedia editors wouldn't accidentally word something in a way that would be misunderstood. The original format was a table, with the first column for the term, middle columns for different ways a reader group COULD read that term, and a final column with unambiguous terms.

A simplified form would be thus:

Term	Christian	Jewish	Unambiguous
Christian Bible	Old and New Testaments (or apocrypha for Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox)	New Testament	1) Protestant Bible (if meaning Old and New Testaments) 2) Catholic Bible (if including basic apocrypha) 3) Eastern Orthodox Bible (if including expanded apocrypha) 4) New Testament (if meaning only the New Testament)

I've been talking to Jossi earlier about the possibility of this being somewhere other than mainspace, since it isn't to instruct the general readers, but to guide the editors.

Now, the "unambiguous" column perished in the first AfD and the table itself perished in the second, so I proposed leaving this article alone and starting fresh. I have the old table preserved in my name space. It's horrifically bloated and has a Messianic column that would have to go -- but I'm open to suggestions.

There just needs to be some ground rules, though. No vandalism (DISCUSS before DESTROY), no pulling AfDs for a content or format dispute. Also, internal arbitration. Lisa and I, for instance, have both stated today our conviction that the other is working in bad faith. Let's say that we are both wrong, but we are both, nonetheless, convinced. I would suggest that we police such a page internally and not pull AfD tactics.

Also -- we would need a clear idea of purpose. My idea is an editorial guide. It does not need to be mainspace. It's a set of reminders for us. Perhaps some footnotes are in order if something is challenged, but for the most part it wouldn't say what a term MUST mean, but instead say how a term COULD be understood. Even a minority example of such a misunderstanding is enough for us to consider an unambiguous alternative.

Suggestions, anyone? I don't want to step on Lisa, and I don't want this idea stepped on either.

Thanks.

Tim (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Tim. An editorial guide need not meet certain WP criteria, so it should be an easier project. Maybe the emphasis could be on terms that editors might be most likely to misunderstand or over-simplify. Perhaps terms can be ignored if they aren't commonly used by editors for writing articles. Some entries might focus on simple errors, while others might need to lay out the complexity and diverse semantic range of a term. Thanks. HG | Talk 02:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be in the mainsapce because people need a quick reference.

There is a long but bad article in wiki on Judiasm and Christianity from a single OR sermonic point of view. There need to a wiki entry on the differences and similarities. The article on Judiasm and Christianity should have been the article we wanted. The article in wiki on Judiasm and Islam is short but serviceable since it has decent external references.

I also think that a chart is too essentialist and static. There are many Christian and Jewish positions- based on era, denomination, and opinion. I think it will keep forking.

I think footnotes (or links to other wiki entries) are essential to prevent OR- I dont think very much is unambiguous. Any article on Judiasm and Christianity written in 1900 is very differnt than one written in 2008 after Jewish-Christian dialogue. There is less of a neutral position than a chart implies. --Jayrav (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks, Jayrav. I agree that there are many positions on key terms. I agree that most terms are not unambiguous, and that meanings shift over time (e.g. from 1900 to today). However, I would then infer that these such terms are not well-suited to a glossary article in mainspace. The other glossaries I've seen in WP mainspace don't face these challenges. What is it that you think WP readers actually need as a quick reference? Thanks. HG | Talk 02:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

But of course, an "Unambiguous" column is, by definition, both OR and POV. Ambiguity is in the mind of the beholder. That's why the very first change that was forced on this article was the removal of the "neutral term" column. We should definitely not even consider bringing that back.

I disagree with the claim that "people need a quick reference". Such a quick reference might be useful in interfaith arenas, but this is Wikipedia. Not an interfaith conference.

I think the example Tim uses above is a classic example of the problem with his table idea. To use "New Testament" (a term considered offensive by many Jews) as the Jewish understanding of the term "Christian Bible" is just wrong.

Furthermore, it seems to me that this whole discussion is drifting back towards the OR/POV nightmare that had a very solid consensus for deletion in the last AfD. The reason that AfD was closed was that Tim's disambiguation article no longer existed, and the AfD was therefore considered moot. Bring it back would be contrary to the clear consensus that existed in that AfD.

What's the goal here? Is it to prevent term-switching? Why can't that be dealt with in the individual articles? Take Isaiah 7:14, for example. Here's a classic example of a major bone of contention between Jews and Christians. And it's handled in the context of an article dealing with that issue specifically. Like an encyclopedia might do, really. Or take Messiah. It has sections called Traditional and contemporary Judaism and Christian view and Mormon view and more. There's no reason why there can't be sections in each and every article that's currently listed in this one as shared - controversial.

Let me ask it again. What's the goal here? What's being added by doing this sort of "disambiguation" wholesale on a single page? The only thing I can see is that it's an alternative to doing the disambiguation in the place where it really should be. It's an opportunity for certain editors to create their own miniature versions of those articles, bypassing the normal editorial process. If "Christian Bible" is a term that means different things to different people, then there should be an article called Christian Bible that includes sections on the Jewish view, the Christian view, and so on.

This page has been a disaster from the moment of its creation. Can we please learn our lesson already, and have done with it? -LisaLiel (talk) 02:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Lisa, it sounds like you think that the article has serious OR and neutrality problems. You also don't see a need for a quick reference for WP readers. Would you be comfortable with an effort at a glossary as an advisory item for en-wp editors, not in mainspace? Well, I gather you'd be concerned about the accuracy and neutrality of such editorial guidance (as would I), but couldn't that be resolved by (off the top of my head) a format that allows disputed viewpoints? Thanks. HG | Talk 03:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly? I don't see the need. Each item in this page has an entry in Wikipedia. There's never been a huge issue with editors getting terms messed up that hasn't been or couldn't be dealt with through the normal editorial process of Wikipedia. Maybe if someone could explain what flaw they see in that process that requires this kind of glossary.

And look at what's going to happen if we go back to that sort of thing. There's so much personal POV that goes into this. Bikinibomb is absolutely sure that Jews have a special symbolic view of figs. Tim is 100% positive that Jews like myself and R' Aryeh Kaplan use the term "Christian" as a term meaning "Gentile" (despite the fact that this has never been the case). And that rabbinic authorities don't know what the hell they're talking about when it comes to the nature of Christian worship of a trinity.

It's important to Tim, apparently, that everyone understand things the way he does. It's important to Bikinibomb, apparently, to make sure that Judaism is as accessible to a Muslim reading a book on the subject as it is to people whose lives are immersed in it. It's important to me that Judaism not be misrepresented on a public resource like Wikipedia.

But what's important to me doesn't matter. And what's important to Bikinibomb doesn't matter. And what's important to Tim doesn't matter. This is Wikipedia. Not a debate society, and not an interfaith dialog group, and WP:NOT a whole lot of other things. It's an encyclopedia. With entries on various terms and concepts. And if there are varying views on a term or concept, the place for that to be illustrated is in the article itself. That's not just for mainspace, that's general. If an editor uses a term in a way that isn't appropriate, I assure you that another editor will do something about it.

Earlier today, Slrubenstein accidentally typed "New Testament" where he meant to type "Old Testament". Tim pointed it out to him. He fixed it. No harm, no foul, and no need for a special page to disambiguate a typo.

Instead of asking whether it'd be cool to have the kind of page that Tim wants in userspace, why not go back to the question I've already asked. "Why?" What's the purpose? What's the goal? What's the need that isn't being met already, or the flaw in the Wikipedia system that this completely novel and unprecedented type of page is coming to fix? I've asked this question, and only been met with assertions that "Wikipedia is all about disambiguation" and "editors need a quick reference" and "this page was originally meant as a tool for editors" (that last, incidentally, being demonstrably false).

It's just a little frustrating, when there've been two AfDs, the last one lifted only because the kind of thing Tim wants to make was already gone, to see yet another attempt to resurrect it. -LisaLiel (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Lisa. I agree that the purpose/goal is crucial. I expressed this in my first (1) question about the type of article. What if the goal is to inform editors about the proper use of certain key terms used in articles on Judaism or Christianity? E.g., why to avoid "Old Testament" in articles on Judaism. Somewhat like agr suggests below, there could be an essay on the 10-20 mistakes to avoid when writing on article on XYZ religion. Leaving aside the frustrating history of this dispute, would you accept such an essay (or Project page, etc) for this purpose? Thanks for your patience with your truly, HG | Talk 04:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Would I accept it? I'm not sure it matters. If someone wants to do it, they'll do it. If you're asking if I think it's a good idea, then my answer is "no". If someone uses the term "Old Testament" in an article on Judaism... well, that happens all the time. It's not the end of the world, and I don't go around changing it to "Hebrew Bible", because it's in such common use (unfortunately) that it would seem a bit pedantic of me to keep changing it.

But if it was a term that I did object to, strongly, such as... well, say there was a sentence like "Jews don't believe that Jesus was the Saviour, and are still waiting for Him", I'd object most strenuously. A line like that (and I changed one very similar to that a month or two ago -- I don't recall exactly where) carries a slew of wrongheaded assumptions. (a) That Jews have any concept of a "saviour", as such. (b) That this was the issue with Jesus. (c) That a saviour or messiah should have pronouns capitalized as is done for God.

I don't see how a glossary would prevent a line like that from being written. And I don't see why the normal editorial process couldn't deal with it if it got written. The last thing I want to see is someone writing something, and someone else coming along and saying, "But wait! You can't say that! It's not according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style on religious terminology!" <shudder> If there are objections, let them be raised. If not, then not. -LisaLiel (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Bikinibomb is absolutely sure that Jews have a special symbolic view of figs. Of course I am, not just from OR but from sources like aish which you've seen. All you are doing is saying, "screw those sources, it should say what I want!" Which is why your This is Wikipedia. speech is pretty funny. -Bikinibomb (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest Tim create the article he has in mind in his own talk space, maybe just concentrating on the 10 or 20 top terms and then invite comments and suggestions. When he has a draft that he thinks works, we can discuss whether it has a place in main article space, or as an essay for editors who might find it useful, or no role at all. --agr (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Very well. I'll rework the draft in my name space. I'd also recommend this glossary go into three glossaries. Judaism is NOT Christianity and they do not see everything the same way. Also, terms aren't necessarily "Jewish" or "Christian" per se. We need distinctions, but they are distinctions in meaning, not always in use. I'll pop back and give a link when I'm done. Might be a week or two. I'm over my eyeballs proof reading my galley. Best.Tim (talk) 03:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, forgive my entering your dispute midstream, but is there a reason you all aren't making use of Glossary of spirituality-related terms? I ask this esp for folks like Tim and Bikinibomb who support the need for this glossary. No, I'm not endorsing that glossary, but I'm curious why it might not serve part of the purpose here. Sorry if this is a distraction. Thanks. HG | Talk 05:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The original purpose for this article was to have Messianic Judaism terms because it is a phenomenon in that it intersects Christianity and Judaism. Islam does too, which is why I wanted it included as well. Similar terms are used for similar concepts but details are different. For example there is a Purgatory, Jahannam, and Gehenna for Christian, Muslim, and Judaism hell. Messianic Judaism also uses Hebrew terms but often in relation to Jesus, while other forms of Judaism do not, and that can be confusing to people who hear the terms and think it is mainstream Judaism when it isn't.

So the intention was to have it focus on MJ differences, I also wanted to expand it to an Abrahamic term article which is of a more limited scope than Glossary of spirituality-related terms. Now the primary purpose has been altered by Jossi and other editors, with Izak wanting to distort it further. It's pretty much POV forking, where the intention was to have it be an Abrahamic interfaith article, now it's being rearranged and attempted to be carved up into something else because some people don't want to really have Messianic Judaism and Judaism on the same article unless it is for reasons of criticizing Messianic Judaism. So that's fine, if that happens I'll just restore the original idea and we can debate it all over again since it would be a useful tool and there is no reason not to have it, other than for personal dislike of Messianic Judaism. -Bikinibomb (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

<sigh> It's not a notable phenomenon, as dear as it apparently is to your heart, Bikinibomb. Tim, please take heed. While you may have wanted to guard against term-switching, Bikinibomb wanted, as I always said, to push MJ and give it wider exposure. Not because he's MJ himself: he isn't. But he's a game player, and he enjoys deconstructing things, including Judaism. Your intent, however pure it was, was always playing into his hands. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The original purpose for this article was to have Messianic Judaism terms because it is a phenomenon in that it intersects Christianity and Judaism. sigh... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to underscore Jossi's sigh. Right now it is unclear what "this article" actually is. In a discussion about what this article is or should be, the phrase "the original purpose of this article" is meaningless and unconstructive. It is meaningless in a general sense because all Wikipedia articles are constantly under construction through a collaborative process; how an article originates in and of itself has no special value or function. It is unconstructive in a more specific sense. When Bikinibomb says "the original purpose of this article" he is actually refering to Tim's proposal. The problem is in conflating Tim's proposal with "this article." For one thing, since Wikipedia articles are collaborations no one - no one owns an article. This is not "Tim's article" or my article or Jossi's or anyones. And Wikipedia will never have an article that belongs to Tim, or me, or Jossi. Secondly, as Lisa pointed, out, Tim's proposed article was nominated for deletion several times. The last time it was nominated for deletion, the nomintion was withdrawn only because on December 30 (1) I reverted Tim's "original" table format, which I believed to violate NOR, and (2) the title of the article was renamed "Glossary of Jewish and Christian Terms." It was then that Kim Bruning and Jossi removed the AfD and other policy violation tags. Let me remind people that in the midst of this process Tim and Bikinibomb went back and forth a few times changing the title to "Glossary of Messianic Judaism Terms" and "Glossary of Lisa's Terms" - Tim was, inappropriately, I believe, using the name of the article to assert that Lisa was (1) a Messianic Jew and (2) claiming ownership of the article (it seems to me that by changing the name Tim was asserting ownership of the article. maybe this was not his intention, but it looked that way). Be that as it may, it is very clear to me that "original purpose" = Tim's original proposal = a table format including definitions for Messianic terms ... and that all editors with the sole exceptions of Tim and Bikinibomb rejected this. The current article - "this article" - is not Tim's original proposal, and it therefore does not have the "purpose" Bikinibomb claims. I suppose Tim is free to create a new article embodying his proposal but as Lisa correctly points out that article will immediately be nominated for deletion. Based on the poll above, it is possible that even this article may end up being nominated for deletion. If it is not, one major reason will be that this article is not Tim's article, whose purpose was to have Messianic terms. If this article survives, it will definitely not have that purpose, of that other article, which was in effect deleted by community decision. The question remains, what purpose does this article have. I think above IZAK and HG raised some very valid concerns. I also think Jayrav and Shirahadasha made some constructive suggestions. It is clear to me that this article will survive only if it allays IZAK's and HG's concerns, and I believe that this may occur if we pursue Shirahadasha's and Jayrav's suggestions. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yikes things are sort of going all over the place on the direction of this article. We seem to be attempting to herd cats! My preference, so far, is Jayrav's suggestion to simply make this a disambig page (which Tim mentioned as well) with a list of terms (and concepts per Bielle) that pertain to the overlap area of Judaism and Christianity. Maybe include a brief sentence or two and link to the applicable article. The problem with a table format is that not every term or concept necessarily has a counter definition in the other religion, and I fear a blank cell will just call out to editors to fill it in with something OR. --MPerel 20:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If Tim thinks there is a value in clearly defining terms used by Messianic Judaism, I suggest he do so by working on the Messianic Judaism article, so that it provides an account of MJ claims involving these terms in a way that is fully compliant with NOR and NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the renaming of this glossary to Glossary of Messianic Judaism terms was, and is, essential. It has nothing to do with Lisa's or anyone else's intention. It has everything to do with the fact that this is what it is. There is only one religion that claims to synthesize Judaism and Christianity. A glossary synthesizing the two is de facto Messianic. Do I think Lisa is Messianic? No. Do I think Lisa WANTS to promote Messianism? Again, no. Do I think Lisa is accomplishing a promotion of Messianism? Of course! What in the world DO you call a blending of Judaism and Christianity anyway? Right. Messianic Judaism. That's why I've said that this article needs to rename itself or it needs to be two glossaries. Honestly, it gives me the whillies that I had a hand in this debacle. Their fusion together is an artefact of the table demolision -- but if there had been no table separation of the two, there would have been no fusion of the two now. So -- do I own it? No. But I feel responsible for this most alarming artefact nonetheless.Tim (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, a statement of purposes is important. The other day I had a series of relays with an editor in which I asked a number of times if he could STATE my proposal. He was welcome to disagree with it, but I simply asked him to state what he was disagreeing with. He put some kind of color border on the section of his talk page saying that he wouldn't talk about it. There are too many instances of people claiming to disagree with things they can't even describe. Well, they probably don't AGREE with something if they can't describe it, but they CERTAINLY do not disagree. They have to address something first. That's all. It's the same thing with Judaism and Christianity. When Judaism is talking only in a Jewish venue, it can intelligently say anything it wants about Christianity. Christianity can do the same internally about Judaism. But when we are in an encyclopedia it's important to find sources that are capable of saying things about the other group which the other group would at least recognize. Is Telushkin a great sage of Judaism? Is Kaplan a great sage of Christianity? It really doesn't matter, to Christians WHO the Jew is, as long as the Jew has an idea of WHO he is talking about. And it doesn't matter to Jews WHO the Christian is, as long as the Christian has an idea of WHO he is talking about. Now, Telushkin is expressing himself as being in line with Jewish thought in that quote. Could he be wrong about Judaism? He might be, and I'm willing to explore it. But it's helpful that at least he addressed Christianity. He is, so far, the only Jewish source I've seen offered who's actually disagreed with Christianity. The other sources are disagreeing with Jehovah's Witnesses. Well, (Nicene) Christians disagree with them too. Lisa, Sl, I'm not asking for you to agree with Christianity. I'm merely suggesting that you recognize that you are in a public forum and take the first step toward DISagreeing with Christianity, which you have yet to do.Tim (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow. This is seriously some sort of fixation. Why do you refuse to accept that I do disagree with Christianity? That I disagree with Christianity's own claims as to what trinitarianism is? I've said it about as many times as I can, and you still refuse to accept it (or understand it). I'm not going to accuse you of bad faith here. I think you just aren't understanding me. But I think you're alone in this. I wish I could help -- I truly do. Can you tell me what I can do to help you understand that Judaism disagrees with you about what trinitarianism is? -LisaLiel (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- I'm just trying to get you to say it in English. Christians don't care because they read what you say and think "no wonder they're not Christians." And then they just smile and ignore it. And the Jews read it and think "and that's why we're not Christians." And then they just smile and more on. It would be nice, in a public forum, for everyone in the audience to have an idea of what you are talking about. That's all. You are absolutely right -- in a Jewish only paradigm. But each paradigm has it's frame of reference and it's logical way of processing language. If there are no Jews anywhere who can say, "this is why we don't believe in the trinity" (in language that trinitarians see themselves in), then you are only speaking to 2% of your audience (the Jews) and misdirecting the other 98%. Are you trying to disagree with Christianity? Are you absolutely convinced that Christians are wrong? Great! Say it in English.Tim (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

When Bikinibomb says "the original purpose of this article" he is actually refering to Tim's proposal. The problem is in conflating Tim's proposal with "this article."

If I create an article about bicycles and a gang turns it into an article about tricycles I'll just create another article about bicycles. That's all I'm saying. -Bikinibomb (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I hear you. But ... in this case, I think you should know that it will almost certainly be nominated to be, and most likely will be, deleted. What we need first is a serious discussion of the good-gaith substantive issues raised by IZAK and HG. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it doesn't really show good faith when Lisa or IZAK say that MJ articles should be deleted because they are a deceptive group, or when you try to get a consensus composed only of Jews. It just reeks of bias, not neutrality. I'm Muslim, I don't go around trying to censor criticism of Mohammed or tamper with Christian and Jewish articles. In fact a gang of Muslims is always on Muhammed trying to get his images removed, I'm against that kind of censorship, not only because so many of them don't understand the law about images, but because this is Wikipedia, not a Muslim website.

I'm also a member of Alcoholics Anonymous but when people go to that article and try to censor comments about being like a cult, I revert them and let the information stand. I like AA, but I'm not going to BS people and say there isn't cultishness in that program.

So I'm just for telling the facts, and if there are facts about MJ, report it. If there are facts about figs, report it. Don't try to snow people or put together gangs to push your POV. Do that, and you'll show some good faith. -Bikinibomb (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. We have an article on Messianic Judaism and no one (to my knowledge) has nominated it for deletion. However, the nature of the article makes it very complicated in terms of compliance with NPOV. Obviously any claims Messianic Jews make about Messianic judaism are notable enough to be featured prominently. Since Judaism has a much older and larger following thatn Messianic Judaism, Judaism´s views (as long as they come from verifiable and reliable sources) are also notable enough for inclusion. I think the problem is when Messianic Jews make claims about "Judaism." Insofar as they may ake such claims in direct relation to claims about Messianic judaism they belong in said article. However, by any standard the view of Messianic Jews within and about "Judaism" is a fringe view and does not rise to the threshold for inclusion in Wikipeida. So the article must be very careful about representing Messianic Judaism's claims about Judaism in relation to Messianic Judaism, without presenting such views as notable views about Judaism. I believe this is tricky, but managable. Frankly, I think the solution to Tim's concerns is not to create a new article - justifying a new article when one on Messianic Judaism already exists is almost inevitably only going to raise new NPOV problems, and perhaps trickier ones - but rather to continue improving the article that already exists on Messianic Judaism. If this means adding MJ accounts of certain key terms, surely that can be done in the context of the existing article, in a way that complies with NPOV and NOR. i don't see anyone objecting to that. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been working here and there on Messianic Judaism too, with a lot more to follow since it is pretty messy. Although of course no one probably thinks they can get an AfD on it, I had to cut 17 references critical to MJ just in the introduction down to half. That's a hell of a lot of criticism packed into one intro of a few paragraphs, as well as being duplicated in the regular criticism section. So there is a problem of out of control POV pushing, censoring, etc. Because of that, and the drive of antimissionaries, some who don't even bother to hide their motives as Lisa did on the first AfD -- the least thing a Jewish editor does on an MJ article is probably going to be questioned for good faith. Which is why I'd really suggest getting more of a mix next time a consensus is taken.

So, what do you do when you don't want to promote MJ, but complain about their deception of using Hebrew terms for Christian concepts? Tim had solution for it, but it was blindly rejected for fear it gave them too much importance. The solution is, first in the intro, you state that MJ often uses Hebrew terms, but their views are rejected by all other forms of Judaism. Then in the term entries for "moshiach" etc. you note that MJ believes it is Jesus. Simple. You let people know right off that MJ is a fringe, and you let them know exactly where their views are fringe.

I told Lisa earlier she shot herself in the foot, if she is the antimissionary she appears to be, she did it with this whole thing since Tim's original idea would have been a good resource for letting people know how and why MJ differs with mainstream Judaism so it wouldn't be such a deception if it is really that, at least for the readers who saw the article. Completely NPOV, stating both sides, problems Jews have with MJ, and also why MJ thinks they need to recruit the way they do (Judaism has been careless in letting too many Jews slip away into secularism).

But again, hatred for MJ seems to have gotten the best of some here and they threw away an article that actually would have been for their benefit. So like I said, this current incarnation can morph into whatever it will, but I pretty much guarantee the original idea will resurrect sooner or later, because there is a valid need for it. -Bikinibomb (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) If the intent is to have terms that are controversial or interpreted differently in the different religions, my thought is that it might be better to simply create individual articles on the relevant individual terms and to have a a list or category rather than create an extensive article. Also, I personally don't think it's worth the effort to create a set of information on difficult terms that's only a guide to editors and isn't part of Wikipedia mainspace, although others may have different priorities. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A list is fine and I've said that if a term or concept doesn't have an article then it isn't very notable. The problem is that the whole point has been trashed by Jossi and the gang by eliminating introduction and entry references to Messianic Judaism. It wasn't intended to be just a guide for editors but for readers so they could see how Messianic use of Hebrew terms differs with how mainstream Judaism uses them. It wasn't created just to promote MJ, and also not to just say "see look how they are tricking people." It was created because it's just a fact that they use Hebrew terms for Christian concepts and it's confusing to a lot of people. So it's a notable phenomenon that justifies creation of such a glossary. Thus, I'll probably be readding a lot of what was removed and we can go to war about it again, or I'll just create another article that does what the original was intended to do, since it was essentially deleted and replaced with this new one without a proper closing of the second AfD. -Bikinibomb (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. If Messianic use of Hebrew terms is notable, then you should be able to find reliable sources that describe such usage. If so, you'd have grounds for an article. Perhaps the article could be called Glossary of Messianic Judaism terms or, maybe to avoid the strife here, Terminology of Messianic Judaism. However, if this is your goal, wouldn't you vote for either deleting or splitting up this article? Given the current dispute, I don't see how this article is helpful to you. Thanks. HG | Talk 02:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That was this article until it got hijacked and turned into something else. That's why I'll either readd info removed or start another article. -Bikinibomb (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"Hijacked?" See WP:OWN. Thank you HG for making a constructive suggestion; too bad some people don't care about constructive collaboration. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That was never this article, except when Tim named it that in anger. If you readd inappropriate info, it'll wind up where it did the last time. If you want to go and start another article, good luck to you. I hope it's an appropriate one. -LisaLiel (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll just add what I want, sourced and everything like I do in a lot of other articles with little complaint. You can do what you want, throw gasoline on the whole thing and roast weenies or Messianics or whatever over it. Then I'll fix it then we can just proceed that way. You're Jewish, you think you should control what goes in, it's your article, etc. That's just the way it is, like I said in my Talk there no compromising with you. So you can do your thing, I'll do mine, how about that. -Bikinibomb (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:DNFTT. -LisaLiel (talk) 03:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Under Construction

I've replaced the Messianic column with a disambiguation column. It's still bloated, and probably has some terms that won't be needed (and information that won't be needed) -- but it's the idea: [2].

As has been discussed here -- as a style check, it doesn't need to be in main space. I think I only put it in main space last time because people were suggesting I do so. It was never stated to be an expression of what words MUST mean, but instead an expression of what words COULD mean in different contexts.

Anyhow -- critique at will before I get too thick into it.

As for the Messianic column... Messianic Judaism is a very divisive issue. Lisa and I have both expressed concerns that each other's approach leads into Messianic Judaism rather than remaining neutral. Although I think Messianic term switching is still an issue, it MAY be possible to deal with it by including terms that have been switched, without showing the switch itself, but only the primary understandings and the unambiguous terms. The only problem is that the reason for the inclusion of some words may not be immediately clear. Christians and Jews actually agree on the meaning of some words that Messianics change -- so the table will have a few entries that are Term - CJ meaning - same CJ meaning - same Term. In other words, leaving the Messianic column out will have some people thinking that a row is unnecessary, when in fact it really is.

But I don't know how to avoid contention. My solution is to put everything up side by side so an editor could write what he wants to mean and make sure no one reads something differently.Tim (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh -- two things. 1) I think the cells need to be more abbreviated than they are, if possible, and 2) the wording in the cell needs to match the wording in the source. Some of the items were longer than they needed to be because of perceived disagreement, and we were trying to catch all the angles. For instance, I removed "even if they profess themselves to be Christians" because I was trying to cover the same idea in a different way. Also, "forbidden" was the word used in the cited reference, which also explicitly said "not idolatry." Having "idolatry" in the cell actually contradicts the source. I understand the concern that "forbidden" might be confused with "allowed" but I think that the possibility of that confusion is very limited.Tim (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This again. The reference you used only said that there is a source (one -- The Meiri) who says Christian worship of Jesus is not idolatry for non-Jews. He does not say it isn't idolatry for Jews. You'll never find a source that says it isn't idolatry for Jews. Telushkin says it's forbidden for Jews, but that doesn't address the issue of whether it is idolatry for Jews or not. Even he doesn't say it isn't. You've been trying to avoid the fact that it is for many weeks now, Tim, and it's straining my ability to assume good faith on your part. Hiding that fact is something that one might do in the context of an interfaith discussion, so as to keep things from getting too real. But this is an encyclopedia. Please stop it. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Tim for taking the time and putiting that sandbox together. My assessment is still that these type of comparison tables violate WP:OR, as per the numerous previous comments by me and others on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

For example Idolatry (the term Avodah Zara is not understood by most non-Jews) and Avodah zarah - Unknown Term are exactly the kind of wording that of left unattributed to a published source, is not acceptable in Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, then I'll have to insist that this glossary be split in two or renamed to Glossary of Messianic Judaism terms. Right now it violates the integrity of Judaism and leans entirely in favor of Christianity's presumption of including Judaism. It has to split, rename, or AfD.Tim (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- Telushkin will, like most Rabbis, use the word "Christian" and mean "Gentile Christian" in his head. David Novak made that explicit in his book "Christian-Jewish Dialogue." I'm well aware of that. But Telushkin's statement is different from the way you are presenting it. He's actually describing the doctrine of the Trinity as correctly as can be framed in Jewish terminology, instead of the Shittuf description that is really a description of Arianism instead of Trinitarianism. He is NOT saying "well, it's a worship of other beings along with God -- but they're Gentiles so it's okay." Instead, he is saying something radically different: "the CONCEPT is not polytheistic... these are not multiple beings, but multiple aspects of the same God, and, while that's forbidden to Jews, it's not idolatry." I'm paraphrasing, of course -- but that's what's going on. The reason that Telushkin is important is that he's one of the very few Rabbis who is capable of actually ADDRESSING the Trinity. The rest of them address Arianism (i.e. Shittuf), which is idolatry even by Christian standards.

The problem is that you are trying to use Jewish sources as the defining descriptors for a Christian doctrine. Well, that doesn't work if they are really talking about something else instead of the doctrine at hand. The doctrine at hand that they claim to describe is the Trinity, not Arianism. So a Jewish source that actually addresses the Trinity should be used, rather than one that really describes Arianism instead.

Turn it around for a moment: imagine if a dozen Christian sources said "we don't like Judaism because Jews wash their hands so that they'll earn their way to heaven." That's a valid Christian view. But if you also had a Christian who said, "Jews wash their hands because God told them to, and they love God -- and that's not a bad thing (even though Christians are forbidden to wash their hands)." Well, at LEAST that Christian source is addressing the actual practice.

This is, as you said, an encyclopedia. The problem you and I are having is this: I see this as something other than a Jewish only encyclopedia. Believe me, if I can find a Jewish source that actually DESCRIBES the doctrine of the Trinity instead of Arianism, and THEN says "all Jews believe that's idolatry." Although it would strain credibility, at least it would be on target. So far the sources you have describe Arianism (i.e. Shittuf). Is that idolatry for Jews? ABSOLUTELY! It's also idolatry for Christians.Tim (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Tim, your intentions are commendable, but Wikipedia is NOT an original publisher of information. If there are no sources that describe or frame these issues in that manner, creating a table to attempt "to clarify to the readers what the sources do not say" is a violation of WP:NOR ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Jossi -- there is no instance where I attempted to clarify what they did not say. The only attempt is to give a cross check to editors to say EXACTLY what they mean to say in a multiple audience format.Tim (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

To explain -- the idea is to find sources that are talking about the actual subject, knowing that the multiple audiences will know better if you try to force something else. If you want a Jewish opinion on the Trinity, find a Jewish source that ADDRESSES the Trinity so that it can intelligently disagree without the Trinitarians rolling their eyes. It is perfectly valid (and essential) for Judaism to DISAGREE with the trinity. But it needs to be the TRINITY they are disagreeing with. This isn't a Jewish only encyclopedia. We can't get away with looking like we're completely ignorant of Christianity when talking about it -- or Judaism when talking about it. Anything less is unworthy of a public encyclopedia.Tim (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a common rhetorical technique whereby disagreement is labeled "ignorance". It's not a particularly savoury technique, but some people like it.

Judaism isn't ignorant of what the trinity is. Judaism disagrees with you (and Christians in general) about what the trinity is. Christians claim that it isn't multiple deities. Jewish legal authorities disagree. You claim that they don't know what they're talking about. That they're ignorant or dishonest (the only two options if they're wrong). Fools or knaves. But you ignore the real issue, which is that to any neutral observer, when you have one person speaking to another, the two are clearly individuals. (Or clinically insane, but I don't think that pertains in this case.) Christianity says, "Okay, but that's not what this really means". Which is fine. Christians have a right to rationalize their own religion any way they want. But you haven't the right to insist that non-Christians accept that rationalization as the way things really are. Judaism is absolutely right, by its own lights, to view the trinity as polytheistic. And once it's polytheistic, there are only two possibilities: it's idolatry or shituf.

It's the unanimous view of Jewish legal authorities throughout the ages. It's not going to change because someone who holds the Christian rationalization of the trinity as a personal view converts to Judaism. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Jossi: I hate to contradict you where I shouldn't have to, but we already discussed this matter, and I thought we had already come to a different agreement than you are stating here.

As tables such as the kind Tim is trying to build are typically protected by copyright in the same way as images, it can be fairly easily seen that the image exception to No Original Research should be extended to this kind of table in the same way. We could spend a couple of days discussing this if we really have to, but I'm fairly confident that in the end we would all be able to agree.

Provided such a table is made with much care, and the information is well sourced, there should be no problem. Sources should preferably directly mention the similarity between any two terms, but if the definitions roughly match, that should be sufficient. Of course, creating such a table in a neutral fashion will be a challenge, but it's the kind of challenge that wikipedia is here to take on, IMHO. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it can possibly be NPOV, considering Tim's insistence that even the Jewish view needs to be modified to conform to his opinions. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- Christianity defines itself. Judiasm defines itself. A Christian belief that Judaism is filled with hopeless people desperately trying to earn their way into heaven -- is a valid Christian belief. But to say that ALL Christians believe that is excessive, when in fact it is not true. There are Christians who do know better. They still disagree with us, but it is US they are disagreeing with. The Jewish belief that Trinitarianism is really Arianism (i.e. Shittuf) is a valid Jewish belief -- but to say that ALL Jews have this idea is excessive when I've provided a notable example. I'd even be willing to go with "the vast majority of Jews throughout the ages say thus and so.". But to exclude an exception, especially when that Rabbi is notable and states that he is not an exception -- and ESPECIALLY when that Rabbi is familiar enough with Trinitarianism to communicate it in a way that is intelligible to all audiences (a good goal here) -- well... to exclude him is excessive. Does Judaism have the authority to say it's idolatry for Jews? Of course! In fact, Christians will agree that Shittuf is idolatry for Jews, because they'll insist that it's idolatry for Gentiles too. All I'm suggesting is that we have an awareness of the fact that Jews will know better when we quote a Christian source about Judaism that fails to address the actual Jewish POV. And the same is true in reverse. Ignorance isn't a bad thing. For goodness sake -- my Rabbi is proud of the fact that he isn't an expert on Christianity. Why should he need to be? Thankfully no single source has to be an expert on every other source -- and thankfully Wikipedia has the luxury, and insistence, or citing multiple sources.Tim (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Provided such a table is made with much care, and the information is well sourced, there should be no problem. OK. I am game, but it will be a great challenge. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that it will be a great challenge, and I'm looking for all the guidance I can get -- such as content, format, and WHERE to put it.

Also, I've asked for suggestions on the Judaism portal page because I'm still highly concerned with the single glossary. If I'm wrong, I think I need more people to tell me I'm wrong, because I feel guilty about the presence of both Christian and Jewish terms on a single page. I'm open to suggestions there, too. I think the present FORMAT is lovely... it just gives me the whillies to have Judaism sucked up into Christianity like this.Tim (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion.' I'd strongly suggest that this discussion continue on the Talk page for Tim's userpage drafting. That draft can have its own Talk; this Talk page should be about the article in its current form. HG | Talk 17:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Another excellent suggestion! Give me a few minutes to delete the Messianic content to leave room for the Unambiguous content, and I'll have the whole table up in the user space. Lisa -- feel free to keep your tweaks in mind. I'm doing a global replace, and this isn't meant to be prejudicial against your suggestions.Tim (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Done -- the first draft (minus a lot of content and containing content that may not be needed) is up: [3].

Tim, "Christianity defines itself". But Christianity does not define Judaism's view of Christianity (as much as it might like to).

And "The Jewish belief that Trinitarianism is really Arianism (i.e. Shittuf) is a valid Jewish belief -- but to say that ALL Jews have this idea is excessive when I've provided a notable example. I'd even be willing to go with "the vast majority of Jews throughout the ages say thus and so.". But to exclude an exception, especially when that Rabbi is notable and states that he is not an exception -- and ESPECIALLY when that Rabbi is familiar enough with Trinitarianism to communicate it in a way that is intelligible to all audiences (a good goal here) -- well... to exclude him is excessive." This is simply not true. You haven't provided any example whatsoever, let alone a notable one. I've told you before that Telushkin is not a rabbinic authority. Nor, I think, would he call himself one. He's a rabbi who wrote a popular book, but he's not a rabbinic authority. Jewish rabbinic authorities cite sources. Nothing happens in a vacuum in Judaism. It's all based on prior sources. Telushkin is giving his personal opinion, and as much as you might like for it to be considered the view of a Jewish authority, he just isn't. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Tim, two points: First, Telushkin is not a Jewish authority; he is a well-educated popularizer. His books are useful resources but are only starting points for any serious researcher. His views on Christianity reflect his own views and can be cited as reflecting his POV, but his view is not necessarily some Jewish consensus or normative Jewish view and should never be taken or presented as such. Second, you are being unfair to Lisa when you say she is mischaracterizing what Christians believe. I do not see that she has ever made any claims about Christianity or what Christians believe. She has, however, made claims about the mainstream or normative view Judaism has of Christian beliefs. As she points out, you are free to disagree with the normative Jewish view of Christianity. But she is accurately presenting the normative Jewish view of Christianity. But be clear: it is not Lisa's claim about Christianity, it is Lisa's claim about Judaism - about a Jewish belief (which just so happens to be a Jewish belief about Christianity). This may seem to you like a subtle point but I assure you it is important and I ask you to think about it until it is clear to you. Then, if you want to disagree - if you want to provide sources that suggest to you that normative Judaism has a different view of Christianity, fine, we can discuss that. But first get Lisa's claim right. The claim that "According to Judaism, Christianity is a form of idolatry" is a claim about Judaism, not about Christianity. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sl, this is less an issue of theology than of intelligibility. I understand the Jewish view. I understand that the Jewish view is that:

1. idolatry is forbidden to Gentiles in the Noachide laws
2. the Trinity is idolatry
3. the Trinity is allowed to Gentiles

That WORKS in a Jewish paradigm. But how do you COMMUNICATE that in terms that Christians can make sense of? Christians are reading this page, too. They don't have to LIKE it, but it's helpful if they can UNDERSTAND it. That's fair, isn't it? Help find Jewish sources -- great sages -- who say the trinity is idolatry and insist that any Jew who thinks otherwise is not worth his salt. Please, do this! But please, also, find ones that can say that in terms that people other than just orthodox Jews can understand. This isn't a Jewish only readership.Tim (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Piece of cake. First, you make it clear to Christians that Judaism is not a dogmatic religion with a centralized authority, and that there is therefore much legitimate debate and majority and minority opinions. Then, you rewrite your points so they are accurate:

1. All jews agree, idolatry is forbidden to Jews and to Gentiles (in the Noachide laws)
2. Some Jews believe that thee is a form of belief called "shituf" which is forbidden to Jews, but allowed to Gentiles
3. The majority view among Jews is that the Trinity is idolatry
4. There is a minority view among Jews that the Trinity is "shituf"

Add precise definitions of "idolatry" and "shituf," remind Christians that this is how Jews view the Trinity and they should not expect Jews to view the trinity the same way they (Christians) do,l and I don't see why this would be so hard for Christians to understand. Unless you need to explain to Christians that it is okay to understand something without agreeing with or liking it. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Options

The current arrangement cannot stand. Period. I've tried every kind of compromise on the books, but this article absolutely violates the integrity of Judaism.

So, options:

1. Rename it to Glossary of Christian terms and keep everything but the terms that are unintelligible to Christians. This is possible because the inclusion of Jewish and Christian terms together is actually an Evangelical idea (i.e. Christianity sees itself as incorporating an idealized Judaism, so this is validating to them).
2. Split it into two Glossaries.
3. Rename it to Glossary of Messianic Judaism terms and leave it as is (since in it's present form that is exactly what it is).

This isn't a matter of popular demand. This is a matter of fact: only Christianity sees itself as including Judaism in some way. Only Messianic Judaism sees a blending of the two as correct. Judaism remains distinct.

I'm not suggesting you blow anything away. I'm just suggesting you don't violate the integrity and distinction of Judaism.

It canNOT stay this way.Tim (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You left out the option of deleting it as unnecessary and inherently problematic. And when I say "inherently", I mean that.

And... forgive me, but I have a hard time hearing you talk about "the integrity of Judaism" when immediately above it, you basically said that every Jewish legal authority in Judaism is utterly ignorant about what the trinity is, and that only you know the Truth (with a capital T). Judaism rejects the Christian claim that the trinity is three facets of a single deity. One facet does not talk to another facet. That's not what "facet" means. "Father, let this cup pass from me". That's a separate deity, whatever rationalizations Christians may use. At least that's the estimation of Jewish legal authorities, in unanimous voice. YMMV, and clearly does, but that's your personal POV, and doesn't really matter here. Judaism doesn't accept the Christian rationalization of how a trinity is not polytheism, and your insistence that it must is the same OR and POV that got this article almost deleted in the first place. How can you be trusted to work fairly on this when even after everything that has happened, you continue to insist that you know better than every single Jewish authority ever? -LisaLiel (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- all I'm suggesting is that we have an awareness that Christians and Jews are both reading this. Jews don't have to be experts in Christianity any more than Christians have to be experts in Judaism. If there was no notable Rabbi anywhere that could describe (and disagree) with the trinity, then there would be no one to quote. I haven't tried to negate your desire to quote a good number of sources that say it is idolatry. Permit me to include one that says it if "forbidden, but not [idolatry]." Fair? It's fair to the truth, to Judaism, to Christianity, and to the audience. What good is it to only quote Jewish sources that are disagreeing with Arianism? Most Christians disagree with Arianism, too.Tim (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's take things one step at a time. We don't delete pages just because they're problematic (else we would need to delete pages such as Global warming and Evolution as well). Instead we try to solve the issues as they come up, providing proper sourcing as we go along. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

But Kim, the AfD you closed was clearly reaching a consensus that it should be deleted. You closed it on the grounds that a table like Tim's was no longer in existence. And now you're arguing (a bit tendentiously, I think) that this sort of table should be exempted from the OR policy?! Images are not text, and have nothing in common with argumentation, which is what this table is. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent my statements and actions. The Articles for deletion discussion was closed, because page format and page content were intertwined in the discussion, and no useful consensus-based opinion could be derived from the discussion. My closing comment stated in addition: Without prejudice towards a new afd once there's actually consensus on what the page is supposed to say, and what the contents should be.

My recent statement here was that this kind of table would be found to be exempt from the original research policy, for the same reason that images are, which is a strictly copyright based argument. The only likely reason that this is not stated explicitly is because no one thought to make it so. I have no particular preference for any particular format, but I believe that NOR need not be one of the considerations that needs to be taken into account.

Our objective is to write an encyclopedia. I advise folks to consider what would make a useful encyclopedic article first, and only then (much later) perhaps decide that some things may need a little tidying up according to this policy or that.

Finally, beware of excessive formality and wikilawyering. You can get in trouble that way.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I think it's a good sign that, after some discussion, people are weighing in on Izak's separation proposal. Meanwhile, Tim has invited input on a comparative essay-type piece to advise editors. The concerns raised with the current article include: a comparative glossary constitutes original research absent comparative (glossary-oriented) sources, an editorial choice of Christian-Jewish comparison may promote a Christian or MJ POV, and feasibility problems with defining "Jewish" or "Christian" terms and with selecting among them. It may be helpful if these concerns could be addressed by those (e.g., Bikinibomb and Drboisclair) who would like to retain a comparative article. Otherwise, perhaps Izak's idea should be bumped up to an RfC? Thanks. HG | Talk 17:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Why so formal? Just discuss it with the people involved and see what you come up with. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

An RfC strikes me as still quite informal. In any case, I think encouraging input from uninvolved editors would be, well, healthy for the discussion here. HG | Talk 02:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Table = Image?

I'm inclined to take this to arbitration immediately. Arguing that because a table is subject to copyright in the same way that an image is (a contention that I'd like to see some proof for, incidentally) means that all rules that pertain to images should pertain as well to tables... that's incredible. I hope that Kim will see fit to withdraw that suggestion. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Lisa, arbitration does not deal with content disputes. It only deals with editing behaviors. For content disputes, we have this mechanism, that is discuss, find common ground, and proceed. And if we cannot find coomon ground, we invite other editors to weigh in via the dispute resolution process (which is what we are already doing....) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Lisa, please do not misrepresent my position.

In many jurisdictions, a mere aggregation of information is not protected, but the organization of that information is. For instance, if you photocopy a telephone book, you are in violation of copyright, but if you put all the numbers in that book into a database, you are less likely to be so. If you gather the numbers yourself, you are likely to be legally in the clear.

In a similar way, to obtain tabular data in the format that Tim proposes, there is no legal source that we can use. To be legally in the clear, we would need to gather the data ourselves. The wording of NOR implies that there would be a consensus that that kind of activity would be exempt.

Once again, I do not know that Tim's approach is ideal, but I do think the idea has some merit, and deserves to be given some attention, rather than being discarded out of hand.

Now this is starting to cross from wikilawyering into real world lawyering, which is rather far across certain lines, and as far as I'm willing to go in good faith.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC) I am not a lawyer, this post does not constitute legal advice.

Clearly there is a conflict between Tim and Lisa. I think both have good reasons to contribute to this discussion of how to improve the article, but for everyone's sake I ask that they address the conflicts they have with each another on their own talk pages. As Jossi points out, mediation is for personal behavior disputes, not content disputes. Lisa and Tim may want to pursue that but they ought not to do so on this page, which must focus on content. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Several forms of informal mediation do allow discussion here. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. But let us be practical. Arguments between Tim and Lisa take up a huge amount of space on this page. One could easily summarize their basic positions in a short paragraph for each. The rest - the huge chunk of text filling up this page - is argument between them, none of which changes either one's position. This huge chunk of text is more about their exposing and explaining their differences, and perhaps even trying to change one another's mind. It is not directly about improving the article. I believe that this huge chunk of text is getting in the way of any productive discussion that possibly could improve the article. It distracts attention from other people's comments that move in constructive discussions. In short, I see no reason why each cannot register concisely what they think this article shold and should not be, and why (and thus contribute to this page) - and move the many many paragraphs of argument between them to their own talk pages where they can continue to argue against one another without interfering with the work on this page. Obviously this would not prevent either of them from making a constructive comment here, or registering opposition to or support for another's proposition here, in the future. I just think their moving their own argument elsewhere will improve the process here. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Core of the Conflict

Sl, I've insisted that Lisa say exactly what she wants to say -- but I've been trying to get her to do it in language that Gentiles can understand, since they are reading the page. My contention isn't theological. It's editorial. She gets sources that say "Trinitarianism is idolatry for Jews, but it is not for Christians." I understand what she means, you understand what she means. We're Jewish. We don't even bat an eye. Not a problem. Lisa has fantastic knowledge and great sources. I'm just trying to cram these into ENGLISH. Honestly, I'd be delighted with better sources than Telushkin who speak IN ENGLISH. We aren't allowed on Wikipedia to bracket words in quotations. We can't write on a typical page, like I did on my sample page, "Trinitarianism is idolatry for Jews, but it is not for Christians" (i.e. Gentiles). So, since we can't do THAT, how about keep looking around for a source that says "Gentiles"? The biggest reason for my idea is exhaustion. You've seen how hard this is. Maybe a chart can start to clear things up. Something that Jews can challenge on a Christian cell when it's not intelligible, or that Christians can challenge on a Jewish cell when it's not intelligible.

I WANT Lisa to say what she wants to say. I'm just begging for it to be something that more people will understand.Tim (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll be off the computer for the rest of the evening, I think. Anyhow -- summary bullet: what good is it to be 100% correct in what you wrote if 98% of the intended audience can't figure out what you're talking about -- or worse, THINKS they know what you said and they are thinking something entirely different from what you meant? Lialah Tov, y'all.Tim (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Tim has used the concept "in language that Gentiles can understand" several dozen times since this whole thing began. I disagree, also, with this estimation. I think the statement, coming from a Jew, that "Trinitarianism is idolatry for Jews, but possibly not for Christians" is absolutely understandable to almost everyone in the world. Only people who are specifically involved with MJ would even consider that there might be something vague in this statement. I'm not calling Tim an MJ himself. But he clearly knows quite a few of them, as evidenced by the way he went to bring some of them in to edit his original article.

And for the three hundred million, four hundred and twenty thousand, and forty sixth time, if there's a need to "correct" such a statement, the place to do it is where the statement is being made. Not on this page, but here, where it appears he's already done so.

Since Tim's caveat is already in place in the article where it belongs, can we please drop this subject? It's of no relevance any more, and it is most certainly not the core of the conflict. -LisaLiel (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If you say "Trinitarianism is idolatry for Jews, but possibly not for Christians" then you are also saying no Jews are Christians, then you have to go about proving that there are no Christians who are also Jews. That's why it's better to say "not for Gentiles" instead. -Bikinibomb (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No. It's appropriate and legitimate to ignore fringe exceptions when speaking. If I were to say that pedophilia is considered immoral in the US, only a creep would contradict me and say, "Well, pedophiles in the US don't consider it immoral, so your statement isn't really true. You should say 'Non-pedophile Americans consider pedophilia immoral'". Feh. That's Bizarro logic, and doesn't belong in any civilized discourse, let alone Wikipedia. There are Christians, and there are a small number of Jews who espouse Christianity. -LisaLiel (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if someone expresses a fringe POV you are still obliged to assume good faith and treat other editors with respect, Lisa. Please start acting like an adult. Tim is basically saying that the language should be phrased that "X is prohibited to Jews, but allowed to Gentiles." This is perfectly reasonable. It is an accurate statement, makes the language of the article more intelligible, and it is more consistent with Rabbinic theology and haggadah to boot. Your own prefered phrasing verges on tautology. I cannot imagine why you would resist this proposal unless you so refuse to assume good faith on Tim's part that you reflexively reject anything he suggests without giving it any consideration. This is simply unacceptable behavior for a Wikipedia editor. If you continue to refuse to assume good faith on Tim's part - if you continue to speak to him in uncivil terms, and reject everything he says, he will have a viable case to take you to ArbCom. I wouldn't be surprised if he is not already compiling edit difs of every time you have addressed him uncivily, and every time you have refused to consider his views. I wonder whether he could find any example at all of your compromising with him or accepting a suggestion of his. If he can make a compelling case that this has never happened, he would have a very strong ArbCom case on grounds of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and possibly WP:NPA. Do you really want to make it easy for him to put together an ArbCom case? Slrubenstein | Talk 01:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you please read what I write a little more carefully? I ask this, because you have completely misunderstood both what I wrote and the context in which it was written.

I was replying to Bikinibomb, and not to Tim. That's the first thing. Second of all, I have absolutely no problem saying that that Christianity is considered idolatry for Jews, even if they self-identify as Christians or Messianics. In fact, that's precisely the text that I added to Tim's table. Why? Because Tim pointed out that it was confusing, so I changed it. I had no problem hearing his concern and addressing it.

But we're not talking about Wikipedia and me. Or rather, if Tim is, he's being disingenuous, since he knows that I changed the text to address his concern, and have not, since the very first edit, said what Bikinibomb says I did. Rather, there is a multitude of Jewish sources, such as R' Aryeh Kaplan, who say what Tim and Bikinibomb object to. I was answering for them. I reject the idea that it is inappropriate for R' Kaplan or for Tosfot or for any other Jewish authority to use the term "Christian" with meaning of "non-Jews who worship Jesus". I would be very surprised to find that you disagree with me on this. Please look at Tim's table and tell me whether the cells on Apostasy and Avodah Zarah do or not bear out what I'm saying. That's my wording in there. And it's hardly the only time I've taken Tim's suggestions. When he complained that the post-table list made no distinction between Jewish and Christian terms, I responded by adding the Jewish term, Christian term, shared term notation. -LisaLiel (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Lisa, thank you for this clarification. I am sorry I (again) misunderstood your point. But if you do not mind my saying, I think you express here, more clearly than you have before, your important point. And of course I agree with you. I hope Tim and Bikinibomb will read this carefully and put aside any hostile feelings or lack of good faith they have towards you, and take what you write here seriously. I do hope you see my 19:29 comment, and especially my 19:38 comments as reenforcing your position (I hope in these matters at least I correctly understand your views!!). I ask Bikinibomb and especially Tim to consider these comments very seriously. Bikinibomb and Tim, if you want to collaborate constructively with others on this article, you have to take these various comments seriously. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sl, I keep forgetting that you haven't been around for this. Look at the level of effort going on here. My problem with Lisa's wording in the cell was that she cited a source that contradicted the wording she was using. It's the same as the Telushkin quote. Although we are clarifying the meaning to correspond to Lisa's, that only makes his citation unusuable because she'll say "the trinity is IDOLATRY for Jews" and tag it to a citation that says "it if forbidden for Jews, but it is NOT avodah zara." Now -- Lisa's understanding of Telushkin, we see is correct. His wording means "the trinity if forbidden for Jews [because it is avodah zara], but it is not avodah zara [for Gentiles]." Well, we Wikieditors can't DO those brackets -- nor can we use wording that assumes them. We have to find different sources. Now, this is a plus for Lisa because it was my source and she didn't like it anyway. But it's a nagging problem because the intended meaning is virtually the opposite of what anyone but a really really really locked to the paradigm Jew can make sense of. That's not a smack at Lisa. We need people who really get a paradigm that way. But that needs to be translated somehow to the rest of us. There isn't a lack of good faith on my part here. There's an incredible frustration of knowing that Christians can't make heads or tails of some of this. And in fact, apparently even I can't! And you SEE how hard I'm working on this wording problem.Tim (talk) 03:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There are ethnic Jews who fully convert to Christianity (not MJ). If they are still halachicly Jews but also Christians (once a Jew always a Jew), how does that apply to them, if it is idolatry for Jews but possibly not for Christians, if they are both Jews and Christians? -Bikinibomb (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The determining factor is not that they are Christians - indeed, it is the consequences of their becoming Christians that is at issue, which is why Lisa's phrasing verges on circular reasoning (using a term to explain the same term). And this is why Tim's phrasing, at least as I understand it - X is forbidden to Jews, but permitted to Gentiles - is indeed superior phrasing. because whether Jews convert to Christianity (or Islam or Buddhism) they remain Jews and do not become Gentiles. The application of the law concerning Christianity (from a Jewish point of view, of course) hinges on a distinction between Jews and Gentiles. That is, the consequences of converting to Christianity are (according to the minority view of the Tosefists) different depending on whether the convert is a Jew or a Gentile (it makes no sense at all to use Lisa's language, which in effect would ask, whether converting to Christianity has the same effect on Jews as on Christians - see how it doesn't make any sense?). So, in your question, you should have written "if it is idolatry for Jews but possibly not for Gentiles ..." - then the senence makes sense. I think this is Tim's point about the best way to phrase it. If i interpret Tim correctly, I agree with him. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tim too, that's why it was kind of directed at her, to see if she still thought it made sense in that light. Not sure why she is veering off down the MJ fringe path, it's got little to do with that. -Bikinibomb (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

My own view is that although - at least in this 'one, specific, instance I think Tim makes a valid and important point, I do not believe he has argued his case for this point effectively. He does not need to bring in MJ in order to argue his point. But he does, and that muddies the waters. If Lisa were not so hypersensitive about MJ, she would ignore this extraneous element to Tim's argument altogether and address his argument on its main merits. However, she happens to be very sensitive about MJ, and thus responds strongly to this element of Tim's argument. From the point of view of a Wikipedia editor, Lisa is right that MJ is a fringe view and ought not play a major role in this particular discussion. I think if Tim were wise he would say "Okay, you are right, forget about MJ. Even without MJ I still have a valid point and a good argument." But for some reason he cannot say that. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If you don't mind my saying so, you all are using much of the Talk page to discuss inter-personal matters rather than specific editing decisions. Meanwhile, it's my impression that the idolatry questions you are discussing are very complex and do not lend itself to a simple glossary entry. For instance, the notion that a Jew always remains a Jew is overstated, since there are exceptions. If you need a glossary entry for a specific term (e.g., avodah zarah or idolatry), why not just quote such entries from secondary/tertiary sources? Anyway, wouldn't it be more helpful to stay focused on what to do with this article, rather than on specific terms? Thanks. HG | Talk 03:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Final Word on Telushkin

When two people have different opinions about what Mark Twain meant by something he said, they can discuss and debate, but ultimately, short of a seance, or finding something he wrote that addresses the issue with full clarity, there's never going to be any way to resolve the different views absolutely.

This is not the case with living authors, however. I went to Rabbi Telushkin's web site, and found contact information for him. I wrote this e-mail to him this morning:

Dear Rabbi Telushkin, I am engaged in a debate with a person I'll call T. T is an Orthodox Jew who converted from Christianity. Previously, he was a Christian pastor and theologian. The debate revolves around the issue of shituf and the Christian trinity. I have stated that the unanimous view of Jewish authorities is that worship of the trinity constitutes idolatry *for Jews*. T insists that this view is not unanimous, because there is one notable Jewish authority who says otherwise. That authority, he says, is you. He bases this claim on the following quote from your book, "Jewish Literacy":

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 read this as you saying that trinitarianism is not idolatry for non-Jews, but T insists that you are saying it isn't idolatry even for Jews. He wants to post this publically on Wikipedia as a notable Jewish position.

Thank you for your help.

Kol Tuv,

Lisa

I just checked my e-mail, and found that I had received the following reply:

Your explanation is correct. If he posts it as he tells you he wants to do he is falsifying what I said.
Thank you.
WIth best wishes
Joseph Telushkin

Can we please let this issue rest now? -LisaLiel (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL -- glad I checked the site one more obsessive time before heading out. I have no intention of falsifying what he said. Still -- he remains the only source who's actually described the concept as it is self defined. Not exact, but VERY close. I'd be very curious to know if he feels that what he's described is "Shituf" -- because it definitely wasn't Arianism. Would you mind asking, or would you trust me to ask?

If I understand the meaning correctly, then, he is stating categorically that "it is forbidden for Jews, but it is not idolatry" and we need to mentally bracket in there [for Gentiles]. Geeze. The problem is even more systemic than I thought. This problem is a lot bigger than Wikipedia.Tim (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Telushkin is saying that Christianity's trinitarianism is not Avodah Zarah for Gentiles, but is for Jews. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem here though is that it seems to conflict with Noahide: if all humans were commanded to avoid idolatry, did the concept of idolatry become stricter for Jews at some point but remain with the same allowances of Trinity-type things for Gentiles? At what point did it change for Jews? I think it's necessary to find that out and include it, otherwise his statements don't make much sense. -Bikinibomb (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You're impossible. This is religion. It doesn't matter whether it makes sense to you or not. I know someone to whom no religious position makes any sense. So what?

In any case, yes, the whole issue of shituf is a verse that refers to false idols as "that were not alloted to you". One position among the rabbis is that this implies that they were allotted to someone, otherwise, that phrase would be redundant, and there are no redundant phrases (or words, or even letters) in the Torah. If they appear to be redundant, they're there to teach something.

From this analysis comes the idea that the idolatry forbidden to all mankind is that which violates having other gods before God. Equal to or taking precedent over, or instead of.

Maimonides describes the origins of idolatry as having taken place when men looked at the sun and moon and stars, and concluded that since they serve God, and seem to be much higher than human beings, they are analogous to high servants of a king. And just as paying high servants of a king honor is a way of honoring the king, so too did they think that it was proper to give honor to the sun and moon and stars. And that things sort of devolved from that point until people wound up with all their focus on these things, and none on God.

The shituf view would say that while worshipping only God is the optimum, the people who started off honoring the sun and such subordinately to God weren't violating the laws against idolatry. It was only when that worship replaced worship of God that it became a violation.

Note, incidentally, that the shituf view is a minority view. The majority view is that both are idolatry both for Jews and for non-Jews. Worship God, and only God, or it's idolatry.

As far as Jews are concerned, however, even according to the minority shituf view, worshipping anything other than God in any way whatsoever is idolatry. But why should that be such a surprise? God doesn't care if you eat a pork chop. He only cares if Jews eat pork chops. We have 613 commandments; you have 7. -LisaLiel (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Deuteronomy 4:19-20 --agr (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I spoke too quickly. I will try to be clearer. The worship of false Gods (idolatry) is forbidden of all people, Gentiles and Jews. Most Jewish authorities consider the trinity to be a false good, and thus consider Christianity idolatry, forbidden to both Gentiles and Jews. A group of medieval rabbis collectively known as the tosafists proposed an alternate position. I do not believe that this is the majority view within Judaism but (since Rabbinic Judaism involves a kind of legal pluralism) it is an acceptable view. The view is that Christianity does not involve the worship of false Gods (idolatry) because God the Father is the true god (Allah, Elohenu). However, according to the tosafists, Christians worship this true God through the help/mediation of lesser gods, i.e. the son and Holy Spirit. This reliance on lesser gods to worship the true god is "shituf." Although shituf is not strictly speaking idolatry (and thus does not violate the Noahide laws, and is thus allowed of Gentiles), it is nevertheless forbidden to Jews. Jewish monothesism is absolute, and the use of lesser divinities - even in the service of worshiping the true God - is nevertheless a violation of the Shemah, and its uncompromising emphasis on the unitary, unique, and solitary nature of the God Jews worship (as well as the commandment in Deuteronomy 4:19, which you could say is a commandment that Jews not engage in shituf). Does this make sense? Note: I could well be wrong and would welcome others more knowledgable than I who might correct me. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(My comment was here by mistake, because of another edit that went on at the same time. I've moved it up under Bikinibomb's statement, which was what I was responding to.)

I am impossible??? Lisa, you need to start treating me with a minimum amount of respect and civility. You recently threatened to take someone to ArbCom because of a content dispute and had to be told that ArbCom does not mediate content disputes. It does however mediate conflicts over personal behavior. your incivility to me is uncalled for and unnecessary. You write, ":::You're impossible. This is religion. It doesn't matter whether it makes sense to you or not. I know someone to whom no religious position makes any sense. So what?" So what yourself. When I engage in a discussion with others, I have the hope that I am explaining myself clearly and that what I say is understandable. You may not care whether people understand you or not, tht is your business. But how dare you criticize me for complying with Wikipedia policy of being civil and assuming good faith? I want a dialogue. i want to understand others, and want others to understand me. If others do not understand me I am willing to try again. How dare you fault me for this? Slrubenstein | Talk 01:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, Slrubenstein. I would have thought that the content of what I wrote made it clear that I was replying to Bikinibomb, even if it was wrongly placed. You wanted the benefit of the doubt when you accidentally referred to "New Testament" but meant "Old Testament". I hope you'll give me the same benefit of the doubt for what was the equivalent of a typo. I wrote that and when I submitted it, the page had been changed. So I copied it and tried again, and again there'd been another edit in the mean time. So I did it yet a third time, but apparently I was careless, and left it beneath your words, which was not my intent. I was not being uncivil to you, because I wasn't replying to you. And I don't think it was particularly uncivil to Bikinibomb. Certainly it was no worse than what he's doing. -LisaLiel (talk) 02:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Lisa for rearranging the comments. I hope you can understand why I misunderstood your comment, given its original placement. In any event, I appreciate your explaining my mistake. If you want I can remove my comment entirely but I hope the strikeout is sufficient to make it clear that I acknowledge my misunderstanding and unwarrented response. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It was completely understandable. I will try and be more careful in the future. -LisaLiel (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I should add that, if you really do not believe that what we write at Wikipedia should make sense to other people, perhaps you should not be involved in writing encyclpedia articles. The last thing in the world that we need here is someone who wants to write prose that makes no sense. If you expect people to assume good faith in YOU, you had better start acting like you deserve it. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In views like Telushkin's, will Gentiles always be allowed Trinity and not violate laws for idolatry in Noahide, even in the World to Come? Or will Noahide become stricter at some point? -Bikinibomb (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not know, although I do not believe Noahide laws become stricter in the World to Come. Please remember as i stated that the view of the Toseftists is a minority view; i.e. for most authorities the interpretation of Christianity and the application of the Noahide laws is already stricter. But remember too that the mainstream Jewish view is that most sinners at most only have to go through a brief (11 or 12 month) period of purging before being admitted to the world to come anyway, so I do not see how it would make a difference. But I am not sure. Maybe someone more knowledgable like Shirahadasha or IZAK could add something here. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This is getting too erudite for me to be able to contribute ... so I look forward to a great article in brilliant prose that can enlighten me and others on this subject. Good luck! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so it seems that there really is a disconnect. As I wrote separately to Rabbi Telushkin (yes, he's an honorary member now!), I think he means "While it is forbidden to Jews [because it is avodah zara], it is not avodah zara [to Gentiles]." In other words, idolatry is not idolatry. There are two definitions in that statement. Does anyone have a sourced definition of idolatry for Gentiles (in the Jewish view) and idolatry for Jews? My original instinct was that Telushkin was making a distinction along the lines of the Guide to the Perplexed -- that is, even a CONCEPTUAL image of God is idolatry for Jews. However, perhaps Gentiles need a physical image and not just a conceptual one to qualify as idolatry. The Trinity is a conceptual image of the single God.

My only problem is that the description Sl gave, while it made perfect sense, was a perfect description of Arianism, which is idolatry for Christians (in the Christian view). Anyhow, one step at a time. Are there sourced definitions for the different qualifications for idolatry? Am I even close thinking it may be physical representation and conceptual representation? The first would be forbidden to Gentiles, and both would be forbidden to Jews. But it's just a hunch. I have nothing solid to go on yet.Tim (talk) 03:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know...these seem to cover thinking and physical, a lot. Noahide -Bikinibomb (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no disconnect, Tim. Yes, "idolatry is not idolatry". At least according to a minority view. But you might as well say that "theft is not theft", just because there are slightly different rules for theft for Jews and non-Jews. Are you really surprised that there are different rules? A Jew who steals less than a pruta's worth is exempt from punishment. A non-Jew who does the same thing is considered culpable to the same degree as if he'd stolen a ton of gold. A Jew who eats a pork chop is sinning. A non-Jew who eats a pork chop is doing nothing wrong (provided that it was dead before he ate it).

"Idolatry is not idolatry". That's because "idolatry", like any other concept in Judaism, has a context. Idolatry for a non-Jew is one thing, and idolatry for a Jew is another. According to most Jewish authorities, both categories include worshipping anything or anyone other than God Himself, and/or worshipping Him through a graven image. But a minority view, as you and everyone else here has heard ad nauseum, says that non-Jews are technically exempt from idolatry if they worship God as supreme while they're mistakenly worshipping other deities.

Why does that bother you? And more to the point, why is the fact that it bothers you relevant to Wikipedia? It's just the way it is, you know?

And no, Judaism does not think that non-Jews "need" images or subsidiary deities. But according to a minority view, allowances can be made in the short term. The majority disagrees, and the unanimous view is that non-Jews should not worship anyone or anything except for God. Since you have Rabbi Telushkin's e-mail address, and see him as an authority (though I suspect he'd reject that characterization out of hand), why don't you send him what I've just said and ask him whether he agrees or not. Or you know, you could just accept it. -LisaLiel (talk) 03:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Core of the Conflict, Part Deux

Above, Tim writes, "My only problem is that the description Sl gave, while it made perfect sense, was a perfect description of Arianism, which is idolatry for Christians (in the Christian view)." This is a confusing sentence because the first half and second half do not easily fit.

Let me start with the first half - imagen I am reading only the first half, not the second half. I would say, here is where Tim is misunderstanding Wikipedia policy in a way that creates or exacerbates unnecessarhy misunderstanding with Lisa and others. Tim seems to be saying that the Rabbinic criticism is not of actual Christianity but of Arianism, and thus does not apply to actual Christianity. But Tim, this does not matter. Wikipedia is about verifiable points of view, not truth. Truth does not matter: it does not matter what Christianity is "really" about or what Christians "really" believe. All that matters is different views of what Christians believe; different views of Christianity. Lisa has accurately represented the Jewish view of Christianity, and I have supplemented her explanation. You seem to be saying "but this is not Christianity, this is Arianism, not Christianity." So what? It does not matter that (you say, or even the pope says) this is not Christianity because truth does not matter, only views matter. And this is the normative Jewish view - from the Amoraim to Rambam - of Christianity. TIM: as long as you worry yourself over whether the Rabbinic understanding of Christianity is truthful or accurate, you will only create unnecessary conflict. It is not for any editor to say that the Rabbis were correct or incorrect in their identification, description, and interpretation of "Christianity." Period.

Now let us move to the second half - imagine I am reading only the second half, not the first half. here Tim you comply fully with our V and NPOV policy - you correctly identify a specific point of view (Christianity) and assert that accordig to this point of view Arianism is idolatry. Great! If this is all that you wrote, we would have no confusion or conflict, because you are making it clear that this is just what Christians believe. you are not claiming it is the truth, nor are you claiming that everyone believes this. As long as you take this line, there shouldn't be any conflict.

See how the two halves of the sentence do not match up?

Let's scratch the first half and start with the second hale. You would write, "In the Christian view, Arianism is idolatry. But Christians do not see themselves as idolaters. However, Jews do see Christians as idolaters." Now we have an NPOV compliant sentence. It provides two views of Christianity: the Christian view, and the Jewish view. It does not claim that either view is true (or false). It makes it clear that the two groups take contrasting views. This is accurate, and complies with our NPOV policy.

All Lisa has been saying is that according to one point of view, that of mainstream Judaism (1) idolatry is forbidden to both Jews and Gentiles and (2) Christianity is idolatry. Moreover, according to another point of view, that of a minority of Jewish rabbis (1) Christianity is not idolatry but rather something called shituf and (2) shituf is allowed for Gentiles, but not for Jews.

What Lisa is saying is accurate anc complies with NPOV. She is not saying any of these views is true or universal. She is identifying specifiv points of view These are the two points of view (majority and minority) held by Jewish scholars. These views concern Christianity. There is NO claim that these are how Christians view themselves, only how Jews view Christians.

Tim, as long as you are concerned with what is a truthful or accurate description of "Christianity," you will be violating NPOV and creating unnecessary conflict with other editors.

Tim, if you can limit yourself to different views of Christianity, and accept that different groups have different, even opposing or contradictory, views, and that it is not for Wikipedia ediors to decide which view (if any) is right, then you will be complying with NPOV and avoiding unnecessary conflict with other editors. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Bravo!!! I would only modify slightly to say "according to one point of view, that of mainstream Judaism (1) idolatry is forbidden to both Jews and Gentiles and (2) Christianity is idolatry. Moreover, according to another point of view, that of a minority of Jewish rabbis (1) Christianity is not idolatry but rather something called shituf and (2) shituf is allowed for Gentiles, but is still considered idolatry for Jews." -LisaLiel (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sl, actually, the problem wasn't that the normative Jewish view of Christianity is shituf. I never disagreed with that. Lisa had said that there were no exceptions to this, and I was citing what looked just like a big whopping exception. Turns out that even THAT exception didn't exist.

But the bigger problem was lining things up.

For instance, Judaism teaches that partnership is NOT idolatry [for Gentiles] and accepts Christianity on that basis. Christianity teaches that partnership IS idolatry [for everyone] and rejects Arians on that basis. Okay, so is Lisa right and there are NO Rabbinic sources that disagree with Christianity? Apparently so. So, now that there are no exceptions it is simple to say that "Jews believe Christianity is thus and so." Not a problem.

But there is still the problem of alignment. Although you are absolutely correct that Judaism defines its view, what I'm saying is that on Wikipedia Judaism needs to describe its view in an intelligible manner to non-Jews. And non-Jews need to do the same. The DESCRIPTION is not "the trinity is partnership" per se. It is more like "Judaism views the trinity as partnership." Then when we describe the Christian view of Arianism as partnership, Christians will understand what the heck you are talking about: "oh, they see Christians as Arians. Makes perfect sense why they forbid it to themselves, since Arianism is idolatry." Simple. Just align everything and people know what the heck is going on.

The trick is to know which term to hang it on. Shituf = partnership. Arianism = partnership. Jews believe Christianity is partnership. And, viola, non-Jews have a chance to understand the definition of Shituf. But if we used "Trinity" as the primary hanger -- Christians would always be misdirected. Judaism remains authoritative on their view, and intelligible at the same time.

As we've discovered, the resolution to one definition issue was accomplished by demonstrating the need for a different definition clarification: that is, idolatry is not idolatry. So then, one definition needs to be divided into two definitions.

I'm getting there. Trust me, I'm an engineer. We line things up until there's a snag and drill into it until we find the disconnect. The idolatry is not idolatry was the disconnect that was keeping a lot of things from lining up.

All I need is a quick definition of 1) idolatry, and 2) idolatry. Lisa has agreed that there ARE differences. Okay, can we state them with citations? I think it will fix 90% of the tabular alingment problem (and the cause for the first AfD, if you'll remember).Tim (talk) 04:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

For further clarification, see my most recent comment to you here (i.e. at the bottom of the section).

I understand your point. But I fear that if we were to write that Rabbis view Christianity the way Christians view Arianism, we would be violating WP:NOR by presenting our own synthesis. Unless you can find an actual reliable verifiable secondary source that says just this. otherwise, I think if you want to write "intelligibly" for a general audience, we need to write the section such that educated Christians will conclude on their own that Jews view Christianity as Christians view Arianism. If we could achieve this we will obviate another problem: not all of our readers will know what Arinism is, and including it as an explicit part of the explanation will confuse those readers! I am sure there is a way to explain this clearly without violating WP:NOR.But to do so would take more space than a glossary (let alone a table). Best to find the appropriate article, and just write it out clearly. Principle sources would be the Rambam and various Tosefotists; I am sure Lisa and others can recommend good secondary sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

And I understand yours as well. My first interest is to find the issue, define it for myself with citations, and then look for a presentable citation that isn't off the wall either. In other words, it should have the standard meaning for the group at hand, but use language that intersects with that for the same idea in the other group. Not only do I agree that you can't say "Jews are really arguing against Arianiam" I would insist that you can't say that (unless the statement were printed that way in a standard reference). At the same time we have to be clear in our heads that "Trinitarianism" and "partnership" and even "idolatry" each have multiple definitions that do not agree with each other -- before we start trying to give the world single definitions for them (such as in a Glossary). All I'm looking for are citations for the definition differences, that's all. Right now the only word that is a possible intersection of meaning is "partnership" but even that is problematic, because Christians are less lenient on idolatry here. They forbid partnership as idolatry, and we permit it for Gentiles.Tim (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

NEJ has the following relevant quote - "The importance of the fig in mishnaic and talmudic times is evidenced by the fact that more than 70 expressions connected with the fig occur in the literature of the period"

"The fig figures prominently in the aggadah, the consensus, on the basis of Genesis 3:7, being that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was a fig tree (Ber. 40a; Gen, R. 15:7)."

I think we can safely say that figs were an important symbol during the Rabbinic period but are not at all an important symbol in Modern Judaism.Wolf2191 (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm winding down all this specific entry discussion per my requests in the AfD, but I'll just say that from now on I'm going to handle this like we do with Catholic vs. Protestant, like Purgatory is a view of Catholics, not so much Protestants. In the same way I'll be saying that symbolism of figs or whatever comes up are views of Rabbis, Chabad, those Jews into mystical symbolism, etc. wherever I find their sources written about it. Then other editors if they want can add that maybe they aren't so important to Reform, or secular and atheist Jews still giving input to Jewish denominations and who may be the majority now, it's anyone's guess. It's not at all accurate to lump all views of Judaism or Jews in together as if it is one uniform religion/people with the same perspective, any more than it would be to do that with Christianity. The one thing they mostly agree totally on is no Jesus for Jews, other than that, various sects of Judaism, and individual Jews, can vary in views from mildly to greatly, even from God to no such thing as God. So that's what I'll be doing with that. -Bikinibomb (talk) 07:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)