Talk:Immanuel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the Jesus work group. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments
Judaism Portal
Immanuel is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do:
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Archive
Archives
  1. May 2006-November 2007

Contents

[edit] Stub or disambiguation?

Is this a stub for expansion? As it is now this is nothing more then a disambiguation page. If any attempts at expansion will be reverted, what is the point of having Emanuel (disambiguation)? -- SECisek (talk) 06:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the recent addition to the article because it basically asserted the Christian interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 as fact, and presented a number of arguments to that effect. This is a highly contentious issue between the Christian and Jewish traditions, and therefore such assertions are clear violations of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. If you wish, please rephrase the content appropriately before reintroducing it to the article. Nimrand (talk) 06:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
It made no such assertion and info was added under a heading that clearly stated Christian usage. Add a section on Jewish usage. NPOV means all POVs are fairly represented, not all POVs are equally repressed. I will work on the text. -- SECisek (talk) 06:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I guesss I wont since I see you reverted it again with out bother to discuss. Are you spoiling for an edit war? -- SECisek (talk) 06:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I posted my reasons for reverting it on the discussion page before reverting it a second time.Nimrand (talk) 07:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish usage

I was going to stub in the section myself, but a google serch turns up nothing other then Reform congregations and people who have it as a proper name. Can somebody point me to a website describing traditional Jewish use of the term. -- SECisek (talk) 07:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I swapped the Christian and Jewish usage sections because it made more sense to put the Christian usage first - more filled in, alphabetical, other pages (Emanu-El) more focused on the Jewish usage. I also added a note on the Emanu-El page at the top to link to Immanuel and Emanuel more clearly. I will try and do more work on the Jewish usage at some point. - JerseyRabbi (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The Isaiah 7:14 article might give you some leads. From that text "Jewish tradition states that the "young woman" was in fact Isaiah’s wife and the birth of the child is recorded later in Isaiah 8:3."Nimrand (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Jewish Usage Post

The new posting on the Jewish interpretation strikes me as a strong statement without any reference. To say anything in Judaism is simply divided into groups doesn't appear to based on any facts. The subsequent post may be true, but without any reference or citation, how can anyone be sure it isn't just one person's personal opinion. A NPOV is more than saying "I'm right." The poster seems very confident about his posting (see his post on my User Talk), so I am certainly going to avoid a revert back-and-forth and simply placed these citation tags. I encourage the poster Mateek to cite his entries to give them greater force (and perhaps to tone down the rhetoric - asking for citations and removing postings without them is standard appropriate encyclopedic editing). I look forward to finding out on what his interpretation is based. - JerseyRabbi (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(Note: Mateek responded to my comments within the body of my post. Without seeing the original post it is quite difficult to understand to what he is replying, so I have reposted my original post above and his full response (including my words) below.) JerseyRabbi (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The new posting on the Jewish interpretation strikes me as a strong statement without any reference. To say anything in Judaism is simply divided into groups doesn't appear to based on any facts. [I don't think the existence of divided groups in Judaism is worth discussing. Calling that unfactual is insulting. Mateek (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)] The subsequent post may be true, but without any reference or citation, how can anyone be sure it isn't just one person's personal opinion. [Does common reading comprehension need citation? Mateek (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)] A NPOV is more than saying "I'm right." [You're the Reform Jew Mateek (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)] The poster seems very confident about his posting (see his post on my User Talk), so I am certainly going to avoid a revert back-and-forth and simply placed these citation tags. [I appreciate your flexibility. Whoever created this article should be heavily applauded for explaining the two-word make-up of the source of this article. Mateek (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)) I encourage the poster Mateek to cite his entries to give them greater force [1st Citation: I only know of two branches of understanding. If an author knows of more, feel encouraged to add to this group of understandings. 2nd Citation: Finding citation in a woven text from a body of work known to contain secret codes, containing names and unthreatening references, may be difficult, but is a worthy endeavor. 14:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)](and perhaps to tone down the rhetoric - asking for citations and removing postings without them is standard appropriate encyclopedic editing). I look forward to finding out on what his interpretation is based. - JerseyRabbi (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no interest or investment in getting into an argument over this issue. Wikipedia requires citations for factual statements made in an article. The less known the statement, the more it requires a citation. "Common reading comprehension" does require citation when it comes to biblical interpretation. There are 70 faces to each verse of Torah, Jewish tradition says. If this is one of the metaphorical "70", find someone else who said the same thing in a book or article or even a web site and cite it. I will leave this article to others to edit these comments and find appropriate citations for them. - JerseyRabbi (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the unsourced material added by an anonymous user (or is by Mateek?) about 3 opinions in Judaism. There was ample time for the person who added to provide sources but none were provided. The added material is not found in standard Jewish commentaries. Googling produces some Christian missionary pages that seem to mention such ideas but these then belong in the Christian section. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems that Mateek is resorting to tricks and performing the occasional anonymous edit to revert back to his nonsense and issue threats, guys please help. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 09:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
According to his website he believes he is a Biblical prophet. tsk tsk Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 11:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR complaint

This article has been discussed at the 3RR noticeboard. I am concerned about possible sockpuppetry, so if anyone notices any more policy violations in the editing of this article, please let me know directly. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the Sockpuppets are right here. MY IP'S SHOWED UP INSTEAD OF MY SIGNATURE TWICE, BY A WORN OUT WIKIPEDIA COOKIE, AND INNOCENT OMMISION of my signature. I told EdJohnston he failed miserably as an Admin, if he even was one, because he had the authority to just step in and give Wikipedia readers a better understanding. Instead, he's helped make Jews look foolish, or simple minded, for coming up with only one interpretation without regard for present day common usage of the word. One reply he made to me was, "It does not take rocket science to be sure you are logged in to Wikipedia under your own name when you file a 3RR report..." I was. A cookie must have worn out. When I hit 'Save' an IP appeared by itself. I haven't logged myself out EVER in the middle of editing. Mateek (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Source on the Jewish Interpretation

I got this source from the Isiah 7.14 article: The Second Jewish Book Of Why by Alfred Kolatch 1985. Based on how it is used in the Isiah 7.14 article, it would seem to support the original text of this article that keeps getting overwritten by Mateek. I don't have a copy of the book, so I can't know what exactly it says. But, if someone has access to a copy, it might be a helpful citation for this article. Also, it seems to me that the idea that Immanuel is an "End of Days" prophet is, at best, a minority viewpoint, since I've yet to see any citation of it and it hasn't even been proposed on any of the other articles that cover this subject. Nimrand (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In The Second Jewish Book of Why, pp. 66-67, Kolatch reviews some theories on Isaiah 7:14 in the context of the question "Why Do Jews reject the Christian dogma of the virgin birth?" Kolatch takes a common approach: alma doesn't mean virgin, the definite article implies an already pregnant girl standing there, betula is the word for virgin, etc. While this is in obvious sympathy the Jewish interpretation section as it previously was, it mostly shows Mateek has a minority opinion.
Since we have been asking for citations from reputable sources on this posting since April 15 without any response but reverts, sockpuppetry, and a whole lot of nastiness, I am going to remove the statements and I encourage other users to help me keep them off the page unless reputable citations are included. Should 3-revert violations continue, we should continue the process already in place to respond to them. JerseyRabbi (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll try find some stuff to add to the section like more detail on Rashi with references as well as other views, if I remember the Ramchal had a different view to Rashi interpreting almah as meaning in particular a harem wife making Immanuel a son of Ahaz whereas Rashi instead equates the almah with the "neviah" (prophetess/prophets wife) mentioned a few verses later. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Minority opinions seem to be encouraged by Wikipedia, but not by this group. I resent being involved by obvious clowns in regards to VIRGIN or A DIFFERENT WORD. I think the Sockpuppets are right here. MY IP'S SHOWED UP INSTEAD OF MY SIGNATURE TWICE, BY A WORN OUT WIKIPEDIA COOKIE, AND INNOCENT OMMISION of my signature. I'm interested in how JersyRabbi got involved again suddenly when I filed a 3RR Noticeboard post against Kuratowski's Ghost. Meanwhile, Immanuel couldn't be a 'End of Days' prophet? The two-literal-word name couldn't be esoteric or semantic, in an Isaiah text woven into the past and future? Does anybody dispute the use and presence of the future tense in Isaiah? Mateek (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Let's not cloud the issues. The alternate Jewish opinions that are at the subject of the debate have been unreferenced since day one. References have been requested since day one. Where are the references? Saying your opinion is right and that others are wrong still leaves your post unreferenced. Please find legitimate references for your post. Without such support, any opinion can be removed otherwise Wikipedia becomes a giant blog of unsourced, unverifiable claims. Please post legitimate reputable references. You may want to check out Wikipedia:Reference, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:When to cite for guidelines on this matter. JerseyRabbi (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
To Mateek's point about encouraging minority opinions, a consequence of Wikipedia's NPOV policy is that articles must acknowledge notable minority opinions. But, that does not mean that it must give those opinions equal weight to that of majority opinions, or that it must acknowledge all possible opinions. In any case, all opinions must be cited to, at the very least, establish their notability.Nimrand (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)