Talk:Kabbalah/Archive 3

Recent unilateral splitting up of this article

I think this article, as imperfect as it was, is yet the worse for the recent moves. Especially without the critique and secular-scholarly sections (now a euphemestically named "attitudes toward" article) the whole piece has been emasculated and rendered a kabbala lovefest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.64.233 (talk) 05:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the changes helpful, and needed, because the article was so large and disorganized. What, specifically, do you consider unbalanced? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"Unsigned Comment," I fully agree with your statement: you've been specific enough in your criticism. Further, none of these changes were discussed on this page as they should have been, considering the extent of this drastic, heavy-handed and unknowlegeable piece of "editing." Reinstatement of the pre-edited article is required.

Moreover, I would like it noted that although I have some expertise in some areas of Kabbalah, notably the pre-Lurianic Kabbalah, I have disassociated myself from this article, will not edit here further, mainly due to the ignorance shown by the one editor policing the article and another who recently removed the history and "attitudes to" sections. abafied (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think strong opinions about a dramatic reversion made in the same breath as washing one's hands of the article are unhelpful. It comes across more as an expression of dissatisfaction than constructive criticism. And unless such a dramatic reversion is made, it would indeed be helpful to get some more specific details from the anonymous IP editor above.  Fuzzypeg  ^talk  02:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I specifically object to splitting this article up. The history of kabbalah's reception in late medieaval Judaism, including the negative positions, deserves a place in an encyclopedia article called "kabbalah." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.64.233 (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Splitting the article

• Jayrav, thanks for taking on such a a large job and doing the necessary work of splitting the article. I think it will give the basis for many further improvements that are much needed.

• 69.203.64.233 and Abafied, where you see things that need improvement, please do make the improvements. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation to make improvements, which I have done on numerous occasions. Obviously, anyone can do a massive revert job, but I thought it best to discuss the issue here first; something that was not done before the drastic splitup was undertaken —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.64.233 (talk) 05:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Neither section should have been taken out, UC. One because the history of Kabbalah cannot be divorced from the Kabbalah itself; two, because taking out sections of criticism, as now with "attitudes" and, earlier with "gnosticism" and one or two other sections is tantamount to censorship - and that with no discussion and from an editor who has admitted that he knows little about Kabbalah. I would agree to a complete revert, and that to stand until discussion has taken place.

I have kept a copy of the old Kabbalah page, from c. June/July 2007, because I knew nibbling away at the article over months would happen and that, eventually, slashing large sections without retention of any, even a sentence or two, of their contents, would occur.

Further, as far as I can see, there is no record on this page or its history, the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toledano Tradition, or on Jayrav's user page that he gave any indication to Schosha about help on splitting the article. Would Schosha be so kind as to indicate where he did discuss this and point us to the appropriate Wiki page? I would also like to indicate that such discussion should have occurred here. abafied (talk) 09:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

THE history section was moved to its own page which will allow for expansion of both the main Kabbalah article, and the Kabbalah history article. As far as I know, nothing was deleted, and certainly nothing has been hidden. The change gives a better possibility for improvement and expansion of the subject of Kabbalah in all its aspects. (It is a little difficult not to think that Abafied's complaint against this split of the Kabbalah article -- and directed entirely at me -- is connected his unhappiness about the AfC against his Toledano Tradition article that I initiated for reasons that are discussed here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toledano Tradition). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that my complaints about your editing style date back to June last year. Further, where was the discussion prior to this latest round of cutting and slashing? That is against Wikipedia guidelines, as you and Jayrav should know.

Moreso, did you ensure that, before the article was cut, there were editors around who would be able to ensure "expansion of the subject of Kabbalah in all its aspects?" No. Jayrav cut it and made no such additions; neither have you. That is why the article is now a travesty.abafied (talk) 14:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the best place to interject, but this split was done poorly. I urge those involved to take a look at WP:SUMMARY for proper instruction on splitting an article. One thing mentioned in that guideline is to discuss such actions before undertaking them. Moving data between pages is a major action, failure to properly document the movement of data has signifigant ramifications in regards to the GFDL, specific comments should be used in the Edit summary to indicate a merge of content. It is preferable when new to such bold changes, that you first take the time to read the appropriate policies and guidelines, or seek out the aid of more experienced editors to help facilitate such changes. I'm still assessing the situation, but I wouldn't be opposed to a revert back to before the split and try it again after discussing an appropriate method for splitting the article....if it is even nessisary. If I read the revision history correctly It was around 66k before the split, which is a ways away from WP:SIZE extremes. -Verdatum (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Cut and slash and undiscussed editing

I would like to register a complaint about the style of editing carried out by Schorsha/Kwork since at least June last year. It is based on little knowledge of the subject, by his own admission, and wholesale slashing without any discussion and without reasons given, except for rationalisations after the event. There have, also, been a number of complaints form a number of editors about his style of editing, dating back at least a year. abafied (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Abafied, get you facts straight. The article was split by Jayrav, not me. I think he did the right thing, and the article will benefit from his changes. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of that; do not confuse yet another issue. Why do you think I put it in a different subsection? One, I would like to know where Jayrav, and/or you, discussed it as I noted in the last subsection; as you both should know, that style of slashing is contra to Wiki guidelines; two, you, specifically, have already been taken to task for your style of editing and lack of knowledge here and over many months.

Unless there is now discussion with both you and Jayrav as to why a) you both see the need for the edits made, and b) the manner in which they were made, I shall recommend undoing all of Jayrav's edits - reversion to previous text. As it now stands, the Kabbalah article is a travesty of what was up before June last year; it has been butchered. abafied (talk) 12:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Abafied wrote: "the Kabbalah article is a travesty of what was up before June last year". Abafied, you walked away from the article in a huff after I started to do some editing, and have done nothing to help the article since then. You need to learn how to work with other editors. Your refusal to cooperate and compromise on editing articles is disruptive, and you need to reconsider your 'my way or no way' attitude toward editing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You will note that I am registering a complaint about your editing style and recommending a reversion of Jayrav's 'editing;' I have no interest in editing the article, or, indeed, adding to it further while you are policing it because ignorant filibustering is all that ensues. End of 'discussion.' abafied (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing was cut or slashed. I specifically avoided making any changes. The kabbalah article was horrible by all standards. It has been discussed and re-discussed for almost 3 years the splitting of the article. Right now no one is happy. But the article should not be deleted but it cannot stand as is. It is too long, rambling, and no citation of sources. It mostly flows between nonsense, personal feeling, history, doctrine, critique and a few nuggets of sourced facts. As a first step, in almost every wiki in the other languages the kabblah article is divided into Kabbalah doctrines and Kabblahh history. If you read Hebrew I would suggest looking at the Hebrew wiki entry. The goal was to rewrite the articles as a team effort from the regnant Scholem-Idel sources and summaries of their work. To that we can then add paragraphs on “other views” such as Lurianic Orthodox or Toledano-Kenton, Chabad or Kabblah Cente with appropriate links. The goal was not to stifle other opinions but to be able to give them a proper paragraph. The article seems to have germination around the nineteenth century views of history of Kabbalah (a problem when most own a 20th century history based on Scholem) Chabad views, and Hermetic Kabblah (which was already forked off).

Feel free to change the title of the subdivisions, if you want to make “attitudes toward “ Critique” or “Debate” that is fine. For concepts, we need to start with a standard list of sefirot, souls. Et al For history, we start with a standard list that runs through the kabblah from Heikhalot to Luria. Several of the languages such as French have a fork for Hasidism, and stop the entry after Safed or before. For “attitudes toward” or Debate—other languages have a single paragraph on Bar Sheshet, Emden, and Kapach and then a fork to a new entry “debate”. The goal was not to sanitize or change the article but to cut it onto workable units, then create for each the appropriate narrative and outline. This way we can create an article with proportion - a regnant scholarly view, other views, localized critique of the topic (meaning critique of history on the history page and critique of doctrines on the doctrine page). Since this division has been debated for years, let us now work together to create a proper outline for each entry. I would suggest calling in several of the administrators to give some input on cleaning it up.--Jayrav (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Jayrav, you wrote: "I would suggest calling in several of the administrators to give some input on cleaning it up." I am in favor of that. Which administrators do you think might be willing to take a look and give input? I have been trying to attract more attention to the article and get more editors involved than have been active recently.

Abafied, I would like you to be involved in editing the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That outline for a new article, Jayrav, is one way in which the article could be organised, but it is also a rationale that should have been put up for discussion before deletions were made.

Further, I do not agree with splitting off the history from the concepts, considering that the concepts first arose in a historical context. In any case, many of the concepts have changed and been developed through time. There is no reason why the Wikipedia article should follow the form in the works you quote; after all, the "Encyclopedia Judaica 2006" and the "Jewish Encyclopedia 1906" both conflate the concepts and history, but, overall, favour the historical form for their articles. This needs further discussion.

However, whatever the outcome, I am prepared to work with you on upgrading the article, but not with Schosha; you know my area of expertise. I suggest, also, that new sections are put on the discussion page for discussion first, before they are put up in the completed article. abafied (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hrrm. This debate is very tedious to read. Abafied, proclaiming who you will and won't cooperate with isn't going to induce others to cooperate with you, and by doing so you throw a spanner in the works of the collaborative community that Wikipedia is supposed to be. The inflexible language you adopt, saying your word is final, "end of discussion", indicates your inflexibility to being reasoned with (you are, by definition, being unreasonable). I note of course that wasn't the end of the discussion. It would be easier on the other editors if you figure out what your intentions are. If you want to register a complaint and end the discussion, then do so (and end the discussion). If you intend to contribute to the article's improvement, either through editing the article or participating in discussion, then do; however you will find this impossible if you are purposely uncooperative with certain editors, and you will find it very difficult if you fill your posts with so much anger and accusation.

Editing at Wikipedia is supposed to be a joy, and it really can be. The thrill of personally adding to the repository of human knowledge! The pleasure of debating with worthy peers in your field of expertise! It's a real shame when people don't experience Wikipedia as the stimulating and supportive community it should be.  Fuzzypeg  ^talk  00:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I work with whom I choose; I do not work with those who know little. I am prepared to work with Jayrav (and others who have expertise) should two issues be addressed, and of which he has now said that he'll address one. The Wiki way of working is not collaborative; people put up individual pieces and then wait for the flak to hit; this way, getting agreement before the work begins, heads off some of that disagreement. That is part of collaboration. abafied (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Abafied wrote: "I do not work with those who know little". Then, how are you able to work with yourself? There is on one editing this article who could possibly know less about Kabbalah than you. Kabbalah is supposed to be a cure for egoism (as well as many other ugly human flaws), but your ego has become inflamed by acquiring a small amount of knowledge in the very subject that should have cured you egoistic attitude. To see such a strange outcome, is pathetic. Kabbalah is a way of life, not a academic head trip. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Fantasies about editors' personal lives are not within guidelines for editing Wikipedia articles. No further discussion with Schosha on this issue. abafied (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Fantasies? It think not. To repeat, you wrote above, "I work with whom I choose; I do not work with those who know little."

Abafied, if you stop making arrogant comments, I will not have your arrogant comments to point out to you. Stop your incivility, and I will not say more about your incivility. Wikipedia encourages editors to get along, and to act with civility to eachother so that they can focus on the article that is being written. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"... but your ego has become inflamed by acquiring a small amount of knowledge in the very subject that should have cured you egoistic attitude. To see such a strange outcome, is pathetic. Kabbalah is a way of life, not a academic head trip. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)" ...Fantasies about editors' personal lives are not within guidelines for editing Wikipedia articles. No further discussion with Schosha on this issue. abafied (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, you called him ignorant and he called you ignorant. There's no 'fantasy' involved. Malcolm's point about Kabbalah teaching humility was well-made.Teachdubh (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Humility. It appears to be received knowledge that QBLH, Kabbalah, cabala etc. is mysticism(above the intellect). This is a definition. Is there an editor humble enough to consider the writings of a writer who disagrees with this definition? One to whom "cabala" describes the intellectual way to study Torah?Johnshoemaker (talk) 14:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Major changes to article

Many of these major changes have not been done correctly. For example, it is not correct to put the notes to see other articles in the lead section. The way this should be done is to have summary sections with a link to the subarticle as the top of the summary of the subarticle. Also, the editor doing this major reorganization needs to read the Manual of Style and at least try to follow Wikipedia style guidelines; for example, only the first word and proper nouns are supposed to be capitalized in headings. I'm sure you will find many other applicable style guidelines which apply to some of the messes which have been made here if you bother to read the MoS. Valtyr (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; neither have the split-off pages been properly set out, sourced or referenced. However, if there is to be a rewrite, perhaps Jayrav will pay attention to that. abafied (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the objection, nor the reason for the wiki-lawering -- which tends to be disruptive. No one said that the articles don't need work. So far, everyone's time has gone either into complaining about the changes, or into replying to the complaints about the changes, instead of into work on improving the articles. If you understand what is needed to bring the articles into line with style guidelines, make any changes that will help the articles. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You know exactly why there are objections. No discussion took place before the article was split. Criticism of that and the subsequent mess on three pages is legitmate. abafied (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are you assuming this was a bad faith edit? Jayrav put time into making the article better; and, instead of getting thanked for his efforts, he is getting your kvetching. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to go work at my job and wont have time to talk much until later, but we should think about changes in a systematic fashion not individual changes. I will not make any changes without discussing them first. But We should agree on an outline and general regnant view of the Kabblah first.

The entry in EJ on Kabbalah is over 500 pages when printed as a separate volume and even there they distinguish between history and major doctrines as separate parts. We do not want a 500 pages wiki entry. Abafied, maybe you can use the EJ and propose an outline for pages. As the article stands nothing is sourced and there is no point fixing the language of random observations on Kabablah garbled together. There are also Spark Notes on the Kabblah available online that can provide a source and an outline.--Jayrav (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"Abafied, maybe you can use the EJ and propose an outline for pages." No. My area of expertise is the medieval period in Europe (Italy, France, Spain, the Rhineland) and parts of the Ottoman Empire, those lands bordering the Mediterranean. I have some knowledge of ma'aseh bereshit and ma'aseh merkevah, along with heichalot mysticism (together with some knowledge of the Tannaic and Gaonic periods, plus timelines of movements of Judaic mysticism across Europe). Those sections I'm prepared to help with.

"There are also Spark Notes on the Kabblah..." Spark Notes are useless as sources and references and are anyway too truncated to use as an outline here; they are not scholarly. Online sources should not be used unless they quote which scholars put up the articles, or which Kabbalists/Rabbis are being quoted and even then, sources, dates and publishers should be noted where possible.

What I will do is put up a number of topics for a new Kabbalah page, should editors agree a new page is necessary, under a new sub-heading. It can be added to, or subtracted from as discussion proceeds about their inclusion/exclusion, and before work takes place.

Further, the question has still not been decided as to whether the current pages should have been split up. Please address that first with other editors here. I do not work under a fait accompli. abafied (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I will attempt a full justification ASAP - unfortunately I cam home from work with fever and swollen glands. To bed and possibly doctor if wife thinks it is necessary.----Jayrav (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Commiserations and recover well. It sounds like the low-grade 'flu going around; my husband's just recovered from it. abafied (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Jayrav, please do get some rest, and get well.

As far as I can see, no one has made a valid argument against your edits that split the article; and I suspect the reason neither of the administrators you asked to weigh in have gotten involved is because there seems no need. To me the angry reactions to your good faith edits seem puzzling, but it is in line with the Islamic saying, "If you wish to never experience ingratitude, then never do any good".

Looking through the edit history of the Kabbalah article, I see that Abafied (who has been so active on the talk page the last few days) has not made an edit to the article since one on 08:38, 4 September 2007, despite the fact that she has been actively editing other articles during that time. As a result, it is difficult for me to not conclude that she just sees the situation here as an opportunity for pay back, and to turn the thumbscrews, because she is upset over the AfD on the Toledano Tradition article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"As a result, it is difficult for me to not conclude that she just sees the situation here as an opportunity for pay back, and to turn the thumbscrews, because she is upset over the AfD on the Toledano Tradition article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)" ...Fantasies about editors' positions are not within guidelines for editing Wikipedia articles. No further discussion with Schosha on this issue. abafied (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

New Kabbalah Page - Topics

A new Kabbalah page will be written only if editors agree that it's needed.

For a Kabbalah hub page:

Concepts: First, a definition of Kabbalah is needed, along with a statement about when the word 'Kabbalah' was first introduced into Jewish mysticism.

The history of the nature of the Godhead - Anthropomorphism, Ayin, Ein Sof, Ein Sof Or. Ditto Meditation in Kabbalah; the Sephirot; the Tree of Life; the Ladder of Ascent (the 4 worlds); the Work of the Chariot; Elijah's Ascent in the Chariot; the Work of Creation; the Heavenly Palaces; the issues of Evil and Samael; Tzimtzum; Hidden Maggids; Hanoch and Metatron; Redemption, Repentance (Teshuvah); the Work of Unification; the Torah and mystical readings; levels of Soul; Shekinah; Adam Kadmon; Gilgul; Divine Providence; Free Will; the Will of God; Exile; Gematria, Notaricon and Temurah;

History: Should be a mixture of the history of Mizrahi, Sephardi and Ashkenazi Kabbalah, including key personalities, their sourced key writings and a note of scholarly discussions of the same.

Historical periods: Oral history; Post-1st Babylonian Exile history - (IV Esdras on mysticism, etc.); Talmudic period -> Tannaic and Gaonic periods - closure of Babylonian academies; Early Medieval Period in Europe and beyond; Late Medieval Period in Europe and the Ottoman Empire - up to Cordovero, Caro and Alkabetz; Lurianic Kabbalah in Safed; Post-Lurianic Kabbalah up to Shoah; Modern Kabbalah from Shoah to present day. Add in Mizrahi Kabbalah where possible.

Texts: Now a stand-alone page.

Practice of Kabbalah Methods used, ancient and modern. Merkevah, Bereshit, Heichalot. Hitbodedut. The methods of The Tanya. Ecstatic Kabbalah - Baal Shem Tov and Luria. Contemplation and study of the Torah and Kabbalistic texts. Abulafia and Gematria, etc. Methods of Aryeh Kaplan.

Criticisms and Kabbalah: of and from Orthodox, Conservative, Reform Judaism and Jewish Revivalist; of and from non-traditional Jewish Kabbalah; of and from Christian Kabbalah; Kabbalah and pantheism. Kabbalah, Gnosticism and Jewish Gnosticism. abafied (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Added section on "Texts" as I forgot to include it earlier. abafied (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments on above item

Abafied, you wrote: "A new Kabbalah page will be written only if editors agree that it's needed." What you are saying, in effect, is that you want a right to veto what goes into the article. That is a ridiculous expectation because you don't own this article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Note the plural in 'editors'. That means the agreement with as many as possible of the editors who have made comments on the discussion page, not just you, me and Jayrav. Do start reading for meaning. I am trying to head off disagreements before they start.

Furthermore, (and this does apply to my part in it), no prior agreement to the discussion that a new page is necessary, no agreement to the discussion of the current splitting-off, then you forego my help as I am not adding to pages as they currently stand. It's simple. What you and Jayrav do with the page then is your choice. abafied (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That is not how Wikipedia articles are written.

And, as for forgoing your help, if you intended to get involved with writing the article again -- beyond putting demands on the talk page -- I think you would have done something by now. Prove me wrong about that, if you want. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"That is not how Wikipedia articles are written." Too bad. There's either going to be consensus over this and offered help, or not.

If you had any knowledge of Kabbalah, you would have been able to put up the list of items for inclusion above. No agreement to discussion, no further help than that. That is clear, I hope. As with other issues, I will no longer discuss this one with you. abafied (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Schosha, that is indeed how Wikipedia articles should be written. To quote WP:SIZE "Do not take precipitous action the very instant an article exceeds 32 KB. There is no need for haste. Discuss the overall topic structure with other editors. Determine whether the topic should be treated as several shorter articles and, if so, how best to organize them. Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage; certainly, size is no reason to remove valid and useful information." Please also read WP:SUMMARY which was completely ignored in this split. As I mentioned above, it is for this reason that I am considering a revert. -Verdatum (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The action has been discussed for years. That is not precipitous. Please do not start an edit war by reverting without cause. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

precipitous or not, I do not see concensus in this case. I don't want to revert because I think the action shouldn't be done. I want to revert because the action was done wrong or rather, not in accordance with the procedures defined in WP:SUMMARY. I suggest they be redone correctly afterwards if concensus is met. -Verdatum (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Schosha, in reading this discussion, you seem to be consistantly failing to assume good faith. I agree with Abafied in that changes should only remain in place that meet consensus. Users are more than welcome to be bold and make major changes, but by nature, other users are also welcome to be bold and revert those changes. It is at that point that discussion should take place. Another way to express this could most certainly be "A new Kabbalah page will be written only if editors agree that it's needed." -Verdatum (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Show me some examples where I have failed to assume good faith, and I will apologize if I am in the wrong. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a good chance I will be gone soon. If so, perhaps you will find working with other editors more to your liking. (I am curious about just what you think you have learned by studying Kabbalah. Certainly not equanimity[1]).Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Fantasies about editors' personal lives are not within guidelines for editing Wikipedia articles. No further discussion with Schosha on this issue. abafied (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, per WP:CONSENSUS, plans for splitting up major articles into sub-articles should be proposed on the article talk page, discussed, and consensus reached prior to taking action. WP:BOLD is not unlimited, and I agree that when other editors don't agree with bold actions discussion should ensue. I would suggest discussing the merits of Abafied's proposal and/or making an alternative proposal. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, then I agree to reverting all, or any, of the the changes. As far as I know that gives the majority to those who want to revert the changes. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(This section has gotten rediculously messy with multiple threads of discussion and back-indents and such. Take care when reading it) Getting back to the original topic raised of suggested sub-articles, I have a problem with Criticisms of Kabbalah as it presents too strong a potential for a POV Fork. Otherwise, I have no strong opinions for or against the division as proposed by abified at this time. -Verdatum (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"I have a problem with Criticisms of Kabbalah as it presents too strong a potential for a POV Fork" Criticisms have been made of Kabbalah from both within and without Judaism. Criticisms of various introductions into Kabbalah (e.g., criticism of Jewish Gnosticism), or divergences from Kabbalah (e.g., the rise of Christian Kabbalah), have been made from within Judaism. Provided the section is presented neutrally and sourced, I see no reason why the facts shouldn't be represented here; criticism is an importnt part of Kabbalah's history and development - see the disputes on mysticism between Maimonides and followers (rationalists) and Nachmanides and his followers (revelationists). I do think the section now needs renaming; Criticism and Kabbalah, is possibly better, so will change that topic-for-discussion heading now. The section might also become of such length, in time, as to warrant a page of its own, with a link back to the Kabbalah hub page, and a brief paragraph on the hub page describing its contents (as happens now between the Kabbalah: Primary Texts page and the Kabbalah page). Comments/preferences, anyone? abafied (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I accidentally linked to the wrong article. It should've been POV Fork. Anyway, the concept of "criticism of..." articles is a touchy subject. According to WP:POVFORK, "In line with Wikipedia's policy of assuming good faith, the creator of the new article is probably sincerely convinced that there is so much information about a certain aspect of a subject that it justifies a separate article. There is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork. At least the "Criticism of ... " article should contain rebuttals if available, and the original article should contain a summary of the "Criticism of ... " article." I have no doubt that criticisms of kabbalah exist and are documented in verifiable sources, nor do I doubt the worth of including such content in articles or sub-articles on the topic. It's just when it is sectioned into it's own page, it tends to have a greater potential to split off into a alternate opposing POV. If it is written and maintained properly, it's fine by me, but I suspect after splitting other sections off, the article will be small enough as to not need this additional split just yet. -Verdatum (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The topics I put up (4 of them) weren't meant to be taken as separate pages, but as topics for inclusion into a hub Kabbalah page. I should have made that clearer, perhaps. I agree, Kabbalah and Criticism would take some time to reach the need for a sub-page. I don't know if this clarifies your query. abafied (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Aha, I see, yes this does clarify things for me, thank you. (so I have no objections, but I still need to examine the article more closely to form any strong opinions about organization details) -Verdatum (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll head up the list with "For a Kabbalah hub page." That should make it clearer for everybody. All new work ought to be put up here first, before putting it on the Kabbalah page, so everyone gets a chance to comment.abafied (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If we're interested in having such a temporary collaborative drafting area, then per Wikipedia:Content_forking#Temporary subpages it should be in a separate sub-page such as Talk:Kabbalah/Proposed draft. (Don't forget to deactivate the categories in the method described in the link). Discussion of the draft still takes place on this page. -Verdatum (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Right! Thank you. abafied (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Verdatum. (I also believe that despite abafied's good intentions here, the "Criticism" sections, like the split-off articles, usually result from some editors who marginalize material they consider non-traditional as "Criticisms," and who then bury the "Criticism" sections safely late in an article.)

In my limited experience, well balanced-articles on controversial topics remain stable only if the conflicting POVs are worked into the fabric of the article. In the case of Kabbalah, the "Concepts" section must include an NPOV discussion of analogies to Gnosticism; the "History" section must include reference to the dirth of pre-13th-century evidence of Jewish-mysticism-as-we-know-it, despite the ancient credentials offered by Kabbalistic tradition; and that section or the "Practice" section must recount the mixed history of Kabbalah's acceptance in Rabbinic Judaism, including our contemporary situation honestly described. I think this can be done NPOV and acceptably to all parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.64.233 (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"well balanced-articles on controversial topics remain stable only if the conflicting POVs are worked into the fabric of the article." That is a better way to do it, yes, and might avoid subsequent splitting-off/POV pages. Re "the "History" section must include reference to the dirth of pre-13th-century evidence of Jewish-mysticism-as-we-know-it, despite the ancient credentials offered by Kabbalistic tradition:" there is an attested and sourced history of pre-13thC. Judaic mysticism that did affect later developments. However, maybe this isn't the time to argue the case; that can wait until if/when the article's about to be rewritten. I agree with the rest of what you say. abafied (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No argument at all, I meant to emphasize "mysticism as we know it" i.e. mysticism as Kabbalah, which may not properly characterize earlier mysticism. My point being that--for example--Kabbalistic doctrines like the sefirot are not described in the Hekhalot, and even Sefer Yetzira does not explicitly use sefirot in the same way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.64.233 (talk) 05:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Referring to this note posted above: "the "History" section must include reference to the dearth of pre-13th-century evidence of Jewish-mysticism-as-we-know-it, despite the ancient credentials offered by Kabbalistic tradition; and that section or the "Practice" section must recount the mixed history of Kabbalah's acceptance in Rabbinic Judaism, including our contemporary situation honestly described. I think this can be done NPOV and acceptably to all parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.64.233 (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Would it honestly describe the comtemporary situation to say that the term cabala hasbeen/is used for purely intellectual, not-mystical studies? If so these uses could be sent elsewhere on the disambig... page. Otherwise in quoting modern dictionarys in translating Kabbalah as "received" the article is placing itself as the target for Socratic dialectics as received knowledge/opinion. The dialectics were essentially a negative discussion of big questions directed with consummate skill to the purpose of convincing anyone who had merely adopted the commonplaces of received opinion---how he felt most folks felt about it--- that he did not understand the subject. By terming the page mystical(above the intellect) all editors are freed from being vulnerable to the dialectic, that is, being asked questions within the intellect which might show that the editor doesn't understand any element of the subject.

By providing a space where "cabala" is open to dialecticians, forking them off, editors won't have to be dependent for protection from intellectual bullets by their heavy mystical vestments. What to call this non-mystical cabala?4.253.129.84 (talk) 12:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

Shirahadasha and Verdatum, I would like to propose that the article be at least reverted until before Jayrav's splitting-off, but that it shouldn't preclude writing a new page, or rewriting bits of, expanding where necessary and properly sourcing, the old page. The old one, even the one of June 2007, needed sections rewritten and properly sourced, as I noted at the time. What has happened since that time has been gradual nibbling away of the article over the intervening months and this latest splitting-off. I'm still willing to help with a new page (as it looks as though Jayrav also is), or rewriting bits of the old, though, if people agree to either one or the other. abafied (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think my fever broke/is breaking-am much better.

Reasons for Splitting article The article right now is a jumble of random factoids going every which way.

1) In most other wiki entries in other languages – Kabbalah is split into history and doctrines.

2) It makes for a clearer decision of what if included or excluded: This way the history tells a story from Jubilees to Contemporary Kabbalah – one cannot add side points about anything one wants if it has a clear history narrative. The doctrine article deals with sefirot, souls, et al --- One cannot spin off into debates on history

3) A good wiki article on a big topic is about 12 pages and each page then creates a link to a 12 page article on the sub-topic. Look at US history a well written entry and see that each unit is a page and then link to a page of greater detail. There is a clear sense of proportion. And one can exclude with clear criteria of historical survey, discussions of democracy or the 1960 Presidential elections or if a certain President should not have been elected.

4) There was no way to adjudicate the debate over Neoplatonism and the Kabbalah in the current format. If there is history – then there is the clean question as a subunit of Spanish Kabbalah. “Scholem did not emphasize the connection of Kabbalah and Neoplatonism, but most 19th century scholars did, and the following 21st century scholars do.”

5) The article has no outline and breaking into history and doctrines will help create an outline, even if everyone wants them merged again at the end.

6) Yes, doctrines play a role in the history but a topic like the shekhinah to document it from Ben Sira Logos theories until the New Age, would break up the historical account and is too detailed

7) Removing the attitudes toward or debate around Kabbalah is not to silence the views or to create a POV fork. Since Kabbalah is not necessarily part of the Rabbinic- Halakhic world, therefore there is 1000 years of criticism, much of the content is only tangentially related to the history of doctrines of the Kabbalah. Much of the debate is about the origin of the Hebrew vowels, the fixing of liturgy, the role of midrashim and the defense of Aristotelianism. Much of it is not a debate about Kabbalah as much as a separate tradition. Criticism that is actually about Kabbalah belongs. Saadyah rejecting Reincarnation is probably not responding to Kabbalah. To claim it is, is OR. A separate article is in order

8) The entry for Hinduism is a good model to use. There is an entry for doctrine, another for history, and the main entry defines the term and gives parameters. This may be a good model for Kabbalah

A] One article on What is Kabbalah? Is it mysticism? Is it Neoplatonism? Is it theosophy? Does it need a tradition?. Are there different approaches? This will allow the various answers to be presented, scholarly, Orthodox, and other to be presented with a fight over one approach. Rather, here are the approaches.

B] One article on history with a clear narrative with sources from Second Temple era until Modernity. So a reader can have a ready 10 page history like an encyclopedia. It should follow Scholem and Idel and have other opinions on history recorded as other opinions. Right now we have the remnants of little sermons about the differences between scholars and Orthodox/ Hermeticists at several points.

C]One article on doctrines where the reader finds the major ideas arranged topically.

Right now the article has neither rhyme or reason.--Jayrav (talk) 05:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've said for some time that this article needs lots of work, but splintering it into pieces is an easy way out (just send the mess elsewhere and cleanup the core thats left) with mostly undesirable consequences (to wit, a drastically less informative/complete main article). Further, whatever your intentions, I feel the split marginalizes the POVs that were largely deported with "History" and "Critique" (although I think a separate section with that title is counterproductive, see discussion above).

To address your list:

1) I have not done a survey of the other language wikis, but if I were fully literate in any of the languages that split "History" from "Concepts," I would disagree there too on the relavant talkpages. The other wikis are not a compelling reason to split in this one.

2) "A clear history narrative" is no more likely in a "History" article than in a "History" section of a mainarticle. The same with "Concepts." If anything, redundancy is more likely with multiple webpages.

3) This article is not 12 pages like "US History" and the urgency to "cut it down" is not present. "US History" is well written because the earlier versions with less sub-articles were also well written. Sub-articles are created when the related section in the mainarticle gets too big relative to its significance and the main article is too big. Neither of these reasons for splitting are present, and the article itself is not yet well written.

4) I don't think your following suggestion is accurate regarding Scholem:

“Scholem did not emphasize the connection of Kabbalah and Neoplatonism, but most 19th century scholars did, and the following 21st century scholars do.” I know you mean this as an example, but even assuming this is true, why is a "History" article a better place for it than a "History" section? Anyhow, I would argue that cut-and-dry history/origins is not really available for this issue, and an NPOV comparison between Neoplatonism and the Sefirot might best be handled in "Concepts."

5) I completely disagree with the following, except that the article is not currently well outlined: "The article has no outline and breaking into history and doctrines will help create an outline, even if everyone wants them merged again at the end." See what I wrote for 2) above. Why not coordinate everything here, on this one talkpage, instead of on several?

6) "Yes, doctrines play a role in the history but a topic like the shekhinah to document it from Ben Sira Logos theories until the New Age, would break up the historical account and is too detailed." Ok, so don't split off a "History" article; summarize somewhere appropriate in this article, and then incorporate the rest into mainarticle:Shekhinah. That stuff would bog down a separate "History" article too.

7) "Saadyah rejecting Reincarnation" is highly relevant here because it demonstrates that he did not "know" what Kabbalah teaches about it. He isn't "probably not responding to Kabbalah," he's definitey not, and this sort of information should be discussed somewhere here; I would suggest in "History" in the context of Rabbinic Judaism's acceptance of Kabbalah.

8) Regarding "Hiduism" being a good article, see what I wrote for 3) above. Regarding your suggestions for the content of three separate articles:

A] "One article on What is Kabbalah? Is it mysticism? Is it Neoplatonism? Is it theosophy? Does it need a tradition?. Are there different approaches? This will allow the various answers to be presented, scholarly, Orthodox, and other to be presented with [sic] a fight over one approach. Rather, here are the approaches." But these views have all been expressed in this article, which presumably has defining "What is Kabbalah" as a primary objective, and still there is much fighting. How will a new article change this? Besides, the article you describe sounds like a much-too-long, blown-up, and unnecessarily separate introduction for this one.

B] Yes, the "History" needs to be cleaned up, I agree. So let's do it here.

C]"One article on doctrines where the reader finds the major ideas arranged topically."

Again, do it here and coordinate it with a "History" section and others to safeguard against redundancy. Lots of redundancy is certain to creep in with separate articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.64.233 (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If there's to be a new page, and it hasn't yet been agreed that there will be, I'd prefer to see one hub page with sections on "Concepts/Doctrines" with inbuilt crticism, "History" with inbuilt criticism, "Texts" (now a sub-page) and "Practice" - something left out of the present page. abafied (talk) 07:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Archive

At 117,392 bytes, this discussion page is getting a little lengthy. I'd like to archive all topics that have not had replies in the last two weeks using the copy/paste method as defined by WP:ARCHIVE. Any objections? -Verdatum (talk) 06:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No objections. Please do. abafied (talk) 07:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done -Verdatum (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. abafied (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Cont.1 of "Comments on the above item"

I've put in a new sub-section - the one above is too long for my computer to handle when responding. abafied (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"No argument at all, I meant to emphasize "mysticism as we know it" i.e. mysticism as Kabbalah, which may not properly characterize earlier mysticism. My point being that--for example--Kabbalistic doctrines like the sefirot are not described in the Hekhalot, and even Sefer Yetzira does not explicitly use sefirot in the same way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.64.233 (talk) 05:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC) "

Ah, right! I think catch your drift. Yes, the distinction would have to be made between earlier Jewish mysticism and the same when it became known as Kabbalah - in-built critical comments, if scholarly/rabbinical sources can be found to back the statement. Have I got you right?abafied (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Precisely, yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.64.233 (talk) 06:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

For my input, according to WP:SIZE, "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words...of the main body of prose." using the program wc (wordcount) I measure the main body of the article to be less than 9,029 words long. Looking over the article (and I'm still extremely new to this content), I do not feel an additional split is nessisary given the current content at this time (possibly appropriate later if content can be better organized into a more modular and hierarchical structure, or if content signifigantly grows). I think it is inarguable that major cleanup and reorganization can and probably should be done to this article. I do not particularly feel the need to resort to a temporary draft article for this cleanup. Unless someone would like to take the initiative of severely rewriting the article making potentially controvertial changes first and then requesting comments on the work. Otherwise, specific arguable changes can be brought up here and changed in the main article (e.g. "I think we should yank out section X entirely, remove all unreferenced content in section Y, and move section Z to the top of the article"). I can tell that this is a seriously heavy topic, so I myself will just be sticking to arguments about policy and style. -Verdatum (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree; a rewrite can be done from within the page as it stands. It could, should people agree, incorporate the sections I suggested above, "I'd prefer to see one hub page with sections on "Concepts/Doctrines" with inbuilt crticism, "History" with inbuilt criticism, "Texts" (now a sub-page) and "Practice" - something left out of the present page." It could also incorporate the "Topics" listed above, should people agree to that.

However, many of those Concepts in "Topics" link to Wiki pages that already exist and some are badly written, so there'll need to be clean-ups there, too, eventually. That's a massive task that needs to be undertaken with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Kabbalah.

Either way, I'm willing to have a go at the Medieval Period and some of the earlier history, and, recognising that the work is too much for one person, I'd be willing to have a go at some of the Concepts/Doctrines, if people agree to that. (It may expedite clean-up to divide up work in this fashion by agreement among ourselves).abafied (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

On division

I guess that I see this as fundamentally 25-35K article to cover the material. Right now it is 9K and says little.

I also see a historical core of doctrine from 12th cent Spain called sefirot, that has little overlap in language and emphasis with earlier trends. I call this core the doctrines.

I also see that by doing a scholem history core and a sefirot as doctrines we preclude many of the debates over listing the Bible as a kabblistic text and the role of mysticism

I also find the lede to go in three directions. A good article need a decisive lede. Currently, this one blurs theosophy, mysticsm, and the hasidic concept of an innermost Torah.

There is already an article on Jewish meditation for praxis, - it was mainly chabad- I added over a year ago abulafia, Cordovero, and vital to it and all the chabadniks disappeared and no one else came to work on it.--Jayrav (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Historical periods: Oral history; Post-1st Babylonian Exile history - (IV Esdras on mysticism, etc.); Talmudic period -> Tannaic and Gaonic periods - closure of Babylonian academies; Early Medieval Period in Europe and beyond; Late Medieval Period in Europe and the Ottoman Empire - up to Cordovero, Caro and Alkabetz; Lurianic Kabbalah in Safed; Post-Lurianic Kabbalah up to Shoah; Modern Kabbalah from Shoah to present day. Add in Mizrahi Kabbalah where possible.

On history I think that the periods are Second Temple- Esdres, Jubilees, Qumran

Heikhalot

Rabbinic maaseh merkavah

Sefer yezirah

Ashkenaz

Spanish Schools – Gerona, Castille, Iyyun

Abulafia

Zohar,

Post Zohar

Cordovero

Luria

Mizrahii development of Luria

Renaissance Italy

Luzzatto and Vilna Gaon

Contemporary Orthodox

Contemporary Modern

I would exclude Hasidism from the Kabalah entry, not as POV but because it differs in many doctrines from the 13th century- i would sent the reader to the page on Hasidism. --Jayrav (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly not required, but could we possibly find a Reliable Source that designates it's own enumeration of the historical periods related to kabbalah? It's much more convenient then aribrarily devising our own (which, if you wanted to be super-picky, is a slight form of Original Research if not properly sourced). -Verdatum (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There isn't one; all the sources differ, but some refer to periods of Jewish history, such as Second Temple, Tannaic Period, Gaonic Period, Talmudic Period, etc. However, it is possible to use a historical period chart, which most historians would use: that's measure in thousands of years BCE (difficult if we're to choose to refer to the Oral Tradition in Kabblah), and in the CE era, that would cover, Early Antiquity, Late Antiquity, Early Medieval, Late Medieval, Early Modern, Modern, and Contemporary. abafied (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Response to Jayrav: Chassidic developments in Kabbalah are part of Kabbalah's history; the developments therein need mention, as part of post-Lurianic history, however briefly, particularly because the page on Hasidic Judaism makes no mention of Kabbalah. That is the problem with Wikilinks; unless we can be sure of reliable pages to which to link, we're in for a massive clean-up job all round. As part of the history, the Oral Tradition should also be mentioned - part of the lineage of early Judaic mysticism. Ma'aseh bereshit has been missed out, too.

Overall, it looks as though your history list is going for a mixture of personalities and particular periods: I'd rather see chronological historical periods used, for simplicity and consistency, with personalities key to those periods discussed within them.

On your recommendation for the page length, it is now 73K. After a consensus was reached yesterday and advice on procedure from an administrator (see discussions above), the article was reverted. Please let us not start a reversion war. Some articles need to be longer if the page is to be truly informative, rather than a brief description of the topic; I'd suggest Kabbalah is one of them. abafied (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No, there is a standard history -Most start with Scholem Heikhalot-Ashkenaz- Early Schools-Zohar- Abulafia-Luria- Sabbatianism- Hasidism and then work and modify from there.

Scholem leaves out Sefer Yetziah, and does not have an moderns or Mizrahi. --Jayrav (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to follow Scholem, particularly as he leaves out the period of the Oral Tradition, and what would be to him the Modern Period. Work on Mizrahi Kabbalah is only now starting to come to light. We have to work from where we are, not where Scholem was. abafied (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Your list has no bearing on the history of the kabblah.Pick a recent history or syllabus. --Jayrav (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest it does and has rather more breadth of perspective than the one you are following, and into which your chosen focus-points would easily fit. However, people will go for a consensus on this, as on everything else. abafied (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly not required, but could we possibly find a Reliable Source that designates it's own enumeration of the historical periods related to kabbalah? It's much more convenient then aribrarily devising our own (which, if you wanted to be super-picky, is a slight form of Original Research if not properly sourced ). -Verdatum (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

A Russian Jewish history teacher in San Francisco told me that history is the written word. Her place is to explain why the writer might have written as he did. I had always given it the gloss "what actually physically happened" that is, what a camera would have recorded. Archaeologists logically have the last say in the first appearance of a document. Certainly the first accepted appearance of the word Qof Bayt Lammed Hay is relevant. Like all possible birth dates of Zoroaster include 500BCE, All references to the origin of cabala I've seen have gone back confidently to the Zohar The mention of Abraham in the Yetzirah does not date it. The formula QBLH does not appear in it. My opinion is that it originated at the same time as the creation of the Aleph- Tav with their spiritual significances. It claims this and it is too intimately connected with them to be otherwise.

If we signify by cabala the study of Torah, Tanach with knowledge of the significances of the Aleph- Tav, they all were born together. After 500BCE. I imagine the term QBLH appears in Zohar. The one translation of a little of it by Daniel? Matt I read was informative. It explained that when a beloved teacher was preparing to die it was termed "going to meet the bride." He was the bridegroom. The NT writes of a Rabbi who used the term. Another interesting note was that "cannabis gives one the speed to catch God at his work."

Remember, Spanish Jews were buddys with the Moors in the 13th century as the Semitic Jews were in Palestine last cetury. Christians were on the outs in Spain for 300 more years. In 1492 Colmbus sailed the ocean blue and the Moors and Jews were evicted. From the bridegroom article I imagine that Zohar wasn't anti-Christian and could be used to help understand the NT.

At least one of the stories I read indicated that Zohar wasn't trying to hide the significances of the Aleph-Tav. It wrote that et was Shekinah. Et is the English translator's rendering of Aleph-Tav. I don't feel, receive it yet. History? Oxford's dictionary has the first appearance of cabal and equates it to cabala in 1510. A secret meeting of Jews. Cabala appears to be a product of the cabals.

The effect of this brand of cabala is to be very public and hide the definitions of the Aleph-Tav from the public. The effectiveness can be judged by going to inner.org or chabad.org, read all the Kabbalah books at Barnes and Noble and a university library and attempt to find any consistency.

In late '64 or '65 an article in Parade magazine held that a Jewish male, over forty who had memorized Torah, read all of Talmud and other required texts could request to be taught the significances of the A-T. If he promised to not speak about it until he was 50.

Regardless whether the term QBLH existed prior to 1510 there is indication in the NT that there was effort to hide the inner sigificance of the A-T . The Pharisees are written to have said to the Rabbi, "Why are you speaking of these things and you are not yet 50?"Johnshoemaker (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you caught up with God yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.64.233 (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

chabad.org /library/ Maamar Veadaata will explain to you what is this thing of which you asked. I see that you feel no inhibition of using the name in vain in a sentence. Note, that I was only quoting Matt. In case you have trouble getting the article at chabad.org delivered be a Rabbi in a Moscow Synogogue in 1897, ask me. Simply, ALHYM is the power above all definition, which is the power of definition within the individual. Or breaking the bread into AL and YM and using a Heb./Eng dictionary we get "unconscious ability."

Traditionally this note of hashish in Zohar is ignored. Possibly it is a result of the Islamic dominance in Moises Leon's time. But it doesn't contradict the Chabad definition of ALHYM.

Differences Jews ----------- Arabs

Bare glans on 8th day----------bare it at puberty

drink alcohol, no hash---------hash ok no alcohol

study Torah-----------take some stories from Septuagint, ignore Torah

Since this page is mystical "received wisdom," this note doesn't belong, since it has successfully been kept from the public.Johnshoemaker (talk) 13:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

": Chassidic developments in Kabbalah are part of Kabbalah's history; the developments therein need mention, as part of post-Lurianic history, however briefly,"

why more brief than any other flavor? Brief enough to not mention their oppositon to nationalistic Zionism? \Johnshoemaker (talk) 13:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Johnshoemaker (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"mysticism as we know it" As Tonto replied to the Lone Ranger's question: "What are we going to do now, Tonto?"(they were circled by injuns) "What do you mean WE white man?" 1. Nominal received knowledge of English speaking world. 2. received knowledge of a much smaller group of which you are a member.

The S. Yetzirah, especially the planetary cube, has psychological implications. What evidence do you have that there is a thread from "way back there" that is above the logical? Especially "as we know it."Johnshoemaker (talk) 04:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"No argument at all, I meant to emphasize "mysticism as we know it" i.e. mysticism as Kabbalah, which may not properly characterize earlier mysticism. My point being that--for example--Kabbalistic doctrines like the sefirot are not described in the Hekhalot, and even Sefer Yetzira does not explicitly use sefirot in the same way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.64.233 (talk) 05:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC) "

Ah, right! I think catch your drift. Yes, the distinction would have to be made between earlier Jewish mysticism and the same when it became known as Kabbalah - in-built critical comments, if scholarly/rabbinical sources can be found to back the statement. Have I got you right?abafied (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Could "mysticism as we know it" differ completely from normal mysticism ? If not, there is room on the "normal ......" page for clarification.Johnshoemaker (talk) 09:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sephirot

The supposed translations of Sephirot from this article and from the lead section of Sephirot seem to be in conflict, neither provide an inlined reference for the translation. Could someone shed some light on this?

Further, I don't believe the Sephirot section needs to be this long. Because the topic has it's own article, per WP:SUMMARY (man, I reference that thing a lot!), this article should merely present a summary of the topic and reference readers to the main sephirot article if they want more detailed information. I think stuff like the specific enumeration of the ten is unessisary and redundant here. -Verdatum (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I just added the correct translation. It does not mean emanations. In this article we should stop reproducing and moving around information that has no sources- much of it is wrong. Allmaterial needs to be sourced.

We should also stop speaking of the Kabbalah- as it was a single idea stable over three millennium- most of the statements need to be qualified by a historic time period or author. The specific enumeration is necessary and in many ways more important than the time bound interpretations of the ten. --Jayrav (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Jayrav. I believe it's not so much that we should stop reproducing and moving around information that has no sources (though essentially true), we should keep interdependant articles in sync with one another so that the do not provide directly conflicting information. If the lead paragraph of this section was better formed than the main article, I would have moved the content in the other direction.

I agree, Kabbalah does not appear to be a static entity in universal concensus, and this should be resolved by proper attribution to the originating sources of the facts stated. However, speaking as an outsider, I do not remotely understand the last sentence of your comment. If your statement is correct, then the section (and/or main article) should be expanded to better explain the signifigance and importance of the enumeration in relation to the topic as a whole. (Again, to clarify, it's not that I disagree with your claim, I'm just very confused, and in general, WP articles shouldn't do that). -Verdatum (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What I meant is that the list of the ten sefirot should stay because for many people sefirot and talk of sefirot=kabbalah. For many people even memorizing the chart of the ten is kabbalah. It is basic to the article. The explanations as creation, ethics and other should be moved not the chart.--Jayrav (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That is all well and good, but that sort of information should be present in the article (with a reference). That's the sort of thing people coming to this article to learn (such as myself) would definately like to know. -Verdatum (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"present a summary of the topic and reference readers to the main sephirot article if they want more detailed information." ... No history of the Sephirot on the Sephirot page, I see. Similarly with the Tree of Life pages on wiki, of which only one is reliable - Tree of life (Kabbalah). Argggggggh! We're going to meet up with this problem all the time, as I said above.

On the use of "Kabbalah", jayrav, you're right - Early Jewish Mysticsm and Kabbalah. You'll note, though, that Wiki has Kabbalah as the redirection page for Jewish Mysticism. abafied (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is a Jewish mysic who is not a kabbalist or pre-kabbalah. [2] --Jayrav (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this begins to encrouch on topics more appropriate for the wikiproject page. I merely urge that content not be added here simply because it does not exist or is in a poor state within the correlating main article.

Regarding the Jewish Mystisism redirect, I thought I remembered that being the case. I suspect this redirect is in place for the sake of simplicity. If sufficient verifiable information regarding no kabbalistic jewish mystisism can be gathered, the page can be altered from a redirect, but at the moment it's not a major concern of mine. -Verdatum (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

On "no kabbalistic jewish mystisism". I wasn't referring to Jewish mysticism as a whole, but indicated that, if we're talking about historical periods, Early Jewish Mysticism refers to pre-12thC. mysticism; that was Kabbalah's lineage. Kabbalah, the name, was introduced into mystical studies/life during the 12thC.; the main body of Jewish mysticism was called Kabbalah from then on. abafied (talk) 01:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

On the Sephirot, I suggest we keep the following:

"Sephirot (heading) Main article: Sephirot According to Lurianic cosmology, Ten Sephiroth (literally, Ten Emanations) correspond to ten levels of creation, and are emanated from the Creator for the purpose of creating the world[7]. These levels of creation must not be understood as ten different "gods" but as ten different ways of revealing God, one per level. It is not God who changes but the ability to perceive God that changes.

"The names of the ten Sephirot are Keter (will) Chochmah (wisdom) Binah (understanding) Chesed (loving kindness) Din (Sometimes refered to as Gevurah or Gedulah) (judgement) Tiferet (harmony) Netzach (victory) Hod (glory) Yesod (foundation) Malchut (sovereignty)" (all tabulated)

and move the rest of the text, where it's accurate and appropriate, to the Sephirot article. What about reference to Da'at, as the "hidden Sephirah"? What about the diagram? The one on the Kabbalah page now isn't traditional. Could we use the one on the HebrewWiki, for example, or another, like the Portae Lucis one? What do people think about thse suggestions? abafied (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Kabbalah Practice

"There is already an article on Jewish meditation for praxis, - it was mainly chabad- I added over a year ago abulafia, Cordovero, and vital to it and all the chabadniks disappeared and no one else came to work on it.--Jayrav (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)"

The page on Jewish meditation looks reasonable to me, though it's light on references. (I haven't read Aryeh on Meditation for a while, but didn't he refer to practices that he devised?) I suggest a short paragraph in a rewritten Kabbalah page and a link to that article, if people agree. abafied (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What IS the Kabbalah?

With all due respect to the heavy editors of this article, I'd like to offer some criticism (in good faith, of course). What IS the Kabbalah? I've heard the word, and read the intro of this article, and skimmed the Overview section, but couldn't figure it out. I feel this should not be the case. I know what it literally translates as, but what IS it? Is it a book? A time period? A set of traditions? I recommend clarifying this early on, perhaps in the first sentence or so of this article. Starwarp2k2 15:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

My dictionary holds that cabal=cabala; a small group keeping secrets. They've obviously kept it from you. Mystical= "above the intellect." Clarify this in a sentence? Sentences sentence one to the intellect. This has been deleted(secreted) once.Johnshoemaker (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, for crying out loud! What dictionary are you using, and who was the ape who wrote it? Read http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cabal and http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cabala please. One is not the other. If the article doesn't clearly explain what Kabbalah is, then that's because it needs more work, not because some secret society of plotters is trying to cover up the awful truth. Please, anyone out there who knows the awful truth, help us summarise it in the lead of this article. Fuzzypeg★ 00:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

JS reply: FP Oh, for crying out loud! What dictionary are you using, and who was the ape who wrote it?

JS Ape? Funny, since Qof is termed an ape; commonly bears that character of copying. My dictionary is big and blue and the turnip greens I left on it for a year got fluidy but it did place an “=” between the two. Can’t find it to make sure it’s an Oxford abridged.. It’s at least 57 years old so it hasn’t had the advantage of modern “American” e-opinion. Beat me, maim me, make me write bad checks but please don’t make me be a scholar! FP Read http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cabal and http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cabala please. One is not the other.

JS Your reference to cabal referrred to the cabala article as an earlier(early 16th century) appearance of cabal. Mine placed it about 1510

This from your cabal reference {Origin: 1610–20, for an earlier sense; earlier cabbal < ML cabbala. See CABALA}

The wordsmiths haven’t received the wisdom of seperating group keeping secrets from a secret system.

FP If the article doesn't clearly explain what Kabbalah is, then that's because it needs more work, not because some secret society of plotters is trying to cover up the awful truth.

JS My statement: “This has been secreted once” referered to the fact that the discussion “What IS Kabbalah” was deleted last night a few minutes after I entered it. Possibly there’s a rule about where to place a comment on talk pages. I just put it first. It disappeared. Since no-one claimed credit, I’ll admit thinking….... Maybe someone thought I was unclear in calling popular Kabbalah a “smokescreen.” I’ll be more clear. Just found this quote somewhere.

"truth is in the passionate insights that one receives” Received is passion, feeling? Makes sense; that's not intellectual.

When a friend tried to show me, at ten, how to take myself in hand I didn’t see truth. At 13 the truth was awefully full of awe. Then I got over puberty a while back and looked at this received business. In the talk that disappeared I think I summarized the received wisdom of Kabbalah as a knowledge system that takes the most intimate look at Torah. It is mystical, that is, “above the intellect” so that one is not limited to a defined set of symbols manipulable by a system of logic(loggings of manipulations). As such it has defended itself from any dialectic.

What would be the use of that? Try this:

From ON LIBERTY by John Mills MMM The Socratic dialectics were essentially a negative discussion of the great questions of philosophy and life directed with consummate skill to the purpose of convincing anyone who had merely adopted the commonplaces of received opinion that he did not understand the subject. That he/she as yet attached no definite meaning to the doctrines he professed; in order that becoming aware of his ignorance, he might be put in the way to obtain a stable belief. The school disputations of the Middle Ages had a similar object. They were intended to make sure the pupil understood his own opinion and (by neccessary correlation) the opinion opposed to it. Since the premises appealed to were taken from authority, not reason, they were inferior to the Socratic.MMM.

Here’s the thought to try: These writers of the received have patiently created the received so that it serves as the received for the masses so that the Socratic dialectic can be used to teach the masses who have received the received that they don’t understand the subject. Ultimately, the subject is Torah and the goal is an awakening of all who apply their intellect to the awesome beauty in its observations. I suspect what when the dialectics commence and one understands the allegories used by the old dead men we will receive passionate insights, truths.

Writing, talking about the sacred Letters and their formulas is not part of the received but certainly the masters were/are intimate with them. The students entering the dialectic will be armed with the definitions of the Sacred letters and assistance with their combinations.

Myth carries spiritual truth. The myth of Socrates has him condemned partly because he didn’t believe in the gods. There will be no babelling about “God” in the dialectics.

FP Please, anyone out there who knows the awful truth, help us summarise it in the lead of this article.

JS Anyone who knows the awesome patience and effort to create and define the received as not limited or available to the intellect isn’t going to mess it up now with an intellectual explanation. Hasn’t the secret been worth keeping? Since it is in vain to use an undefined word in an intellectual sentence I do wonder why WP editors have not used the Chassid method of respect for the intellect and commandment, G-d. Thank you for your reply and humor.Johnshoemaker (talk) 12:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the first few sentences of the intro sum it up pretty well. In fact, they might be the strongest part of the article. That the intro mentions nothing of Kabbalah being a book or a "time period" is not an accidental omission; it's because it isn't a book or a period, and it is hardly necessary to list what Kabbalah is not in order to define it.

Perhaps new readers are disappointed to learn that Kabbalah isn't what it is popularly supposed to be. But that shouldn't influence the direction of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.64.233 (talk) 04:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The intro seems pretty to-the-point. Unlike Johnshoemaker's post above, which I couldn't be bothered reading in its entirety. I presume he's the keeper of great secrets that are impossible to communicate to us, the great unwashed, except in double-dutch, but since I can't be bothered reading it I guess I'll never know. Sorry JS...

On the cabal and cabala thing, though, a cabal is a group, a cabala is... hey, wait a minute! You can't even say "a cabala"! It's an uncountable noun. "A furniture". "A cutlery". Makes no sense. Obviously not the same word, regardless of what your poor abused dictionary says. Fuzzypeg★ 04:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

FP I agree. The intro seems pretty to-the-point.

JS G-d forbid that the intro have a pretty point! It is perfectly rounded. Smooth. The measure of passionate insights what one receives from it demonstrates its measure of truths. Is there one sentence in the whole article you would defend against someone who challenged it?

FP Unlike Johnshoemaker's post above, which I couldn't be bothered reading in its entirety. I presume he's the keeper of great secrets that are impossible to communicate to us,

JS Look, I just woke up to Mills and the secret of "the received" and value to listening to eccentrics who haven't received a few days ago! The failure to communicate to “us” is mine. It would have bothered me ,earlier, to have to read the old English thinker who was defending individuality, the value of allowing an eccentric sort to express an opinion different than the received.

FP the great unwashed, except in double-dutch, but since I can't be bothered reading it I guess I'll never know. Sorry JS

JS Hey! I’m the one who is sorry; I failed. From your user page it appears no secret to you that the individual’s opinion is to be respected and exercised even when the received opinion differs. Remind me to tell the story the Dalai Lama wrote of the greatest sword dance. I enjoy a mop; I like the way they flop. Enjoyed a damp one the other nite.

FP On the cabal and cabala thing, though, a cabal is a group, a cabala is... hey, wait a minute! You can't even say "a cabala"! It's an uncountable noun. "A furniture". "A cutlery". Makes no sense. Obviously not the same word, regardless of what your poor abused dictionary says. Fuzzypeg★ 04:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You're also not allowed to demand "a shrubbery", unless you first say "Ni". --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

JS Yes, you and I know that; it is the received wisdom of us moderns. Way back before I thought I was a cabalist I read that a cabal was a group of Jews in the Middle Ages discussing something in secret. In Europe. Likely a German or Englishman respectfully asked a Jew; heard some sounds and write some German or English letters. Likely the Jews didn’t call the meeting, to thresh something out, a cabal. Certainly room for an etymologist here.

The verbalization(imposing stories of events in past, present and future flavors of verbs) of Torah in 290BCE at Ptolomy’s command(according to received myth) is the root of the tree of babel about Torah. If any teacher of Kabbalah doesn’t agree that the stories wrapped about Torah are as garments around the body of Torah please send her to me.Johnshoemaker (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

A return to unilateralism

Just when you think this article's turned a corner, when you say to yourself, "I've misjudged the set of Wikipedians who are interested in the Kabbalah, we can agree to disagree about the details and still move forward with an NPOV..." Just when you believe that this article actually has a chance to improve, the thought police return.

There was no reason to erase a big chunk of the "Sefirot" section. Jayrav and I reached a consensus on it, and neither of us deserves to have our goodfaith efforts summarily dismissed. The removed material was, I think, fair and not even particularly objectionable to the frum readers. But if an editor feels it was "not neutral and not balanced," well then by all means, let him do something constructive and "balance it" with what he feels is missing. Why always take the easy, unthinking way out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.64.233 (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What I removed was exactly the sort to unbalanced material that caused the problem with the Toledano Tradition article. It did not belong there, and belongs even less in this article. If you insist in putting in unbalanced material about Neoplatonic origins of Kabbalah (which is Jewish theology), you should not be surprised to see it reverted. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The material on the sefirot was from the Gershom Scholem approach and was sourced accordingly. It was not Neoplatonism but Scholem on pre-ZOhar usage of the term in yetzirah and Bahir. At point, MAlcolm, you got to say what counts as a real source for you? What history of the kabblah? If JE does not count nor Scholem, then what? If you are Chabad, or Kabbalah centre or Aryeh Kaplan then say so and we can note the different approaches accordingly. But to take out gershom Scholem material and say it is the same as warren Kenton, I dont understand. --Jayrav (talk) 14:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see other people are now realising, from just this one example, what the Schosha effect has been over the past year. Mazeltov! abafied (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Jayrav, this the paragraph I took out:

Although Sefirah was not originally connected to the Greek sphaira (sphere), later Kabbalists conceptualized the Sefirot as circles encompassing the material world, the heavenly spheres of the Ptolmaic universe. Sefer Yetzirah speaks of the Sefirot as the "Breath of the living God" and as living numerical beings that are the hidden "depth" and "dimension" to all things. Sefer Ha-Bahir (late Twelfth Century), treats the Sefirot in Gnostic or Neoplatonic terms as aeons or logoi that serve as the instruments of creation. Sefer Ha-Bahir further identifies the Sefirot with God¹s attributes. Kabbalistic assumptions about and descriptions of the Sefirot generally derive from these conceptions.

The only source I see is to a self published site. Where does it cite Gershom Scholem? But that is not the issue. The problem is material that is an unbalanced claim, and that presents the POV that Kabbalah has its source in Neoplatonism.

It is not an unbalanced claim. Since when was the Sefer Yetzirah Neoplatonic? You really need to get to know your material. FYI, Isaac the blind and Azriel of Gerona expanded on the embryonic Sephirot in the SY and, it is claimed by some, the Bahir, though whether that is a 12thC text or much earlier, is still debated. There was much correspondence between the Catalan schools and the Provencal schools and both adopted a deegree of NP. Fact. Proven. Can't be dismissed or censored.

Also for your information and to put the paranoia-inducing bugbear of NeoPlatonism to bed, all Kabbalah, even Chassidic Kabbalah has traces of Neo-Platonism. Which Kabbalist disagrees with emanation? Luria didn't; neither did Caro, Alkabetz, Cordovero and others who came after. abafied (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As for your question about me, I usually describe myself as a Socialist Zionist. I have no religious affiliation at all, and am closer in my thinking to Greek and Roman philosophy -- particularly Stoicism. I am not pushing a personal agenda; but, rather, just want to see the article done right.Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Slashing out material you don't even understand is hardly getting "the article done right." You seem to think "neoplatonic" is a bad word, an attitude that would surely surprise ibn Gabirol, Abraham bar Chiyya, and Yehudah ha-Levi, among others. In any case, the section was carefully worded (since it's not the "Origins" section) to eliminate any judgement regarding influence on Kabbalah. It was merely desriptive of the concept of sefira; Bahir uses what scholars recognize as the neoplatonic/gnostic concept of eons in its characterization of sefira.

And on the topic of gnosticism, again there's no reason to assume, as you do, that the term implies foreign influence. Mystical systems tend to be "gnostic," even the Merkabah mysticism as such (without a Kabbalistic commentary) is a gnosis, a kind of epiphany of other worlds (in this case, heavenly palaces). And again, the deleted section did not even define the sefirot as "gnostic."

You have a choice. You can contribute to the process of editing this factual material so that it meets your Stoic sensibilities of fairness; or you can stoically stand aside when knowledgeable editors (who do not always agree, as shown by this talkpage) come to a working consensus in an effort to improve the article. Surely a Labor Zionist can appreciate the efforts of a collective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.64.233 (talk) 03:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"As for your question about me, I usually describe myself as a Socialist Zionist. I have no religious affiliation at all..."

Einstein was a cultural Zionist and stressed that immigrants to Palestine must get along with the established folks who live there. If you had to fall under a label "cultural" or "nationalistic," which way would you lean? "No religious connection" so I assume the significances of the Sacred letters have not been revealed to you. Have you read that there are significances, definitions?Johnshoemaker (talk) 06:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ban on the study of Kabbalah

The article mentions approximately when the ban ended. But it doesn't explain what ban, or when the ban started. Fuzzypeg★ 04:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The idea that the ban has ended is really just one POV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.64.233 (talk) 06:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I had the exact same concern when reading this article. This should be edited, but I'm not sure how. -Verdatum (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not clear to me that an effective ban ever existed. For instance, both the Arizal and the Ramchal died before they reached the supposed age that study of Kabbalah is allowed, and they are considered two of the greatest Kabbalists. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly so, which shows that Chida's supposed revelation about the end of the ban is hardly noteworthy. There were and still are varying opinions at to the age requirement, but examples abound of famous kabbalists disregarding these requirements or complying with their own version of the requirements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.64.233 (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me in my humble opinion that the ban is more popular myth than fact. The Vilna Gaon started teaching his students kabbalah at 18, a practice still upheld by the Zilberman Yeshivot in Israel. Haim Vital also lists 20 as being the starting age for Kabbalah. Both these traditions seem to flow from an ideal that age 5 begins study of Tanach, 8 Mishnah, 13 Gemmarrah, and then 18-20 the rest of Torah, Halachah, Kabbalah and so forth. Except for a vague reference made by the Shach the the laws of Avodah Zerah there seems to be no ban, and even then the other major commentators sharply disagree with the Shach. Essentially if there was ever a ban it was only in the community of the Shach, which while he was himself an impressive Rabbi was still a small overall influence and generally short lived. Though the the myth and the mystic have done a lot more for Kabbalah and keeping it hidden an actual ban ever could. It seems in my experience that between the horror stories of what could go wrong, the myth of the ban, and the exceedingly high standards Kabbalistic Yeshivot place upon their students, the numbers are kept fairly low. Only the really driven or truly rebellious seek it out, and then the weeding process of Yeshivah acceptance begins.--הרב המקובל אלכהן (talk) 08:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

No Consensus

I see there's no agreement or further discussion/response on how the rewrite/clean-up should proceed. abafied (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there's no strong opinion towards the changes until the changes take place. As for myself so long as any content added is verifiable and attributed to moderately reliable sources, and so long as no properly attributed claims are completely removed (or they blatently add nothing to the article). I think the primary goal should just be to make the article more friendly to those reading the article having no prior knowledge of Kabbalah. Also I continue to think there is no need to spinout any sections of the article at this time, but I think that has already been covered. -Verdatum (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

On "...there's no strong opinion towards the changes until the changes take place." This article is diputed. In that case suggestions should be made for changes to sections, not wholesale cutting and then putting up a suggestion, or putting up a suggestion, then cutting within an an hour, before any discussion takes place or other people get to the page. That is not being bold; it is ignoring policy. abafied (talk) 22:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Link to Sefirot article

The problem with linking to the Sefirot article is that a lot of the article is Hermetic Qabalah, and not traditional Jewish Kabbalah. The reason that is a problem it that 1.anyone who knows something about traditional Jewish Kabbalah will probably consider the entire article untrustworthy because of that content, and 2.those who know nothing about Kabbalah will could be mislead into thinking that everything said applies to all Kabbalah...which is certainly not correct. The solution is to make the traditional Kabbalah article self contained in its discussion of the Sefirot. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There are two short paragraphs on other than Judaic Kabbalah in the Sephirot article. That is all. FYI, you will find that even the Encyclopedia Judaica and the Jewish Encyclopedia discuss, though briefly, Christian and Occult Cabala. Want to check before any more censorship comes into play? abafied (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Its not "censorship" to want to do things right. I do not mind if you disagree with me, but directing personal accusations against me will not solve this article's problems. Your behaviour has been consistently uncivil and disrespectful. That goes for Jayrav too. Instead of more of the same here, why do you not correct the problems, which many editors pointed out to you, in the Toledano Tradition article? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"...to do things right..." Provided you know what you're talking about, which, from your cut and reading of the section, you plainly don't. Now, what other sources do you know and we don't that refer to both the pre- and post- Zohar positions? Do put them up. Further, the Kabblah article, and your savaging of it - again, is being discussed. Stick to the topic. abafied (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have stuck to the topic. It is you, and now Jayrav also, who seem to find it easier to discuss me rather than solve the points of disagreement.

I suppose that the Sefirot article could be changed a little to make it clear the parts that apply to Hermetic Qabalah only. That could be a possible solution. But I certainly am not going to make those changes myself because I am getting enough accusations already, and I would really prefer to leave that article alone. Perhaps, Abafied, you could explain your objection to making the Kabbalah article self contained in its discussion of the Sefirot? It would be best to find a solution that is acceptable to everyone.

By the way, when are you going to make the changes to the Toledano Tradition article? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"It is you, and now Jayrav also, who seem to find it easier to discuss me rather than solve the points of disagreement..." You've been told by two, if not three people, that you are wrong. Accept it. abafied (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Except what, your incivility? Certainly not. Nor will I stop advocating for what I think is right. I noticed that you did not reply to my questions above: 1.you could explain your objection to making the Kabbalah article self contained in its discussion of the Sefirot? 2.when are you going to make the changes to the Toledano Tradition article? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

On 2. Not appropriate to discussion of the Kabbalah article. Stay on topic. abafied (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It is on topic because you have introduced the same unbalanced POV here that you were told to stop in the Toledano article. That is exactly what this controversy is about. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"you have introduced the same unbalanced POV here". Have I? WHere? I was unaware that I had written the section on the Sephirot and rather thought it had been written by someone else. Do check your facts via the history page before harrassing me with your unsubstantiated accusations.

"That is exactly what this controversy is about" No. See above. Check your facts. Further, you have been told by at least two people that the section was balanced. As usual, you cut it with no dicussion. THAT is what the controversy is about. abafied (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

To make clear some of the problems with the Sefirot article, here is one section from that article:

==Numerology==

In a numerological sense, the Tree of Sephiroth also has significance. Between the 10 Sephiroth run 22 channels or paths which connect them, a number which can be associated with the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. In addition to each of these channels being assigned a letter of this alphabet, each path is also identified with one of the major trumps of the Tarot deck of symbolic cards. When combined with the 10 Sephiroth, these 22 paths make the number 32 which makes reference to the 32 Qabbalistic Paths of Wisdom and also the 32 degrees of Freemasonry. There are 32 teeth in an adult human's mouth. There are 32 bits in a doubleword.

To envision the tree, consider each of these ten spheres as being concentric circles with Malkuth being the innermost and all others encompassed by the latter. None of these are separate from the other, and all simply help to form a more complete view of the perfected whole. To speak simply, Malkuth is the Kingdom which is the physical world upon which we live and exist, while Kether, also call Kaether and Kaether Elyon is the Crown of this universe, representing the highest attainable understanding of God that men can understand.

Hypothetically there also exists an Eleventh Sephirah called Daath. Its meaning is the Abyss and its universal element is Neptune which makes it an important element of the Tree of Sephiroth. However, the first Qabbalists did not include any such sphere, making Daath a contested point of philosophical discussion. The Jewish Kabbalists that do accept this entity state that it is not a Sephirah, but rather the absence of one. In the Jewish tradition, the idea of an eleventh Sephirah is tantamount to blasphemy, as stated in the Sefer Yetzirah: "Ten Sephirot of Nothingness, ten and not nine, ten and not eleven.”

Is it necessary to point out the problems? The entire paragraph making parallels with the Tarot deck is one problem. The the entire paragraph discussing Daat as "the Abyss", and connection with Neptune is problemmatic, with the entirely mistaken (from the point of view of Jewish Kabbalah) presentation of Daat in general[3]. It really would be much better to make the Kabbalah article self-sufficient in its discussion of the Sefirot. I would rather not make changes to Hermetic Qabalah that may be a perfectly good presentation from their perspective. It is just that traditional Jewish Kabbalah and Hermetic Qabalah are such different subjects that mixing makes only for confusion. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, I understand your concern. However, I ask you to think of it this way. A wikilink to another article is no way a "blessing" of the content of that article. It's a method of easy access to further information on a topic. Just because the Sefirot article is not good now (grammar, POV, OR, etc.) does not mean it will stay that way. the Sephirot should contain all appropriate information related to the topic, Hermetic Qabalah, traditional Jewish Kabbalah, or otherwise. It is up to that article to specify what it means in which contexts. The link doesn't say "This place has good information on this topic" it means, "Information related to this topic should be located here." Providing that link gives visibility to the topic to that other people better informed, or with a greater interest can travel to it, see that it could use improvement, and then hopefully make improvements. This is all pretty core to the design concept of Wikipedia. -Verdatum (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That article is useless for the purpose of this Kabbalah article because so much of it is really discussing a completely different subject. I asked Abafaid what her objection is to making the Kabbalah article self-contained in its discussion of the Sephirot and did not get an answer. Why is doing that such a problem if the subject can be covered better that way? The Sephirot are so important in Kabbalah that it is vitally important to avoid generating confusion in a subject that is difficult enough because of its complex nature. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If the information is directly related to Sephirot, why not edit the sephirot article to contain it? The problem is, this information is valuable content related to sephirot, but if it is here, an editor viewing the sephirot article directly will not know it exists and won't have any way of knowing that they can find more information related to sephirot on the Kabbalah page (without making assumptions based on an understanding of both topics). If organization worked that way, then editors would be forced to click every wikilink under "what links here" to make sure further information isn't to be found there. After the content is in the sephirot article, a small summary or subset of the content can be used here so the mention of sephirot is in proper context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verdatum (talk • contribs) 22:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"I asked Abafaid what her objection is to making the Kabbalah article self-contained in its discussion of the Sephirot and did not get an answer."

I have a life other than on Wikipedia; learn some patience. The Kabbalah article as self-contained? Impossible, since most Wiki articles are wikilinked to others. Besides, alteration, if necessary, of the Sephirot page is a task for the WikiProject on Kabbalah. If you are one of the subscribers to that, feel free to do it, provided it's discussed on the page. abafied (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I said self-sufficient in its discussion of the Sephirot, not self-sufficient in everything. In fact, there is plenty of material in the Sephirot section of the Kabbalah article that is particular to it. Why is it so objectionable to expand on what is there? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"I asked Abafaid what her objection is to making the Kabbalah article self-contained in its discussion of the Sephirot..." You did indeed, and I broadened it out to the Kabbalah page. So your point is what, exactly? That you will not be advocating the same for other bits of the page that'll be up for snipping? That would be a merciful release from activities over the last year. abafied (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I will start making the necessary additions to the article, and we can discuss the possibilities of redistributing the information later. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Sefirot position

shouldn't Template:Sefirot be inside the actual section about the sephirot, and not in the history section? -Verdatum (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. I would have moved the image of the tree there, but have no idea how to do it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate links

I'd like to clean up this article according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links). My main issue is the pervasiveness of duplicate links. I'd like to move towards a style where a term is only wikilinked in it's first occurance in the body of the article. I haven't decided if I should do this with lots of little edits, or one major edit. But please reply if you have any major objections and otherwise, just bare with me whenever I start doing the edits. -Verdatum (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Kabbalah as scholarship, and Kabbalah as a religious way of life (put your complaints here)

It seems to me that this article contains two opposed approaches to explaining Kabbalah that are not integrated. There a Kabbalah that is practiced by religious Jews as way of life, and there is a scholars academic Kabbalah which is interested in explaining the origins and development of a tradition by using a number of analytic methods applied in a detached manner. The lack of connection makes for an article that is unsettling, confusing, and unreadable.

It seems to me that the problem can be solved by either separating the two, or by integrating them. The "Introduction", and "Overview" sections of the article have been much improved by removing the academic speculation and focusing on traditional views. But when we get to, in the "Sephirot" section, this paragraph

Although the Hebrew word Sefirah is not connected to the Greek word sphaira (sphere), some scholars think later Kabbalists conceptualized the Sefirot as circles encompassing the material world, the heavenly spheres based on the Ptolmaic universe. Sefer Yetzirah speaks of the Sefirot as the "Breath of the living God" and as living numerical beings that are the hidden "depth" and "dimension" to all things. Sefer Ha-Bahir (late Twelfth Century), treats the Sefirot in terms that are also thought by some scholars as having their source in Gnostic or Neoplatonic terms as aeons or logoi that serve as the instruments of creation.

it becomes difficult to understand where this is leading, or what I have gained in understanding of Kabbalah by being told this.

I would be interesting in reading suggestions of separation, or integration, of these two components to make a better article. (I have noticed that there are some articles, such as Bereishit (parsha) that work very well with a minimum of the academic approach.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Kabbalah is backed by scholarship as well as tradition. There is nothing in any Wikipedia policy to say that this article should not contain both. Any further edits of this nature will be reported as vandalism. See Wikipedia:Vandalism

Further, you have been told before that in a disputed article, discussion should take place before editing, not after. For these reasons the edit will be reverted. abafied (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Abafied, I realize Malcolm Schosha has been a regular source of contention, but I fail to see his edits as being vandalism. He does not appear to be (at this time) repeating the same edit blindly without discussion. He seems to be attempting to reach concensus by justifying his edits in this discussion section, and he seems to be moderately open to compromise. As I see it, the main policy involved here is the intent put forth by WP:3RR, I see no evidence that this has been an issue in the last few weeks I've been watching this page. Schosha simply appears to be acting boldly.

In this specific case, I think Schosha has a point. Many topics are used without being properly introduced, and there is confusion as to the point of view the article takes in various sections. There is nothing wrong with taking both positions (or other positions, or whatever) as long as it is made clear what source is making the claim, which is often not the case in this article. Unfortunately, beyond urging to follow WP policies and guidelines whenever possible, I have no concrete suggestions on how to go about such improvements. It's no small task. -Verdatum (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

His intentions are clear: there is removal of references to scholarly work (and the removed section was referenced/sourced), and a boosting of Kabbalah according to Jewish traditions only. That is not, and was not the point of this article; it was meant to be one generic to all traditions until Schorsha began editing. What is happening now is vandalism, as well as propagating his own POV - without references. You will further note that he only put this section up for discussion after it was removed, not before, as per disputed articles.

As to the confusion, that could be sorted out by sourcing, not deleting whole paragraphs. abafied (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Verdatum wrote: "He does not appear to be (at this time) repeating the same edit blindly without discussion." Just what are you talking about? Perhaps you could show me a case where I edited "blindly without discussion". Dispite Abafied's accusations, I was not the editor who broke up the article without discussion, but I did support Jayrav after he did that. Moreover, if you look at the talk page (much of which is now archived), you will see that it has been my practice to discuss important changes before making them. The few exceptions were restoring changes to the article that I considered inappropriate. I do wish that Abafied would stop her ad hominem attacks on me which is Poisoning the Well [4]. Her constant accusations of bad faith are disruptive, are soap boxing, and are untrue. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, my comment was in your favor. I did not mean to imply that you had at any time edited blindly without discussion, and I fail to see why you interpret my comment in this manner. I cannot say whether or not you have done so in the past, nor can I say if you intend to so do in the future. So again, you did not appear, at that time, to be editing blindly without discussion. -Verdatum (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I am curious what Abafied means when she writes: "For these reasons the edit will be reverted." I am not sure what she plans on reverting, because the only change I made to the article all day today was to remove an inappropriate external link. The paragraph I used as an example, is still in the article. I am trying to generate discussion that might lead to improvement of the article, and I do not totally oppose including academic sources, but I do think more should be done to integrate them with the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Kabbalah as scholarship, and Kabbalah as a religious way of life (put useful thoughts or suggestions here)

It seems to me that this article contains two opposed approaches to explaining Kabbalah that are not integrated. There a Kabbalah that is practiced by religious Jews as way of life, and there is a scholars academic Kabbalah which is interested in explaining the origins and development of a tradition by using a number of analytic methods applied in a detached manner. The lack of connection makes for an article that is unsettling, confusing, and unreadable.

It seems to me that the problem can be solved by either separating the two, or by integrating them. The "Introduction", and "Overview" sections of the article have been much improved by removing the academic speculation and focusing on traditional views. But when we get to, in the "Sephirot" section, this paragraph

Although the Hebrew word Sefirah is not connected to the Greek word sphaira (sphere), some scholars think later Kabbalists conceptualized the Sefirot as circles encompassing the material world, the heavenly spheres based on the Ptolmaic universe. Sefer Yetzirah speaks of the Sefirot as the "Breath of the living God" and as living numerical beings that are the hidden "depth" and "dimension" to all things. Sefer Ha-Bahir (late Twelfth Century), treats the Sefirot in terms that are also thought by some scholars as having their source in Gnostic or Neoplatonic terms as aeons or logoi that serve as the instruments of creation.

it becomes difficult to understand where this is leading, or what I have gained in understanding of Kabbalah by being told this.

I would be interested in reading suggestions of separation, or integration, of these two components to make a better article. (I have noticed that there are some articles, such as Bereishit (parsha) that work very well with a minimum of the academic approach.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You had responses to this in the section above. Why put it up a second time? All that has to be done, within the article, is to source properly both the scholarly comments and traditional comments. No separation is necessary; integration, with correct sourcing, is abafied (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Because the accusations against me, that you make above, distract from my question. I want this space for editors to comment on what I said. Those who want to accuse me of bad faith editing can continue to put their insults in the previous section. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You had responses to your comments above; there is no consensus for separation. abafied (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not a standard method of handling discussion. People are more than welcome to ignore off-topic threads within a discussion section. There is no need to duplicate your comment. I propose removing this section. Any comments (such as the above comment by abafied) can be moved into the above section. Having two sections, and the second section existing with an argument to the section's existence, comes off to me as petty and confusing to new readers of this discussion. -Verdatum (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to keep it in this form, for the reasons I have already explained. But if I have violated a rule by doing this, let me know. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

What this article is about

In a section above, Abafied wrote:

His intentions are clear: there is removal of references to scholarly work (and the removed section was referenced/sourced), and a boosting of Kabbalah according to Jewish traditions only. That is not, and was not the point of this article; it was meant to be one generic to all traditions until Schorsha began editing. What is happening now is vandalism, as well as propagating his own POV - without references. You will further note that he only put this section up for discussion after it was removed, not before, as per disputed articles.

In reply I want to say a few things

1. This article had become an article about "traditional Jewish Kabbalah" before I started editing it.

2. I most definitely do want this article to be about Kabbalah according to Jewish traditions. The origin of all Kabbalah is Jewish, and Jewish Kabbalah needs its own article to adequately describe what it is. That does not exclude other Kabbalah articles which deal with the subject differently.

3. I do think that, at present, most of the scholarly sources in the article only serve to obscure what the article is about. If that can be corrected that is fine with me. If it can not be corrected, then it seems obvious that they need to be removed (perhaps to a separate article). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

In Judaism, in relation to Kabbalah, both traditional views and scholarly views are represented. Anything else is tantamount to POV. End of story. And, no, the scholarly sources do not obscure the text: should people decide to go off and read them, it would deepen their understanding of the history of ideas in Kabbalah. Further, originally many of those references referred back to the section on notes, not a few of which have been changed to refer to unverifiable website sources. abafied (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing POV in depicting traditional Jewish Kabbalah as a Jewish religious tradition and as Jewish theology.

For instance the article on Torah has virtually no scholarly commentary, and certainly nothing of such recent research as Finkelstein and Silberman's The Bible Unearthed, which book concludes (among other things) that there was no historical Exodus from Egypt. And rightly so. Since the article on Torah is intended to explain a religious text and tradition, the scholarly studies belong elsewhere. If the critical scholarship were included there, it would make it impossible for readers of the article to follow the text that the article is actually about. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It is no answer to quote the Torah page in support of a non-argument, particularly as that page itself is very clearly headed by a call for citations and footnotes - Wikipedia policy. My objection still stands. The Kabbalah page is about tradition and scholarship. abafied (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is about traditional Jewish Kabbalah. When readers come to this article they want to get an understanding what that tradition teaches. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No, this article was about generic Kabbalah until someone claimed it for traditional Jewish Kabbalah and started moving out sections of it; there was neither consensus nor agreement about the change of designation. Read the archives. Further, even traditional Kabbalah has a history of scholarship behind it, right back to Merkevah, Bereshit and Hechalot mysticism. Kabbalists differ; scholars differ; those who know their Kabbalah know that. There is no consensus about what is 'traditional' Kabbalah; many kabbalists were innovators - Luria was one of them. As such, the differences, both scholarly and traditional need reporting and sourcing in this article. What you are recommending is POV. abafied (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Abafied, this article is impossible to read because of the way scholarly historical analysis is randomly interspersed with information that actually tries to explain Kabbalah. A fair amount of that confusing content was added by you, so I understand your resistance to removing it. Nevertheless, it is my intention to soon start moving the problematic material to its own section....unless someone proposes a better solution. The article is about traditional Jewish Kabbalah, and needs improving to better explain traditional Kabbalah. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

On your proposed moving of sections of the article, so much for "discussion." If you do move sections in a disputed article (though you've not designated here which sections you mean to remove) when no consensus has been reached, then expect to have it reverted and further action taken. Rather than edit warring, would you like to contribute, if you can, to sources both scholarly and traditional?

You will also note that someone had previously put up a citation notice on the Kabbalah page asking for reliable references - see Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

And, no, no confusion was created by me. Last year I reorganised existing material into categories, having written only the section on Christian Kabbalah, which was later removed to its own page. That was explained to you last year. Further, there was no disagreement at the time. You questioned it two months after the work of reorganisation had been started, before any major rewriting occurred and which never took place. I also added some sources and references. In view of the current citation for reliable sources on the page, in retrospect, I was right to do so. abafied (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The situation with sourcing has improved some....although I just had to remove a source you added because it is from a self published site. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Have you put up a reliable source in its stead? It looks like not. abafied (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You will now find those statements referenced to Gershom Scholem and two 'citation needed entered elsewhere in the paragraph. abafied (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, I refer you to these comments:

Generally speaking, per WP:CONSENSUS, plans for splitting up major articles into sub-articles should be proposed on the article talk page, discussed, and consensus reached prior to taking action. WP:BOLD is not unlimited, and I agree that when other editors don't agree with bold actions discussion should ensue. I would suggest discussing the merits of Abafied's proposal and/or making an alternative proposal. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

abafied (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been talking about moving some material to its own section in the article, not removing the material. I am trying to find a compromise that can be agreed upon. If all I wanted to do was to enforce my views, why would I be spending time asking for the opinions of other editors, and investing more time discussing the objections? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Then put up the 'new section' and its contents here for discussion before its entered on the main page. abafied (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I plan to wait a few days, or more, to give other editors time to comment and make suggestions. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Citations needed

I've put up the citations needed tag on all statements that are unsupported or supported by incomplete sources. In the course of doing that, it's obvious that some sections are repetitive, as in the sections on origins and early talmudic periods. Both reliable sources are needed throughout and the rewriting of at least this section. abafied (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate what Abafied is trying to do, but some of the newly tagged material is already referenced. Anyhow, the article now looks like one big ! I admit this is probably accurate, but that's what the Refimprove template at the heading is for. With all the tags, one doesn't know where to begin; what to reference and what to just delete. I'm afraid that those editors with less knowledge, patience, or sources at their disposal might start removing any tagged information that doesn't agree with them. חנינא (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Up till this point, sources have been added with re-writes and additions to the article. I think that process is working, even if slowly. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I see Schorsha has removed all the citation tags, again without prior discussion. As I had started to clean up the sources this morning by using those, I'm afraid the disruptive Luddite attitude and thought-policing has now interrupted that; the page will now do without my input. I do not intend to work with further ignorance; it is now clearer than ever that any attempt, other than Schorsha's, to redeem this page will be cut, distorted or dispruptively argued.

Moreover, on Kwork's/Schorsha's comments above, I question their veracity. Reliable sources have not been added, nor put up wikistyle; 'additions to the article' have not been discussed; instead, cuts have taken place according to a particular bias and that one not well-informed, as Jayrav also previously noted above.

It's about time Wikipedia staff took a firmer stance over the censorship happening here. abafied (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Schosha's actions. In the case that the bulk of an article is not sourced with inline quotations, it is not appropriate to exhaustively tag every uncited claim. It clutters the article and serves no benefit. In these cases, one should tag the article with Template:Refimprove or similar cleanup template, and then begin work on finding sources or removing dubious content. Because it appears this article was created with non-inlined references, without tracking down all of the references, we cannot say what content is sourced and what isn't (and yes, I'd love to see this fixed as well). Any researcher approaching this article as a source of referenced information can see that statements in this article are unreferenced, and doesn't need a special tag to notice that each statment is unreferenced. I believe there is a guideline (or perhaps just an essay) that clarifies the use of inline cleanup tags, though I can't remember where. On request, I'll track it down. -Verdatum (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. However, if Schorsha is so assiduous in reverting even those sentences which I had properly sourced, as can be seen on the history page, then he can now be as assiduous about properly and reliably sourcing and rewriting the passages where he made those cuts. I intend to have nothing more to do with a continually censored article while he is 'editing' it, for the reasons I stated. The page is now left with one editor who has admitted elsewhere that he has little knowledge of Kabbalah and who will now alter it to his own will. The article is a laughing stock now and, given the quality of that editor's alterations, will be more so in future. abafied (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Abafied wrote:"The page is now left with one editor who has admitted elsewhere that he has little knowledge of Kabbalah..."

I learned, from experience, not to take claims of "expertise", nor claims for the lack there of, very seriously. But if I actually know anything, or not; rather than make accusations, it would be better to compromise over differences and continue to work to improve the article. It is my hope that more editors will join in editing, because I consider it important to have a diversity of views, and skills. (But if you continue to edit the article, or not, I will certainly not be editing alone, because there are other editors.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

On the Bible (from "Pensees")

I don't know much about this topic, but I found this while looking over some stuff on Blaise Pascal and Pensees, thought it probably belongs in the article here...but perhaps someone else has an idea on where it should go. WNDL42 (talk) 12:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh...almost forgot...I am wndl42 because I grew up in a house numbered "42" and subsequently became a fan of Douglas Adams...I didn't know there was any other significance to the number until someone recently pointed it out, so please don't read anything unintended into my username. Thanks in advance. WNDL42 (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

In Pensees' Section X "Typography", Pascal presents an unusual proof for a "double meaning" interpretation of The Bible, citing Kabbalah and Moses Maimonides, aka the RaMBaM

See Pensées#On_the_Bible WNDL42 (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wndl42 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 17 March 2008

I don't see the need to quote this entire section here. It should be sufficient to merely link to Pensées#On_the_Bible. If there are no objections, I'd like to delete this and replace it with a link. -Verdatum (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I had already asked him, on his talk page, to remove the whole thing because it has nothing to do with Kabbalah. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have trimmed it back to what I think is is relevant. I'd counter that if one of the most influential mathmeticians and philosphers in history has cited Kabbalah and Maimonides explicitly in a work as famous as Pensees, that this is certainly not totally irrelevant. WNDL42 (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Your point is taken, however it seems to fail WP:HTRIV as being signifigant enough to be mentioned in this article. That article links to this one, so it shows up under "what links here" I personally think that is sufficient. -Verdatum (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Kabbalah: Primary Texts

It is my intention to return the Kabbalah: Primary Texts article back to this article from which it was taken. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Some things I have noticed

I doubt that this is intentional, but to me many of the Kabbalah related articles seem to have a Kabbalah Centre/Occult-related Bookshelf at bookstore leaning. Much of it deviates from what I would call classic Kabbalah as taught in the Kabbalistic Yeshivot. The truth is I am not sure how to fix this. As soon as one says that Kabbalah views X as AB&C we suggest a hegemony that is not present and thus it becomes POV any advice? I would prefer to see more primary sources referenced, I believe that this will eliminate some of the inaccuracies that I have encountered, and I am trying to clean up, that seem to be based on bad scholarship from sources not the contributors. הרב המקובל אלכהן (talk) 05:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the views academic Kabbalah scholars also. Many statements are introduced that are contrary to the understanding of true rabbinical scholars, and without explanation of the reasons for the contradictions. See the section, above, # 19 Kabbalah as scholarship, and Kabbalah as a religious way of life (put useful thoughts or suggestions here) , where I discuss this, and call for important changes to make the article actually explain its subject of traditional Jewish Kabbalah. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sefardi and Mizrahi

I have moved the paragraph below from the Sefardi and Mizrahi [5] section of the article to the talk page for two reasons: 1.There is no explanation how this paragraph connects to the rest of the section, and 2.there seems to be a dispute over the nature of the situation described.

Among the most famous was the Beit El mystical circle of Jerusalem, originally a brotherhood of twelve, mostly Sefardic, mystics under the leadership of Gedaliyah Chayon and Shalom Sharabi in the mid-18th century. The group endured into the 20th Century and, in its original place in the Old City of Jerusalem, there is a rebuilt yeshivah which continues this spiritual legacy. There is another one in the New City of Jerusalem in which its original customs and philosophy are also preserved.

Since the paragraph has to do with the current Kabbalah yeshivot in Jerusalem, and does not actually discuss Kabbalah, it is possible that this paragraph would fit better in another article. Perhaps an article about the current Kabbalah yeshivot in Jerusalem should be created as a new article, which could be linked to this article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm still quite ignorant of this topic, but this edit looks appropriate to me. The justification is appreciated :) -Verdatum (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

At a minimum, it would be nice if someone could tie this paragraph into the rest of the section.Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Shalom Sharabi played an integral role, as most Jerusalem Kabbalists(or at least Yeshivot) teach primarily his system. Also other notable Kabbalists where in that circle, such as Haim David Azulai and Yom Tov Iglasia. However, the overall discussion of one(or two) of the sixty some Yeshivot now in the greater Jerusalem area teaching Kabbalah does seem to be misplaced.הרב המקובל אלכהן (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

One other note. The Sephardi/Mizrahi section could use considerable expanding. There is a lot going on there outside of the Lurianic school, and even within it. For instance you have the Ben Ish Hai's popularization of much of the Lurianic/Rashash system through his L'Shem Yihud prayers. You have the Kabbalah Maasit focus of the many of the great Yemenite Kabbalists, and the blend of the two by many of the famous North African Rabbis, the Abihatzera family(aka Baba Sali) and Yehuda Patia come most readily to mind there. Then there is the re-emergence of the Abulafian system amongst the Damascus Kabbalists, Albitoni and Vital(later in his life after the glare of the Ari had worn off). Again the article tends to paint Kabbalah are rather monolithic, which frankly doesn't work. Even amongst modern Yeshivot there are often huge differences in opinion and methods of understanding texts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RavAlkohen (talk • contribs) 10:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Maimonides

"Many students of the Rambam, Maimonides,[citation needed] completely reject Arizal's kabbalistic teachings,

- incorrect, there is a well-known Ritva that argues that the Rambam never rejected the Kabbalah. You can easily argue that the Rambam understood Kabbalah to be not relevant to Halacha FOR EVERYONE to follow.

"as well as deny that the Zohar is authoritative, " Those that dispute the Zohar's source, don't necessarily dispute its authoritativeness

"Their only disagreement concerns whether the Kabbalistic teachings promulgated today are accurate representations of those esoteric teachings to which the Talmud refers. Within the Haredi Jewish community one can find both rabbis who sympathize with such a view,[citation needed] while not necessarily agreeing with it, as well as rabbis who consider such a view absolute heresy."

This is again incorrect. Orthodox Judaism accepts the Zohar as the work of Shimon Bar Yochai, (the description above is not mainstream but a side group. The work of Rabbi Yaakov Emden shows that the Zohar is indeed authentic. Nonetheless, these dissenters are not mainstream. This statement above is NPOV it makes out that accepting the Zohar is not mainstream. I would also like to point out that the way the this whole point is discussed smacks of Modern Orthodoxy, and not of Orthodoxy. Clarification I think is necessary. Dannyza1981 (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason not to make changes in the article, but please supply sources that support your changes. In Wikipedia articles it is important for editors to give sources to support statements. (If there actually are disagreements over the place of Kabbalah, it would be better to say there is a disagreement rather than insist on one side or the other being correct.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Dannyza to a certain extent. The portion that he is referring to is horribly under sourced. When we speak of Haredim we are primarily speaking of Chassidim(all of which accept Kabbalah) or the followers of Moshe Feinstein in America(who accepted Kabbalah and Zohar and the Ari) or the followers of Shlomo Zalman Auerbach(himself a famous Kabbalist and founder of the Yeshiva Shaar HaShamayim, a Yeshiva dedicated to the study of Zohar and the Ari) or since his passing R' Eliashiv, whose father was a famous Kabbalist and wrote a commentary on Eitz Haim. From the Sephardic side you have Mordechai Eliyahu a Kabbalist and the son of a Kabbalist, his father authored the famous commentary on Eitz Haim, Kerem Shlomo. You also have Ovadiah Yosef who, though not a Kabbalist, endorses only the Zohar and the Arizal as being able to be studied and practiced, see Yehaveh Daat 4 Teshuva 47. That wraps 99.9% of the Hareidi world. Now if someone can show some evidence of a major Hareidi Rabbi or movement that actively rejects Zohar or the Ari, I would be interested in seeing it, however I think at best it will be only fringe groups.

As far as the Rambam or his students, again definitive sources need to be given. The GR"A in the Shulkhan Aruch YD 246:4 Seif Katan 18 that the Rambam never saw Kabbalah and never spoke on Kabbalah. Ovadiah Yosef in Yehaveh Daat 4 Teshuvah 47, also makes note that the Rambam never spoke of Kabbalah, the Zohar or the Arizal. So again we have an assertion made with no supporting evidence against ample evidence to the contrary. I believe this calls for serious revision if not deletion of the offending parts.--הרב המקובל אלכהן (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Tree of Death?

Is there such a thing as the Tree of Death (a.k.a The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil)? I was under the impression that there was the Tree of Life - Sephirot (Light) and the Tree of the Death - Qlippoth or Adverse Sephirot(Dark, evil). By the way (talking of FF7 here), Jenova means something like "new oneness of God" (think the U2 song One) - Jen = oneness (unselfish love) nova = new. And yes, Jenova was (or is?) an alien virus that tried to destroy the planet (sounds kinda End timish). BTW, on a separate note, the number of the beast equals 666x10 (10 being the number of divine perfection)- number of angels that fell with Lucifer [6660] (a.k.a Satan, "the accuser" - the finger pointer). Also, I believe both the Sephirot and the Qlippoth (Adverse Sephirot) are numbered from 1111 to 9999 in the Book of Life (White) or the Book of Death (Black), with 10 being the number of Lucifer, 11 being the Holy Spirit, and 12 being The One God of Israel (Yahweh). This is just me talking, but I believe for some reason that Jenova is like the wife of Yahweh/Jehovah (Don't ask me why). Sorry for the FF7 references, I just get a bit excited, that's all. The serpent is like a sock puppet of Lucifer, kind of like the Goa'Uld in Stargate - the serpent seed of the Nephilim (and was cursed for his actions, hence 666 - sealed/forbidden techniques, like the tomei of the Sharingan in Naruto, I've sort of seen the Shippuden movie, and that's how I interpret it). So in a sense, the bible is like one big puppet show, with all the actors playing their parts.

In other words, I <think> it goes something like this:

                      12 - Yahweh, "The Creator", "The Architect"
                      11- Holy Spirit
                      10 - Lucifer

Right Hand Path (Sephirot) Left Hand Path (Adverse Sephirot) (Tree of Life) (Tree of Death) Book of Life 1-9999 Book of Death 1-9999

0 equals animal 00 equals plant 000 mineral 0001 Spectral Body (Sheol)

Or something like that, hence where we get the Final Fantasy games and all our "fictional" works from (divine origin) 219.90.191.220 (talk) 12:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• This article is about traditional Jewish Kabbalah, and what you are talking about has nothing to do with this article. You might try the Hermetic Qabalah article.....but remember that the article talk pages are for discussing changes and improvements to Wikipedia articles, and are not to be used as discussion forums. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, don't just send this kind of comment over to Hermetic Qabalah. The first thing to note is that this is all original research, and as such is of no interest to Wikipedia. As interesting as all this may be (and I should note there are a lot of things here that make no sense to me — what's 'Jenova', for instance?) this is not a forum for discussing original theories or original syntheses of existing information. Thanks. Fuzzypeg★ 00:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Fuzzypeg, I have no way of knowing if it is original research or not. I only know it is not traditional Jewish Kabbalah. I do not know anything about Hermetic Qabalah, and so had no way of knowing if is was OR. Sorry. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, fair enough. I should have thought of that... Fuzzypeg★ 01:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Kabbalah Cult Cons

Kabbalah Cult Cons

http://soundoffcolumn.com/kaballah_cult.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.213.255.27 (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I've read this article and it's about as bad as you can get. Heimbichner is not (as the article states) a Kabbalah teacher, but an anti-cult polemicist (and a pretty inaccurate polemicist at that). Phiona Davis who killed a couple of people, was totally unbalanced well before she started attending Kabbalistic services. And so on. So many distortions and manipulations. This is the same quality of writing that brought us white-woman-raping niggers, commies hiding under American beds ready to slit our throats, and the vast worldwide satanic kiddie-sacrificing ring. I propose Bela Lugosi to play the Kabbalah Cult leader. Fuzzypeg★ 23:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)