Talk:Gender of God

Template:Medcabbox

• Archive 1
• Archive 2

Administrative note on edit warring

This is a note concerning the recent edit-warring on this page. LisaLiel has been blocked for 24 hours but I am concerned by everyone's conduct here. Going to limit of 3RR and asking for other editors to "keep someone in line" is gaming the system. I am asking all of you now to stop continuously reverting each other. You are not entitled to 3 reverts per day. Nor are you entitled to edit-war slowly over prolonged periods of time. Consider this a general behavioural warning to all parties regardless of who is correct or who is more correct - stop edit warring and seek mediation or other dispute resolution. LisaLiel is not being singled out - further administrative action may follow after investigation. Please make further efforts to resolve disputes before reverting--Cailil ^talk 21:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to comment on two issues: one is purely procedural; the other is substantive and procedural. First point: Cailil is right that 3RR is not permission to revert up to three times a day. It is meant to provide a cooling off period to help people reach a compromise. If people do not reach a compromise after the one day of cooling off, obviously 3RR is inadequate and more action is needed - either blocking one or more users from editing the page for a longer period of time, or protecting the page. If several people violate 3RR more than once a week, I think the page needs to be protected and I would urge people to enter into mediation.

Second: Tim wrote, "God is our husband and NEVER our wife. He is out Father and NEVER our mother. It's abundant, well known, and obvious." This sound like Tim's point of view. It sounds like Lisa often is asserting her point of view. This is a violation of NPOV and NOR which demand that we do not put our own interpretations into the article. What Tim and Lisa ought to be doing, in my opinion, is reviewing various reliable sources and identifying notable points of view, and then making sure notable points of view from reliable sources are included in the article, clearly identified properly, and contextualized. Perhaps there are reliable sources to support Tim's point of view but I know of two important points of view - important in the only sense that matters here, that they are notable and found in reliable sources - that differ from Tim's view. One is Biblical historians and critics like Phyllis Tribble who do not claim to speak for Jews (as Lisa correctly points out, for Jews there is no scripture "before" interpretation) but who does as historians claim to interpret the writings of the authors of the Bible, and who have argued that the Bible presents a much more complex use of sexual and gendered imagery to represent God; this is a view that must be in the article. The other is work by Jewish feminists, many of them non-Orthodox but definitely Jewish, who have a feminist inrerpretation of the Bible and Midrash. Their views should also be included. In short, I have doubts about Tim's claim but the point is not whether Tim is right or wrong, as Lisa has been arguing, the point is that we go back to process: look at reliable sources to identify notable views. I think Lisa and Tim could reach a compromise if both stopped procaliming what Jews think (since Wikipedia does not care what Tim or Lisa think Jews think) and instead talked more about reliable sources - on specific texts (the Bible, the Talmud, Midrashim) and "Judaism," and identify notable views voiced by identifiable people (historians, literary critics, rabbis and philosophers) and sorted out how to provide accurate accounts of these diverse views in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I've revised the section on Judaism so that the traditional and modern-feminist views are both represented. The feminist views actually get the lion's share of the section, but I've placed them second, consistent with the chronological order used in the rest of this article.

I've also created a section called "In the Bible", so that the material on biblical grammar and Mesopotamian myths can remain, since they aren't relevant to the Jewish view of the subject. This way, the section retains its integrity, but no sources are removed, however irrelevant.

I'd appreciate it if you could give your opinion of the Reimers quote. Alastair and Tim clearly believe that it is relevant to the article, and although I have argued numerous times that it doesn't even talk about God's gender, but only about why some people like the idea of a prayer book with feminine grammar used for God, neither of them have addressed the question, preferring instead to simply rely on brute force reversions of my edits. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear. One part of the difficulty with Lisa's edit was the removal of text sourced on Paula Reimers, who I added for precisely the reasons mentioned by SLRubenstein. While I understand that Lisa has a valid objection to Reimers potentially giving undue emphasis to the feminist stream within Judaism, that point of view is especially relevant in this article, all that is needed is some sourced quantification or modifier regarding the place of the feminist views within each faith tradition. The nice thing about Reimers is that she argues the language for God in the Tanakh is masculine, not because God was actually thought to be masculine, but because it deflected what she believes would be an inevitable slide into pantheism were feminine imagery used. It is a very interesting idea, and relevant to the article beyond Judaism alone.

As the edit history shows, I did not initially remove the Reimers quote, but Alastair and Tim reverted my edit anyway. Alastair's misrepresentation of the facts is an example of his bad faith approach here. He reverted my edit, not for removing sources, but because I put the only sources that actually spoke about what Judaism thinks about God's gender at the top of the article, and removed the weasel words he'd added to those sources.

I'm quite sure that there are modern feminist sources that actually discuss what they think the Gender of God is. But the Reimers quote does not. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with SLR that protecting the article is an "admission of failure". I also think its pedagogically and disciplinarily unsound. Personally, I've been happy to see that the edit warrers had slowed down their activity until Lisa's outburst. People don't necessarily learn if they don't "have enough rope to hang themselves". It really all is only a matter of time. Edit warring does not change the long-term shape of pages, experience shows it time and again. Leaving a page unprotected for long enough teaches that to those who've not had time or inclination to observe it before. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sl, you write: "Second: Tim wrote, "God is our husband and NEVER our wife. He is out Father and NEVER our mother. It's abundant, well known, and obvious." This sound like Tim's point of view." Uh, excuse me? It's simply an observation. If you look at the actual added text in the article I added one sourced sentence, and two quotes -- sourced. You'll also note that the second of those quotes disagrees with what you seem to regard as my own POV. And finally you'll notice that none of those quotes appears on the article page, and two of the sources are completely gone. The only POV pushing in this case is one sided.

Alastair, while I appreciate your optimism, you haven't been dealing with the operator at hand. I've seen two pages completely and permanently hijacked now. This will be the third. Months of collaborative work will disappear in favor of the single handed editing of a single person. I used to be optimistic. Now I'm just shell shocked.Tim (talk) 09:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're refering to the MJ and Shituf articles, while I seem to recall I agreed with you on both, those are very complicated topics. Lisa did actually represent both a particular popular POV, and a kind of "common sense" understanding. There were both sources and sentiments to support her. She didn't hijack them alone; also, you were alone and you gave up.

Here all that's happened is Lisa has attempted to suppress sourced text of majority views and the "common sense" understanding. And she lost. End of story. Let's forget it. Now we work towards improvements by consensus, it's in our own interests to be agreeable to one another. It'll be fun if Lisa catches the vision. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, Alastair. I didn't try to suppress anything. You moved the only two sources in the section that actually talk about the gender of God (as opposed to the grammar and imagery used to refer to God) down to the bottom of the section and labeled them as "opinion pieces". This was not a good faith edit by any means, but a second attempt by you to dismiss reliable sources in favor of fringe views that you prefer.

Nor have I "lost". I will pursue dispute resolution, even if you, as is your wont, refuse to do so. Your bullying tactics will fail. -LisaLiel (talk) 11:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You're too optimistic, Alastair. Unless I go away, this edit war will plague you, because it's not about the topic.Tim (talk) 10:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Blech will be in this article ten years from now, so will Reimers, the ideas are striking, notable PsOV, contrasting on the very topic of the article. God male, female, both or neither have all be offered by recent Jewish writers, and with plausible arguments for three of them, only one is considered by some as idolatry. Now it's just a matter of lining up writers like Tribble and others behind the various views, and that can be done in notes. The rest is about packaging the wording, and yes that could take a long time, but there's no rush. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

PS I'm off to hear Amy-Jill Levine tomorrow, speaking on Jesus' parables. Should be interesting ... and fun, from what I've heard. Can I say howdy to her from you Tim? ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 10:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Tim, I'm really tired of your persecution complex. Instead of pretending that I edited this article to "get you", how about answering the following questions:

• Why do you agree with Alastair that the citations from Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan and Jewfaq.com should be labeled as personal opinions and moved to the end of the section?

• Why do you agree with Alastair that a Wikipedia section about Judaism's view of the gender of God should feature two large quotes about a radical and controversial feminist siddur, while the traditional view is presented only in response?

• Why do you think that my edit yesterday morning constituted "edit warring", when I hadn't edited this article in almost a month, and Alastair's immediate reaction was to revert it without discussion?

• Why do you agree with Alastair that the text I edited was "consensus text", when it hadn't existed for more than several weeks?

• Why do you think that a discussion of Mesopotamian myths and their purported relation to the biblical text belongs in a section on Judaism? Do you think that Judaism considers itself to be based on Mesopotamian myths?

You've answered none of these questions. You've chosen, instead, to join Alastair in reverting every edit I make. I'm quite curious as to why you think it's believable for you to claim that I have some sort of vendetta against you when you're the one reverting my edits. When you added that Blech quote, I retained it, and I've made no effort to remove it. It would be nice if you'd have the same courtesy. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- I'm really tired of your analyzing my "complexes". You have a history of psychoanalyzing my conversion as well, and it is precisely this kind of harassment that makes me aware that this is personal. I don't know why, and I don't care to know why. I just want it to stop. The other issues are artificial -- they are looked for. Well, you know what? If you look for a problem you'll find one. All I ask is that you stop zeroing in on any page where I have the audacity to edit on a Jewish subject or even a Christian one -- or especially on a subject in which Judaism or Christianity make judgments about the other. Are you free to edit? Absolutely. Are you free to destroy my own freedom to edit? Well, up to now you have been, and I'm not confident it will stop.

As for the rest, these questions are pointless. You didn't edit on this page for over a month because I didn't edit in a Jewish section. The day after I did so, POOF -- edit war. You still have an open cabal on me asking that I be forbidden to edit in Jewish sections ANYWHERE on Wikipedia! And you are trying to enforce it here.

Except that the changes I made were all changes to edits by Alastair. Not a single one was a change you'd made. In fact, even though you spent the entire morning reverting every single edit I made, when you added a reference by Benjamin Blech, I stopped reverting the article to my first edit of the morning, and instead, modified that edit with the addition of the source you presented. If I was trying to prevent you from editing or adding content, why would I have left your addition in?

No, Tim, this has nothing to do with you. Or rather, it had nothing to do with you. Alastair made some bad faith edits which I hadn't noticed for a while, and when I fixed them, you decided to undo every single edit I made yesterday. All of them. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Why do I feel Aryeh Kaplan should be at the end? Simple -- the end is the final word, and Aryeh Kaplan is one of the most respected sources I can think of.
2. Why do I feel that the traditional response should have the final word? Again, because the final word is the most authoritative. And why a feminist issue? Well, the final word needs to answer SOMETHING, doesn't it?

No, the final word is not authoritative. On the contrary, in Wikipedia, the converse is true. As I think you're aware. And you didn't answer my question completely. It wasn't just a matter of putting R' Kaplan at the end. It was Alastair's change of labeling it as the personal beliefs of R' Kaplan. And you certainly saw in his edit comments that Alastair had labeled the Kaplan quote as an "opinion piece". When you reverted my edits, you restored Alastair's tendentious claim that this is all that it was. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Why do I think you were initiating an edit war after a month? As I said, it was within a day that I dared cross your cabal requested ban against my editing in a Jewish subject on any article anywhere on Wikipedia. And your edit removed MY edit immediately, even though it was sourced and on topic: literary citations from two sources regarding patriarchal comparisons to similar kinds of matriarchal stories in other religions of the region, and a direct quote from a literary analysis of the Song of Songs, as it applies to the gender view of God in the Hebrew Bible as a whole.

This is verifiably untrue. My initial edit did not remove your addition about mythology. I did so later, because while it may have bearing on biblical studies, it's not relevant to what Judaism says on the subject. -70.90.164.174 (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Why was the text consensus text? The majority of what you had eliminated had been there for a long long time. Yes, you eliminated 100% of my input up to that point, but my input was only two sentences, and you eliminated whole paragraphs of simple grammar that could be easily sourced (and was by me immediately after). You are not ignorant in Hebrew. You know more than I do, so you well know that the grammatical points in the sections that had been there for months were obvious and not in error. If they needed citation, it's a simple thing to do, and you could have done it yourself. But no, it's time to edit wholesale.

Tim, look at the diff: [1]. This was the edit I made. It did not take out anything that you'd written about literary approaches. Not a word.

And here is when you started reverting my edits ([2]). Note that what you reverted contained your "literary approaches" content in full. That being the case, why did you revert my edit? It can't have been because I removed that paragraph, because I hadn't. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Why does a comment on mesopotamian myths have relevance? Simple, REGARDLESS of whether the Bible and the Mesopotamian myths both stemmed from real history, both stemmed from earlier stories, or one stemmed from the other, it's standard scholarly opinion that they are related (and this can be documented in entire volumes). The fact that the Mesopotamian stories are more matriarchal and the Biblical stories more patriarchal shows that even in SIMILAR stories, the Bible tends toward masculine points of view. Neumann and others have written entire volumes on the subject, and Neumann was cited.

Okay, that explains why you'd mention them in the context of what you think the Bible says about God's gender. But why would you put it in a section on what Judaism thinks of God's gender? Why not, say, in the section on what Christianity thinks of the question? After all, both religions value Tanakh, yes? Why choose a section on Judaism to insert content that has nothing to do with Judaism? -LisaLiel (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

And finally, I have a question for you: why DID you leave the article alone for a month, and only decided to start an edit war precisely on a section that I had only first edited a few hours before? And why have you not rescinded your request to have me banned from editing in Jewish sections? And why do you expect me to believe that this apparent ENFORCEMENT of your own requested ban is merely some wild coincidence?Tim (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of any enforcement of what I requested. Could you give examples? I think you're making it up, but I'm willing to look at diffs, if you think you can present any.

As to why I left the article alone for a month, it's simple. The article went into a lengthy flood of edits on a subject I wasn't interested in. There were tons of edits, and I just didn't care. But the article is on my watchlist, so whenever I check that, I see edits. This time, I saw an edit in the Judaism section. It was yours, but note that none of the changes I made to the section touched your edit. I left it in, at the time, despite thinking that it had no relevance to that section. It was only much later, after you had reverted all of my edits ('all of them) that I took that section out. And now I've replaced it, but put it in a more appropriate section. Does that answer your question? -LisaLiel (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Tim, Lisa's said unkind and silly things to and about both of us, it would be rather nice if others pursuade her to stop. Leaving aside the personal attack side of things, it's just plain irrelevant to the topics of articles that are being edited. How about we just ignore her personal comments now that there are a fair few people around to observe what she's been doing. I'm sure she thinks she's being helpful, but she's only going to accept that she's not if others tell her. It's not fair or right but it's a fact. There's a lot more to this article than the Judaism section, and if it wasn't Lisa, there'd be others who'd push a lot of similar points. Anyway, happy bedtime for me here in Australia. Night all. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit history

Because several misstatements of fact, tendentious claims, and wikilawyering have come out with regards to this section, I thought it would be worthwhile to present a brief history of the editing that has occurred on this section. It will be useful for mediation, and if necessary, for arbitration.

• On July 4, 2008, I noticed that the header in this article stated, without any citation, that Judaism views God as male. Since this isn't the case, I edited it (diff: [3]) and provided two reliable sources for my edit.

• Alastair immediately responded by editing to state that Judaism views God as "non-feminine" (whatever that was supposed to mean), and added a reference to a quote by Paula Reimers that doesn't address the question of how Judaism views God in terms of gender, but rather addresses the reasons why some people might want to use feminine terminology for God (diff: [4]).

• Since the two sources I had posted backed up the edit which stated that God has no gender in Judaism, and since the Reimers quote did not support Alastairs edit claiming that God is seen as "non-feminine" in Judaism, I changed the text back. Despite the fact that the Reimers quote was irrelevant, I left it there (diff: [5]).

• Alastair replied to this edit by posting a scolding on my talk page (diff: [6]) telling me not to remove sourced material. Of course, you can see by the article history that I hadn't done any such thing.

• On July 5, 2008, Alastair then edited the header of the article to say, again, and removed any statement about how Judaism views God in terms of gender, and instead stated that the Tanakh of Judaism presents God as masculine (diff: [7]).

• On July 6, 2008, I once again changed the text to state that Judaism views God as having no gender, and I moved the Reimers quote into the Judaism section, allowing it to stand in the body of the article, immediately after another quote by Rebecca Alpert about modern Reconstructionist prayer book which uses feminine language for God (diff: [8]). I did not remove the source, because Alastair clearly felt strongly about it, but I took it out of the header, because it did not address the issue of how Judaism views God in terms of gender.

• Alastair's response was to label the citation of Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan as "POV" and the citation of Jewfaq.com (a well known resource for Jewish concepts) as "irrelevant" (diff: [9]). While I'm trying to present these edits without commentary, I was stunned that an editor on Wikipedia would behave this way. So I simply reverted it (diff: [10]).

• On July 8, 2008, I edited out the two sources I'd put in (diff: [11]). I then placed those sources in the Judaism section, where they more properly belonged (diff: [12]). And then I moved the {{fact}} tag in the header so that it was only pointing to the statement about Islam, because the sources for Judaism were available in the Judaism section (diff: [13]).

• At this point, Tim and Ilkali got into war over grammar. I lost interest and didn't pay much attention to the article for a while, except for removing the quotes that Tim had placed around the word God (diff [14]).

• On July 28, 2008, though I wasn't paying attention, so I missed it at the time, Alastair again labeled the sources I'd brought as POV and moved them to the bottom of the sections (diff: [15]). In the intervening time, Alastair had had an RfC brought against him by Ilkili for bullying and wikilawyering, had threatened legal action against Wikipedia, been banned, backed out of his threat and gotten unbanned, and refused to respond to the RfC, whereapon it was closed by an admin.

• Alastair next changed the sources so that instead of them reading as reliable sources for Judaism, they were presented as opinions (diff: [16]). Again, I wasn't paying attention, or I would have challenged this as soon as he did it. He stated that one of the sources "sees" things a certain way, and that the other "believes" what he wrote. It's hard to imagine a more weaselly way of trying to get around reliable sources.

• Today, August 3, 2008, Tim added a piece of material about Mesopotamian myths to the Judaism section, which has no relevance, since Judaism does not consider itself to be derived from such myths, even if some modern biblical scholars claim it was (diff: [17]).

• At about that point, I noticed what Alastair had done, and I went in to fix it (diff: [18]). I moved the reliable sources back up to the beginning of the article, since they are the only sources in the entire article which even speak to the question of God's gender in Judaism. The quote from Rebecca Alpert does not; it talks about a controversial prayer book put out by the Reconstructionist Movement which uses feminine grammar and imagery for God, but which does not claim that God is female in Judaism (or male for that matter; it doesn't address the issue at all). The quote from Paula Reimers does not; it speaks only to the sociological reasons why some people like a book like the one Alpert commented on. The material on Mesopotamian myths is not relevant to the Jewish view of God's gender, because Judaism does not believe itself to be based on Mesopotamian myths, even if some modern biblical scholars claim it was. The material demonstrating that God is referred to with masculine grammar and imagery in the Bible is irrelevant, since the reliable sources in the section stipulate that this is the case. Nevertheless, I left all of that material in, and merely moved the only reliable sources in the entire section to the top, and removed the weasel words that Alastair had added for the purpose of dismissing them as mere "opinion pieces".

• That was when Alastair decided to eliminate edits he didn't agree with. Without any discussion whatsoever, he reverted my edit (diff: [19]).

• I then restored my edit, which Alastair has labeled a reversion (diff: [20]).

• Alastair responded by reverting my edit again, and warning me against "edit warring". It's a strange thing to call what I did edit warring. I made a reasonable edit, which Alastair reverted without a word of explanation, and when I restored it, he accused me of edit warring. And reverted it for the second time (diff: [21]).

• I restored my edit for the second time, and placed a warning on the Talk page to Alastair. I gave a lengthy explanation for my initial edit, and warned Alastair to stop reverting my edit (diff: [22]). This time, I also removed the paragraph which contained a lengthy discussion of Hebrew grammar, which had no relevance to the Jewish position on the gender of God.

• On the Talk page, Alastair labeled the text that I edited "the consensus text". He also claimed that I was "altering text that has stood for more than a year", when the edit history clearly shows (as I think the diffs I've given show) that what I altered was text that had been there for several weeks.

• Alastair had reverted my edit twice, so he sent Tim in to do it the next time. Tim reverted the Judaism section to the way it had been before my initial edit on this day, including putting the only two relevant reliable sources at the bottom of the section, with weasel words preceding each one (diff: [23]). He then added a citation which says that God is both male and female (diff: [24]).

• I then edited the page so that it reflected my initial edit with the addition of Tim's source. This should not be considered a reversion, since it included Tim's addition of a source (diff: [25]).

• Without any discussion, Tim reverted my edit (diff: [26]).

• I restored my edit once more, but this time omitted the irrelevant paragraph about Mesopotamian myths (diff: [27]).

• Tim then reverted my edit again. This was the third time he reverted my edit, yet I note that he has not been blocked. The only reversions I have done this entire day have been to restore the edit I made initially which was reverted for no legitimate reason (diff: [28]).

• So I restored my edit one more time (diff: [29]).

• Then Alastair reverted my edit for his third time (diff: [30]). At this point, my edit had been reverted six times in the space of an hour. Three times by Tim and three times by Alastair.

• Finally, I restored my edit for the last time (diff: [31]).

• As a result of all of this, I was blocked for 24 hours, even though my "reverts" consisted only of restoring a good faith edit that had been reverted by two other editors without any discussion.

If anyone wants to see detailed interaction, I've commented at my talk page. A simple inspection shows Lisa asserting her right to reject RS (Biblical scholars aren't relevant). To insist on POV (X believes ..., she calls weasling). As well as the entertaining "I restore edits -- You edit war" double standard. She's absolutely acting in good faith, but ironically accusing innocent parties of precisely the errors she's making.

Lisa doesn't seem to be the admitting error or apologising type. However, I think she's plenty smart enough to reflect on the policies and her own actions and realise where she's gone astray.

Continuing misrepresentation of me as guilty of a bannable offense, however, is unacceptable.

I have always and always will hold the Wiki community and foundation accountable for defamation regarding me published on its pages.

I have never and will never threaten to seek compensation in court. But I cannot waive what the law upholds. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan is an acknowledged expert in traditional Judaism. To present what he says about Judaism as "Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan believes" is highly POV. What he says about Judaism is a reliable source about what Judaism says. Yes, it's a source about what traditional Judaism says, but you can hardly make a case that traditional Judaism should be treated as a fringe view, and present truly fringe views (controversial in all Jewish streams) as dominant. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"As well as the entertaining "I restore edits -- You edit war" double standard". Do you acknowledge that you edit-warred with Lisa? If not, it seems you are just as guilty of practicing double standards. Ilkali (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'll bite -- I DID edit war with Lisa and I'll even INSIST that I did; not only here but on a number of other pages. I'll also add that in every case I blinked first.

I'll also add that I find the entire experience unnerving. I don't believe that I've edit warred with anyone else, but I also can't remember a page she and I have been on in which we did NOT edit war.Tim (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Did Alastair edit-war, Tim? Ilkali (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

@Ilkali. Not quite in bed yet. Glad you showed up. This is precisely the question you need to think through too.

When restoring stable or sourced text an editor is not edit warring, rather the editor is choosing not to pass a new revision, but challenge it. The editor is not defending her own text, rather stable or sourced text attributable to all editors who've viewed the stable version or the authors of published works, irrespective of who entered text into an article.

On the other hand, a user who rocks up to a page changes it, then insists that an reversions are ownership, obstructive and edit-warring, and uses such claims as grounds to discount arguments offered by any editor who challenges the recent change ... such a user is edit-warring herself.

Sound familiar?

Perhaps not, it can be hard to see things from other people's perspective if you're not used to it.

Apologies if I appear to be slighting you, but that's quite simply the way it is. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"When restoring stable or sourced text an editor is not edit warring". More clumsy wikilawyering. WP:EDITWAR does not have an "except if you think you're right" clause. The only exceptions listed are for vandalism and edits from banned users, neither of which applies here. Ilkali (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

And for his next trick Ilkali demonstrates the double standard of wikilawyering.

Citing policy to communicate its purpose is not wikilawyering, quoting aimless details is.

Wikilawyering is "where is the policy that says that", Wikilawyering is not providing references for people who won't listen to the explanation of the principle.

So, wikilawyering is saying "where does it say you can't remove sourced text w/out consensus".

Wikilawyering is observing that saying "unsourced text can be removed at any time" does not explicitly say anything about sourced text. It is left to a reader's good faith to understand that sourcing text provides it with a reliability that should be accorded appropriate respect.

The problem with wikilawyers is not that they use policy all the time, but that the only way to get them to approximate co-operation is to show them where co-operation is described in policy.

Ponder these things, they are good for the soul. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Alastair says that "restoring stable or sourced text an editor is not edit warring". In other words, it's okay for him to unilaterally revert an edit if he deems it inferior to something called "stable text". This is a delusion of ownership which is contrary to the idea of Wikipedia.

From the beginning, Alastair has accused me of removing sources when the sources were still there. He uses words as weapons, rather than for what they actually mean.

Don't tell us what's "good for the soul", Alastair. Don't accuse other editors of lying when you are the one who lies all the time. Your arrogance is overweening, and it has no place on Wikipedia. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

←Lisa the last part of that comment is incivil, ad hominem and it's not going to help. Please withdraw it. Alastair I will say the same to you about your remarks re Ilkali. And Ilkali for the second time in 24 hours I will ask you to withdraw your remarks about double standards. If the three of you cannot moderate your behaviour measures will be taken to prevent further disruption & escalation. Consider yourselves all to be on a yellow card--Cailil ^talk 16:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"I would appreciate it if just once someone would recognize that "well mannered" does not equate to "civil". Alastair's posts are incredibly uncivil, and I'm not sure what word other than "lie" should properly be used for repeated misstatements of facts and an utter refusal to ever admit that he is at fault. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Cailil, I will not withdraw my comments to Ilkali, they are very nicely expressed in my usual unswervingly polite and respectful style. I will remind you that they are addressed to an editor who has not only repeatedly gamed the system, but defamed me also. When someone else is challenging Ilkali for these things, then indeed I will desist. But, other than Tim, no one has called Ilkali to account for his endless disruptive editing. For goodness sake, I don't want to tell people what they're doing wrong. It's just that someone has to do it. Everything I said is true, polite and appropriate. There are simply no grounds for withdrawl, only for endorsement. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Creation midrash

Isn't there a traditional Jewish midrash (possibly with nods to Mesopotamian legend) that Adam was originally created a hermaphrodite, with both male and female attributes, in God's image -- and that the female Eve was then created from one "side" of the original Adam (this being an alternative possible translation of the Hebrew word usually translated "rib") ?

If anyone can confirm this, does it deserve a mention? Jheald (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a possible ref [32], found via WP's entry on Adam and Eve. Google search finds more. Jheald (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that view has even been mentioned to me by my supervisor. It would "flesh" (sorry) rather nicely with Blech, who, along with the Mesopotamian comment need restoration I believe, in what was otherwise a good recategorisation of the material. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Both the Blech quote and the Mesopotamian quote are still in the article, and do not require "restoration" to the section on Judaism. Furthermore, to answer Jheald, if you could establish that the midrash you mention is relevant to God's gender, as opposed to Adam's, then possibly it should be included. You'd have to demonstrate that it speaks to the question of God's gender in Judaism, though. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool Lisa, glad you incorporated those. I was going to make the same objection you make, but then I checked again and remembered "in God's image" is a key part of the argument. Adam is seen to have had male and female within, because the female is extracted and the male left behind. The duality is then projected backwards into God, in whose image "man, male and female" was created. It's a valid midrash for Blech's idea, and older. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do you say "glad you incorporated those"? I didn't. But as you can see, the section, while retaining the fact that Judaism does not attribute gender to God (traditional and modern feminist views agree on this), we relate to God through various "aspects", and masculine and feminine aspects are among these, as are "merciful" and "quick to anger" and "forgiving" and "just".

Since you have adamantly refused to adduce any liberal feminist sources for God's gender, but you clearly wanted to address the subject, I found the source for you and included it. You don't have to thank me. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

On an aside, I never understood how mercy was dubbed a feminine trait and justice a masculine one. Both men and women are merciful and just. I wonder if this, also, is an evidence of a gender bias in a culture. I DO know from Neumann that the "Great Mother" archetype in matriarchal religions had justice and wrath being dispensed from the mother deity, rather than a male one. It may be interesting to see if there are sources that would show matriarchal versus patriarchal leanings in the identification of the dispensation of "justice" or "mercy."Tim (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not always. In some views of the sephirot, "mercy" (rachamim) is identified with Tiferet, which is the middle ground between Hesed and Gevurah, and therefore neutrally gendered. While "justice" (din) is often identified with Gevurah, which is considered feminine in nature.

I'm not sure that modern views of what constitutes masculine and feminine can be read into Jewish tradition. Gevurah, after all, is often translated as "might", which might sound like a masculine attribute. But many rabbinic sources identify Gevurah as "restraint", which is considered more of a feminine ideal (Eizohu gibbor? Hakovesh et yitzro.) -LisaLiel (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I just want to add that even the Shechina is seen in both masculine and feminine terms. It's identified often with the Sephira of Malchut (kingship), which Judaism holds as something relevant only to males (Rambam says melech v'lo malka). If you look long enough, you can find contradictory/complementary imagery for almost any aspect of God. That's because it's a description of the aspect, and not of God. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi! It does seem to me that attempting to infer a view of the gender of God from combining a midrash about the gender of Adam with a Bible quote that Adam was created "in God's image" would seem to be an example of a original research synthesis, using sourced material to construct a new argument that goes beyond what the original sources actually say. Finally, attempting to construct a view of gender from taking Divine traits and characterizing the gender of those traits can also be problematic. Conceptions of what gender a trait or quality is associated with may vary, and sources may have a different conception from editors. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. However, the editor who proposed this was noting that there are published sources that argue this. He is quite correct. I don't think many people have held or hold the view (certainly not me and I doubt the first poster either), but it has been published and cited many times and is bang on topic. Absolutely not the first thing that needs to be said under Bible and certainly not under Judaism though. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil Titles Removed

Above, I state that Tim's claim that God is always the father, never the mother, is his point of view. He responds that it is not his point of view because it is obviously the case. Here Tim revelas his utter miksunderstanding or lack of concern for our core policies. NPOV exists precisely because what one person considers and obvious fact, another considers false; NOR exists because we often put in our own vies as if they were obvious. For the record, some people claim that the Bible does not portray God always as the father and never as the father. This is obviously just one point of view. But it means that the claim that God is obviously portrayed as the father is also just a point of view. That Tim thinks this is obvious also shows his lack of knowledge of literature on the Bible. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sl -- a lack of knowledge of literature of the Bible. I could give my credentials but that would be OR, right? How about this? Demonstrate MY ignorance by showing an explicit quote where God is called Israel's "Mother" or "Wife" in the Hebrew Bible. Since you are saying I have a lack of knowledge of literature of the Bible, then you obviously have knowledge to the contrary, nu? Your call -- which one of us has a lack of knowledge of literature of the Bible?

Or, FOR THE LAST TIME, you don't even need to demonstrate which one of us is ignorant. All I've asked for is a simple, "my mistake." And I'll say, "my mistake in thinking you were biased."

Or -- an even simpler solution. Just delete this farce -- your subsection and my answer -- and we can move on to something real.Tim (talk) 02:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it was entirely appropriate to post this on the article talk page. Would it be more affective (and less like throwing someone in the stocks) to have brought this up with him at least semi-privately via his talk page? The fact that we're singling Tim out here- no matter how wrong or right he is- leaves me with a bit of a bad taste in my mouth. L'Aquatique[talk] 03:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

L'Aquatique, thanks -- but could you go to the page and look at the Blech quote I put in there that says the exact OPPOSITE of what Sl is saying my bias is blinding me to? I think I need some vindication. I ALSO think we need to remember that the first call of NPOV is to know your own POV and deliberately balance it, which I have unquestionably done. I need more than "this isn't the right place." I need a vindication, please.Tim (talk) 03:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add that the worst POV of all are from those who don't recognize their own. The first order of responsible NPOV is to know your perspective and to counter balance it in the article. I've done so in the article, and Sl has not done so here. I can't remember how many times he's leveled this charge against me, and each time it's been backwards. NPOV is representing ALL the POVs, not one. I've consistently argued for this against Sl, and this is the latest instance.Tim (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As much as I don't particularly want to be the vehicle of another person's vindication, if you give me a diff I'll take a look. But I will say, sometimes the best defense is to say nothing at all. I'm pretty sure there's something in the Talmud to that effect, but I don't have the exact words... L'Aquatique[talk] 03:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

L'Aquatique, this is the diff: [33], and this is what I added in that diff:

Benjamin Blech writes in Understanding Judaism:

“ Yet … Judaism long ago acknowledged the validity of [the] feminine dimenstion of the Deity. The two names of God differ grammatically with regard to sexual connotation… The Tetragrammaton (YHVH)…is…feminine; it refers to God as if “He” were in fact “She.” Yet, as we have frequently noted, the Lord is also called ELoHiYM. That name ends with…masculine plural… If human beings are created in God’s image, and the single most important thing we know about God is that He is One – why did God create two kinds of people, male and female, after His likeness? …God chose to create two different kinds of people on this earth, not in spite of the fact that He is One, but precisely because God in the deepest sense of the word is really two. Of course we do not suggest any kind of dualism implying separate identities. Rather, as the very names of God imply, there are two distinct aspects to the Deity. God is both masculine and feminine. This gender difference is not one of physical attributes but one of emotion and typology. ”

As you can see this shows the precise NEUTRAL gender that Lisa was arguing for, but it was giving sourcing to the grammatical issues that Alastair wanted. This bridged the gap between two rival POVs on the page, Alastair's POV that grammar meant something and Lisa's POV that neutral gender ruled the day. I gave a NEUTRAL GENDER note on GRAMMAR that said the exact OPPOSITE of what Sl is accusing me of -- viz. pushing a patriarchal POV.Tim (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like your evidence stands for itself. I'm not really sure what you want me to do. L'Aquatique[talk] 03:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

L`Aquatique, I don't need you to do anything. I just needed to make you aware of a long standing bias problem I've been dealing with. Thanks for listening. The only thing I need from anyone is for Sl to stop. He doesn't even need to apologize. Just, STOP.Tim (talk) 03:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Tim, I was responding only to one comment you made on this talk page, that a certain view was "obvious." That was all. From what you have just written, I am not sure why you wrote that passage in the first place, but it seems to me that you have now moved away from it, which I appreciate. As to singling you out, I think the point that saying any particular view is "obvious" is very unhelpful in a conflict, and everyone would be wise not to make such claims. I saw Tim make such a claim and I pointed it out. If Tim is no longer making such a claim - and if Lisa and others are notmaking such claims - we may be able to resolve the conflicts here. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sl, I didn't retract that claim. It's a simple fact: when looking at the metaphors given in the Hebrew Bible, there are numerous instances of God having the metaphor of "Father" and "Husband" but never "Mother" and "Wife". My source gave a DIFFERENT way of approaching the neutral gender spin Lisa wanted with the grammar and Biblical points that Alastair wanted. But for goodness sake -- I merely stated the obvious, and you won't find any sources that demonstrate otherwise. The tack has to be taken in a different way, which I accomplished through the Blech quote regarding feminine and masculine word endings between the name and title of God. But slamming someone for NPOV violations on a talk page when he's only pointing out that you're in a culdesac and have to take a different street isn't productive. I ended up finding that Blech quote BECAUSE the existing impasse was obvious.

And yes, I very much DO want you to retract the charge of a NPOV problem. I simply recognized that we needed a different solution to what Alastair and Lisa were differing about -- something that gave what both were trying to say.Tim (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Boy, do I wish I had time and my copies of Phyllis Tribble's books to provide the other POV to Tim's POV. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sl, again I am asking you to rename this thread, and to simply recognize that you made an honest mistake. I wasn't pushing a POV. I was pointing to a problem that needed to be worked around, and I worked around it. Instead of calling such a retraction on my part, just admit an honest mistake on your part. You ARE human, right? Surely you could have made an honest mistake. It's either that or bias, and I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Please take it -- we apologize to each other -- and we stop this ridiculous tit for tat where you pull out NPOV and fail to realize that this is exactly what I am trying to accomplish as well. Where we differ is this: you wanted it worded NPOV, and I want it ALSO to be NPOV and equally comprehensible to English speakers in a generic audience. I'm holding out my hand -- bias, or an honest mistake. You tell me.Tim (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate Uncivil Title Removed

First, stating the obvious on a TALK page is legitimate. Second, it's an incontrovertible fact. Third, and MOST IMPORTANT, I gave a citation that said the OPPOSITE of what SL is trying to paint on me for bias. This last point is the most significant, because it paints SL's bias instead of my own. Sl, I will remove the charge of bias if you will immediately rescind this last instance of a long string of NPOV twistings. Stop now, please.

Anyone can see in the edits that my most extensive contributions to the Jewish section said the OPPOSITE of what you are trying to paint my POV as representing; and that, in fact, I gave both sides of the issue in cited qutations, giving the most detail to the opposite of what you think I am pushing. No one with any lack of bias could possibly has missed it. The fact that you did calls into question your ability to make any neutral contributions in this hotly contested series of edits.

Again, a simple mea culpa and I'll withdraw the charge of bias. Your call.Tim (talk) 02:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I find this odd. As far as I can see, everyone who's expressed an opinion on the Judaism section has actually been able to accept Lisa's final form of structure and content. I think it is particularly admirable of Lisa, and demonstrates that despite strong words, people were actually focussed on content and achieved the goal of an accurate, NPOV revision.

The current revision is hardly final, and nothing ever is at Wiki. It's still short of the high standard SL would like to see, but it's now on that trajectory.

Perhaps the issue is that SL is more aware of literature that "sees past" the surface masculinity of the Tanakh, and more concerned to see interpretation of the Tanakh in line with the majority view under Judaism.

I am aware of Jewish Bible scholars who do go SL's way, but if the heading remains Bible it's actually open to including Christian Bible scholars who are going to swamp it with masculinity.

I'm only guessing, on the evidence of SL's and Tim's posts.

Am I in the ball-park SL? Is Tim's alleged POV a broader issue in your assessment of the many posts you've seen from him, or is it specific to this topic or this page?

Personally, I don't think edits or editors are ever POV, properly speaking; or rather, we assume all editors have POV and all edits enter POV. The NPOV policy is about including all POV, not about accusing one another of having personal opinions; and it's about expressing reliably sourced POV from the NPOV—"X believes, Y asserts, but Z thinks". I suspect detailed POV should often be avoided in the lead, but otherwise, it is addressed by addition, not censorship. Where am I wrong?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alastair Haines (talk • contribs) 10:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Alistair, yes, I think you understand me. Tim, I have no idea what you are trying to say. You wrote, "God is our husband and NEVER our wife. He is out Father and NEVER our mother. It's abundant, well known, and obvious" and now you claim that this is an incontrovertable fact. What is the point of such assertions? It is not obvious, and it is not an incontrovertable fact. An "incontrovertable fact" sounds a lot like the "truth" that Wikipedians are supposed to avoid, in favor of verifiable and notable points of view. What is wrong with my pointing this out? Claimint it is an incontrovertable fact gets us nowhere. Stating it is one point of view, allowing for others, allows us to move forward. I am sorry if you think I am somehow attacking you or somehow biased, but what can I say? I will not apologize pointing out that such statements hinder progress and should be presented as points of view rather than obvious and incontrovertable facts. And I do not know what you think my bias is, except I am biased in favor of our NPOR and NOR policies. Is that the bias you accuse me of? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sl, if you can't show a brick wall on a talk page, then you can't fix the article. Seriously now, can you show ANY instance in which God is explicitly called Israel's "wife"? That's a brick wall. I pointed it out, then I went around the brick wall. But if no one points it out, we'll just keep knocking our heads into it.Tim (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

And to answer your question, I accused you of bias for suggesting that I was pushing a POV agenda of EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what I was trying to accomplish on the article page. The only way you could have missed that -- especially NOW that I've quoted it for you -- is if you have a reason for singling me out for an example here. The last page you did that on took weeks to straighten out, and I had to enlist the help of a number of non-Wikipedia Rabbis because you seem to have a biased assumption that my insistence on writing in consistent ENGLISH is somehow biased against Judaism. It isn't -- but it IS biased against sloppy syntax and inconsistent use of terms.Tim (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Friends, I like both of you too much to be comfortable with this disagreement. If I may dare to try to justify each of you to other I would say this.

I think SL is pointing out correctly that although many would not agree with them, there has indeed been a strong line within feminist writing that downplays even gender role analogies as being just as bound to cultural presumptions regarding men and women. To be specific, some feminists have and do argue that although language for God ascribes fatherhood or husbandhood to him, they propose this is just a different form of generic masculine grammatical forms—a culturally determined feature of the language and of no great interpretative significance. They've been published, it's well known, we are duty-bound to give them a voice. It's also plausible, though hardly the dominant view, even within feminism itself.

Tim's talk page post was a somewhat rhetorical explosion noting that this feminist view is small enough to be borderline WP:UNDUE.

Knowing something of Tim, I know that what he said is not his own preference or opinion, but a responsible point, though rhetorically expressed. I would dare to suggest that SL was a little "rhetorical" in calling Tim POV in his comment. SL's main point was that this particular kind of feminist view is very well known and cogently argued in print, it is not a "fringe-loony" position. While it might be fair and wise to be cautious in expressing its place in Judaism, less is at stake in expressing it in the Bible section.

The way forward: my guess is that Tim and SL would both be happy to see both types of feminst view expressed in the appropriate sections and in proportion to the minority group they actually represent. So, no problem.

More "touchy feely" is a personal side of Tim's life and relationships, which we really don't need to discuss here do we? Those of us who know will realise that he's entitled to being treated in a civil way regarding that, and perhaps this has not always been done. Rhetorical claims of Tim being POV he might normally take with a grain of salt, but there's a range of "sub-text" things going on here that make things more sensitive. I'll leave off there. I hope I've helped and not made things worse.

If I may say it, shalom friends. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Alastair, you and L'Aquatique were the only two civil voices in this uncivil exchange.Tim (talk) 01:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

feminist views

I think we need to distinguish between two things: feminist theology, which has had an impact on how some Jews - e.g. the Reform Movement - view the gender of God (e.g. Reimer); feminist literary criticism, which has had an impact on how some scholars - like Phyllis Tribble - interpret the Bible. Both are important; they are different. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. On the other hand, one of those would go in the Judaism section, and the other would go in the Bible section. So I don't think there's much chance of confusing them. Do you see a problem there? -LisaLiel (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not think there is a problem if they are in separate suggestions. I think it is also a good idea to further develop the presentation of multiple Jewish views - I am just not sure how to keep it from getting overwroght e.g. Judaism in the past - the Talmud and Midrashim, the Middle Ages, and then multiple views in the present - Orthodox, reform, etc. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A daughter article is a good outcome of work on this article. By the time there is enough information to clutter this one, there sould be sufficient to source a "Start class" article on Jewish views of God's gender, or expand Jewish views of God.

Other than that, it's good to see agreement at last.

I think I see SL's point more clearly now too. He appears to be making a fair distinction between feminist influenced Bible scholars who happen to be Jewish, and feminist reform writers within Judaism who happen to be interacting with the Bible. That distinction isn't really applicable within Christianity (or many other religions). I think the reason is because Judaism is foundationally a "family" religion. A point easily overlooked by non-Jews. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sory Alistair, you misreadme. I am making a distinction between feminist infuenced Bible scholars - what thier eligion is is irrlevant (and for example I do not think Phylis Tribble is Jewish) who are calling attentions to the ways God is portrayed in feminine terms and as mother in the Bible, versus feminist writers within Judaism (mostly Reforem, also Conservative, perhaps some Orthodox) who are calling on Jews to change their views of God. My point is these are two separate groups and reflect at least two if not more points of view, and thoat points of view about how they Bible was read by its contemporaries and the meanings it had in the context in which it was written, edited, and redacted, are of a wholely different sort than points of views of Jews (or Christians or others). Slrubenstein | Talk 21:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I hope I'm getting it now. Judaism and Christianity and even Islam have views, and they can change over time; Bible scholars have views, sometimes quite independent of their religion, if they even have one! Finally, feminists have views: on the Bible, on religions and on God and gender and the gender of God! Arguably Bible scholars and feminists could have their own sections, as particular kinds of "expert witnesses" in their own fields.

Actually, I'll add to your list, I've done some study in philosophy and philosophers have discussed both God and gender and some the gender of God. Many recent philosophers have not been religious, but not all; though many philosophers of the past were religious in a diversity of religious traditions. This is especially true in India. But Athens and Jerusalem have been held in opposition at times in the West.

Then, feminists do philosophy and there are philosophers who are feminists.

If I read it correctly, there is one person at this page who really needed a Western philosophy section—Ilkali. There are several who really need a feminist section—Alynna, Mairi and Andowney. Until there are such sections, uncontroled by their relationship with specific religious traditions. Religious purists like Lisa and myself will legitimately "clense" the relevant religion of unduly weighted fringe material.

You're right Tribble is Christian, I've read some of her work but couldn't place her exactly. You're also right, that although she doesn't even pretend to speak for Christian orthodoxy, she does speak as an independent Bible scholar, and from a self-confessed feminist apologist position. Her views are cogent and reliable and a notable POV in that they do reflect a body of people, inside and outside Christianity, who are interested in the Bible for various reasons, without feeling constrained by official orthodoxy. If our previous conversations are anything to go by, both you and I have a lot of time for such people, who do their thinking and writing well.

So, finally, I'll mention that I agree with you, and always have, this article isn't even close to a final form. I didn't create it, the only contributions I made until recently were: correcting error in the Christian section; tidying up brief, unsourced, biased entries in other religions. Just recently I added a couple of essential sections overlooked until now—the definition section and the comparative religion section. It's not a high priority article for me. What has amazed me is how much defending I've needed to do. The Branch Davidians were having a go at the page when I arrived, I think it took me hundreds of edits just to keep them to their own section (and pages and pages in talk). There's endless weasling of Christianity.

There's a good chance I'll be able to write up a decent treatment of feminist bible scholars and theologians at some point, since I interact critically with them all the time. But that time is not going to be soon. Anyway, I hope I'm getting your point more clearly. Alastair Haines (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Alistair, it is important to me that the femnist Bible scholars I speak of are first amd fore3most Bible Scholars. They are not just feminists bloviating about the Bible,they are qualified experts on the Bible and analyzing the Bible using rigorous tools of modern scholarship. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall accusing you of thinking that. What an extraordinarily rude view for someone to hold. I've never met anyone who thinks that, and you're the last I'd have thought it of. Yes, I'm not the type to call you on it if I saw it, unless you were putting it into the text of the article. Did you read me as presenting your thinking that way above somewhere? Alastair Haines (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Alistair, I thought what I wrote was reenforcing what you wrote. I did not think I expressed disagreement with your, or were challenging anything you wrote, only emphasizing what is most important to me. Is there anything wrong with that? Wha did I write that was rude? Slrubenstein | Talk 02:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

LoL, no nothing rude at all. It's amazing how the wider context of things interfers with communication. It's just I found it a surprising comment, since you and I have both said this elsewhere, it seemed strange you addressed me by name. But I see now I just misread you, indeed it does echo what I'd just said. I do that too, it's helpful communication. And thanks for being personal and using my name, SLRubenstein. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 08:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Traditional Judaism as polyphonic

It's important to recognize that there isn't a single text, authority or reliable source that can present "The" Jewish tradition understanding of the gender of God. Instead, there are multiple voices and they aren't reduced to a monolithic view.

For a useful scholarly source to see some of the diversity of traditional(ist) rabbinic thinking, it would help to cite the kabbalah research of Elliot Wolfson, e.g., Circle in the Square: Studies in the Use of Gender in Kabbalistic Symbolism. Perhaps also helpful: Moshe Idel, "Sexual Metaphors and Praxis in the Kabbalah."

I also think this sentence is pretty weak: "While God is referred to in the Hebrew Bible with masculine grammatical forms, and with male imagery, this is due to the fact that Hebrew lacks a neuter grammatical form." First, shouldn't this be in the Bible section? Second, in any case, what Bible scholar believes that descriptions of God as male (what about father?) are solely due to the grammatical form?

Likewise, who is asserting that shekhinah is only gendered because of the grammatical form? For a more solid view, see for instance Peter Schafer, Mirror of His Beauty ("It is God himself for whom the rabbis have created a term with a clearly feminine gender: Shekhinah. ...whether or not the feminine gender of Shekinah implies an allusion to God's feminine sexuality or rather, to be more cautious, a female aspect of God." p.86) Rabbinic midrash oftens places the Shekhinah in a gendered role, unrelated to grammar.

The Judaism "traditional view" section needs to be more balanced or show more of the diversity with rabbinic thought and culture. I think this will require more nuanced reliable sources than "Judaism 101" and sources that try to cover the range more fully than Kaplan or Blech. Thanks for your consideration. HG | Talk 05:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

These are all excellent comments and I hope you will contribute to the article, Slrubenstein | Talk 14:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks very much. Let's hear what Lisa or others say. Kol tuv, HG | Talk 22:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

What you say makes sense to me HG. There's a lot of Christian reading of the Hebrew Bible that makes some of those points. The Lord of Sabaoth, husband, father—these appear to be gendered, irrespective of grammar, and not sexed, precisely as you say. While in theory Jewish and Christian reading of the HB could differ sharply in this as in a few other things, Rabbinic scholarship is taken seriously by modern Christian Bible scholars also, and agreements are much more numerous. In my own reading of Jacob Milgrom on Leviticus, it seemed that the main difference is Jewish scholarship is much more detailed, nuanced and asks far more questions of the text that Christian scholarship. The difference is generally not in conclusions, but quality—Jewish readings simply being more insightful (that's coming from a Christian student of the HB).

On an article structure level, though, I like Lisa's separation of Bible from Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It would fit well with an Abrahamic religions section, implicitly indicating the chronological and other relationships between the faiths, and making explicit the significance of Judaism within the Abrahamic stream.

What the normal view of God's gender is in Judaism, or even if such a definitive statement could be made, is a matter I'm incompetant to judge. For it to be distinctly different to the Hebrew Bible would surprise me. Atm I'm content to let others say what they will about this, leaving readers who know more to refine it. Keep sharing your knowledge of sources with us, please HG! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 00:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

HG, you are showing a good knowledge of these issues and sources, and I think your additions to this article will be a breath of fresh air. Please take a crack at this. We need some diversity in the Jewish section of this article and you look like just the person to offer it.Tim (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, I just wanted to add that I agreed enthusiastically with every point you made. Please edit, and edit boldly; including any necessary rearrangement.Tim (talk) 00:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for the positive feedback. If you don't mind my saying so (partly based on Shituf etc), and I don't mean to be unkind, I must admit I'm a bit hesitant to contribute because some of the disputants here seem to argue from their own knowledge and analysis. I'd prefer that editors use their energy to ferret out and paraphrase (etc) topnotch secondary sources. Also, I would like to wait for Lisa's response. <comment by HG | Talk>

HG, I'm not sure what you're asking. The section already stipulates that Judaism uses a great deal of masculine imagery for God. Just as it uses a great deal of anatomical imagery for God (hand, nose, arm, etc). The anatomical imagery doesn't imply that God is embodied, and the masculine imagery doesn't imply that God is gendered.

I don't see any problem with giving examples of masculine imagery that's used for God. There's already some in the article (the beard thing, for example). How many examples would you think are necessary? Perhaps we need to distinguish as well between "descriptive views" and "theological views". It would be factually (on the basis of Orthodox and Reform and probably Conservative sources) incorrect to state that Judaism holds God to be gendered, regardless of how many instances there are of masculine imagery, but I don't think you're asking to do that. I'm not sure what you're asking, actually. -LisaLiel (talk) 11:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: I'm asking for changes in 2 specific sentences about the relevance of the grammatical form.

What sort of changes?

Also: asking for the article to give well-sourced info about the ways that Jewish texts/people do treat God as gendered. For this purpose, the distinction between description vs theology/fact is not helpful. I'd say the secondary sources would enable us to distinguish between, say, aggadic, mystical and rationalist approaches within Judaism. Or maybe between law/doctrine and narrative. In any case, I'd recommend that the article quote or paraphrase Schafer, Wolfson, et al., not our own analysis. Thanks for your consideration. HG | Talk 13:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with sources such as you're describing, provided that they don't come across as contradicting Jewish theology. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(Random break; mostly on Hebrew Bible)

Alastair, as an anthology, the Hebrew Bible does not reflect a uniform literary representation of God's gender aspects. Critical scholarship on ancient Israel takes into account differences between, say, the Deuteronomic history and the prophets. So there are multiple Biblical (i.e., ancient Israel) approaches to the gender of God. Likewise, the Jewish view varies somewhat in different eras and there is some diversity of Jewish views in each era. (While any given Jewish view relies partly on Biblical exegesis, I wouldn't expect the mix of Jewish views to match the multiple ancient Israel views over numerous generations.) Hope this didn't come across as confusing. In sum, scholars would say that the ancient Israel views are distinct from later Jewish views, though later Jewish exegesis functions so as to bridge such distinctions. Thanks. HG | Talk 01:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm slightly different to you HG, in that I think editorial analysis has an inevitable place in selection and presentation of top-notch sources. These things are not mechanical. That is precisely why I value your comments highly. Not only do you know quality sources applicable to the topic, you show imo appropriate editorial discretion in considering how they relate to one another. (I won't buy into Shituf which involved several people here—this, fortunately, is a different topic and different crowd.)

If your first sentence is any guide, you're personally open to both the possibility of a real God, and to real engagement with genuine gender aspects in relation to him. This is, of course, precisely the perspective of a diverse range of scholars whose views agree on this while disagreeing about some of those aspects, and are precisely the first line of sources sought in this article. Literary-historical criticism of these sources, and in parallel with them, provides both a control on interpretation in some cases, and yet another POV on the subject itself in others.

If I'm unclear, the Documentary Hypothesis approach was a literary-historical analysis, which at first was associated by many with a sceptical view of God, but came at last to be used even in conservative scholarship, while later being much modified even by sceptics themselves.

Addressing your particular points, I second you that in my reading of biblical scholarship, it used to be axiomatic that biblical sources had diverse authors presenting different theological perspectives, typically addressing historical situations—Moses addressing the exodus context, Joshua and Judges addressing different later situations, the latter prophets still later ones again. Since the late 19th century, however, there has been a strong tradition that all biblical books may show evidence of being largely shaped by exilic or post exilic redaction of some earlier material. Currently, this plausible but not dominant, view is held by both conservatives and sceptics in various forms, while also being challenged by scholars of both convictions. In recent writing, scholars of both types tend to interact with both alternative explanations of origin of the text that has come down to us.

My "feel" for the nature of contemporary scholarship of the Hebrew Bible is that, while there are clear advocates for various positions regarding the transmission of the HB, the "default" position is an agnostic one—formally, scholars present readings without presuming a known answer to either the transmission question (or, for that matter, the "inspiration" question).

So, yes, irrespective of many unresolved questions, it is possibly a poorly formed or implicitly presumptuous thing to speak of "one" biblical view of gender. But I'll defend Lisa (and those of us who supported her new section) against your politely expressed reservation by noting that the topic of this article is gender of God, not justice, mercy, intervention or other matters which are very differently treated in Job, Ecclesiastes, Leviticus or Kings for example. On the topic of gender, some books like Hosea, Ezekiel, Exodus, Joshua, Psalms and so on provide various distinctively masculine presentations of God, whereas Esther doesn't mention him, the Song of Songs has but one arguable allusion to him and Proverbs personifies his wisdom in unmistakably feminine terms.

I think Lisa explained herself very clearly above, she's concerned to defend the Judaism section from what she believes is undue attention to whatever bible scholars may or may not say about the Tanakh. On the other hand, I've been concerned that this is not addressed in such a way as the Tanakh, interpreted by reliable sources, be silenced. Ultimately, Lisa found a way of accomodating that reasonable request. I must admit though, I'm as curious as everyone about what Lisa's views regarding the Hebrew Bible actually are. Though, like you said, editors opinions' are not our focus at Wiki, I personally believe they are part of the process. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no reservations about a section entitled "In the Bible" (or the like). The section could cover a range of historical and literary perspectives on gender (of God) in the Bible and as inferred for ancient Israel. In my view, when editors disagree, or when the topic is contentious, it's advisable to minimize "editorial analysis" (your term) and stick closely to the process of selecting and applying reliable sources, figuring out the weight of competing views, giving proportionate coverage, etc. Thanks again for you kind comments. All the best, HG | Talk 03:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, part of editorial discretion is the discretion of not exercising it. ;)

You seem to be introducing a nice, subtle but important category, which admits the "inferred views of ancient Judaism" (wrt gender of God) pretty much under either heading. Three cheers for Lisa's division, just so long as none of us become too dogmatic about this convenient, but not entirely sourced, categorisation. Wikipedia will be here when the current editors and our scruples have vanished. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 03:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that while midieval rationalists like Maimonides spoke of a genderless God, this is not the passionate language of the Prophets or the Song of Songs, nor of a lot of mystics.

Go, and declare in the ears of Jerusalem, saying: Thus saith the LORD: I remember the tenderness of your youth, the love of your bridal days; how you went after Me in the wilderness, in a land not sown. (Jeremiah 2:2).

The "you" and "your" are in the female gender, singular number. There can be no doubting the symbolism. From the point of view of this stream of thought -- and it goes broad and deep, right alongside the rationalist perspective -- the relationship is a domestic one, the House a kind of cohabitation, its destruction a kind of divorce, a felt absence, an almost physical longing for nearness, an intensity of passion. From this point of view we are all, in some sense, female in the relationship, and both the Presence and its perceived absence are felt in a female sense. It's a crazy relationship, tumultuous, full of beckoning and withdrawing, loyalty and infidelity, exaltation and tragedy. In some sense the very opposite of rationalism. From that underlying current springs a great deal of Jewish mysticism. It is both. In religion it is possible for opposites to exist at the same time. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 09:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. The article and the sources stipulate that masculine imagery is commonly used for God. This doesn't, however, change the fact that God -- as opposed to the imagery we use for various reasons -- is not gendered. -LisaLiel (talk) 11:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- can you tell me who here is arguing that God has a literal sex? I keep seeing your side of the argument but can't find the other. Also, I need to add that God not being gendered is not a "fact." It is one of many possible POVs being explored here. Although it IS a fact that God is never explicitly called Israel's "wife" or "mother" (my offer to be corrected was not taken for obvious reasons), it is ALSO a fact that Jewish (and Gentile) theologians have observed both masculine (i.e. God being Israel's redeemer kinsman) and feminine (i.e. God brooding over us like a hen) imagery (as noted in your own post), as well as masculine (the Divine Title) and feminine (the Divine Name) grammatical forms (as documented in my Blech quote). In Jewish tradition the Song of Songs is treated like an analogy for Israel and God as well, and that is a passionately gendered book being treated as a passionately gendered analogy. All of these are well known and easily documented. In fact, most of them already are here, and after the cooling off period is over I'll document my point that Sl regarded as a grand display of ignorance of Biblical literature (you will note that I am not editing at all at the moment). Although I think Sl picked a really bad example, I think that Sl will agree with me that your saying that it is a "fact that God...is not gendered" really is a POV problem. The fact is -- that it is not a fact. It's not something easily confirmed like the simple fact that I supplied (which is as easily confirmed as the roundness of the earth). In fact, your fact cannot be confirmed at all, unless God were to suddenly appear and show us -- and I doubt very seriously that any of us expect that to happen. Finally, while I disagreed with Sl's choice of EXAMPLE, Sl and I really DO agree VERY STRONGLY on Wikipedia's need for NPOV and NOR.Tim (talk) 13:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Tim, you're writing as if you're agitated and argumentative. E.g., all caps and implying that only certain people care about NPOV etc. You might want to revisit the discussion after you've chilled out a bit. My 2 cents. HG | Talk 14:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I'm still stupidly waiting for an apology that will never come, and it's not helpful here. I'll take a chill pill and check back in tomorrow. Thanks.Tim (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'd suggest discussing this somewhat differently. Instead of referring to "the fact that God ... is not gendered" we might say that "Jewish philosophy or philosophical doctrine holds that God is not gendered." This will avoid confusion for when we say that "God is gendered is Jewish mysticism" etc. Thanks. HG | Talk 13:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(fyi to Tim: "has a literal sex" is different than "gendered" HG | Talk 13:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC) )

I'm not sure. When it comes to "what Judaism says", does theology reflect that or does imagery reflect that?

All things being equal, I suppose a case could be made for both. But since the theology acknowledges the imagery and values it, and still says that it doesn't change the nature of God as such... or in other words, since the theology includes the imagery, but the imagery doesn't imply the theology, it seems to me that the theology is what reflects the Jewish view. Because it is inclusive of everything.

And I'm not sure it's correct to say that God is gendered in Jewish mysticism. It would be more correct to say that Jewish mysticism describes various aspects of God, and that among these aspects are gendered ones. Jewish mysticism is careful to distinguish between God and "aspects" (middot). Contrary to the way the word "aspects" is used in common speech, God's aspects are not part of God's nature, but are creations of God. Tools through which we perceive Him. God doesn't actually have an arm, with flesh and bone and sinew, and God doesn't actually have a beard, either. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not for us to decide Lisa. Our only task is far easier (and more disciplined). All we need do is to find notable and verifiable points of view (which, if you WERE listening to Sl, is what he and I agree on) and document them. They will very likely be polyphonic, as HG has noted. As long as they are NOTABLE and VERIFIABLE, we can list the most relevant examples. The only thing that I ask for in addition to that is that the citations be worded intelligibly for a generic audience.Tim (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

On mysticism, Lisa, my suggestion is that we cite the views of Wolfson and his interlocutors. We don't need to delve into own analysis of "aspects" -- at least not yet. On theology -- as you probably know, "theology" is not as common a term as Jewish "philosophy" or "thought" here. In any case, I'm skeptical that theology/philosophy is what reflects "the" Jewish view, since Jewish views in midrash, aggadah and mysticism are highly notable and described in secondary sources. Thanks. HG | Talk 13:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of the specific things Tim, Lisa, and HG say about Jusaism here. When it comes to the Bible, however - meaning claims by some historians and Biblical critics about Israelite and Hebrew religion (with the colaim, rejected by many Jews, that this religion is discontinuous with Judaism) I think there is some debate as to when people began to think of God as disembodied, and while I think Tim is on to something that most imageray of God in the Bible is masculine, there are passages within the Bible that protray God as feminine and maternal. Whether these views are share by Judaism (including Kabalah) is a second issue. Biblical historians and critics are concerned with what people they do not call Jews believed. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't checked the article edits closely recently. If talk is anything to go by, it seems great discussion and work is going forward on the Jewish section.

I think Tim, SL and I, possibly HG and Shir would be keen to nut out the Bible section too. Though I remind you, Jewish friends, that Bible here probably should be Hebrew Bible. Masculinity is not that ambiguous in the Novel Testament (apologies to my own faith).

I can't help with Judaism, but I can help with Hebrew Bible. Divorcing imagery from sense is a somewhat subjective matter in biblical interpretation. Were there six days of creation? In the day he ate of it did he die? Did the sun stand still, or appear to stand still? Is masculine inflection, imagery and metaphor merely conventional, is it relational and significant, but cultural and temporal. Although there is feminine imagery related to God, it is much rarer and more clearly analogical than the masculine, a point made forcefully by more feminist literary scholars than Bible scholars of any flavour. Mainstream feminist authorities are quite clear the HB is patriarchal, and created its God in the image of its culture. On the other hand, there are many who argue (I among them) that the Song of Songs does not directly say anything about the gender of God (we're talking hundreds of journal articles here).

It seems to me HG could knock up an outstanding HB section in an hour or so, though I'm not going to be able to anything myself for a loooong time.

But first things first, Judaism seems to be getting settled. Well done all. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Shekhinah sentence

As Lisa asked, let me suggest an edit for the shekhinah sentence. Current text: In addition, God's "presence" (Shekinah) is often seen as a feminine aspect of God, since the word is grammatically feminine.

Suggestion: In addition, God's "presence" (Shekinah) is a grammatically feminine word and is often employed as a feminine aspect of God.

Reason: The edit seeks to eliminate the use of grammar to explain (since) a complex literary and religious (mysticism) phenomenon.

Thanks for your consideration. HG | Talk 14:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Made the change. Of course, it can be discussed further here. Thanks. HG | Talk 03:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Lead for Jewish - Traditional view

As Lisa asked, let me try to give a specific editing suggestion. The lead sentence currently reads: Post-biblical Judaism sees God as entirely without form or division, and therefore sees God as having neither sex or gender.[17] While God is referred to in the Hebrew Bible with masculine grammatical forms, and with male imagery, this is due to the fact that Hebrew lacks a neuter grammatical form.

I would make the following changes:

1. Delete Post-biblical. Not a common term here and unnecessary. Still, I would be comfortable with Rabbinic Judaism unless/until the section comes to deal with non-Rabbinic views (e.g., Philo).
2. Delete phrase this is due to the fact that Hebrew lacks a neuter grammatical form. As stated above, I believe that this an inadequate explanation of the literary phenomenon.
3. The point about "without form or division" can be omitted, though it is a fair statement about mainstream Jewish thought.
4. I would place the imagery/grammar aspect in subordinate position or clause relative to the main point for the lead, which should probably deal with mainstream Jewish thought/philosophy/theology.

Recommended edit, open to friendly amendment:

Although God is referred to in the Hebrew Bible with masculine imagery and grammatical forms, /Rabbinic/ Jewish philosophy does not attribute to God either sex or gender.

Presumably, the next sentence would say something like: "At times, Jewish aggadic literature and Jewish mysticism does treat God as gendered." I guess the last part is open to further discussion. But let's focus on the 1st sentence above, ok?

Thanks for your consideration. HG | Talk 14:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Except that I'd say "At times, Jewish aggadic literature and Jewish mysticism do treat God as gendered." Minor grammatical issue. And where you have /Rabbinic/, I'd leave that out. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Material on the Biblical view belongs in anothe secton. Some Bible scholars argue for a maternal god.Slrubenstein | Talk 21:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, are you objecting to the subordinate clause? I'm not wedded to it, I used it in an effort to be faithful to the previous version of the article text. Still, it seems like a fair generalization, a reasonable contrast with the main clause, and a segue. I'll leave you all to decide. Thanks. HG | Talk 22:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I was just changing "does" to "do", because it refers to two things. -LisaLiel (talk) 02:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly true of Rabbinic Judaism and probaly true of post-Exilic Judaism but I am not convinced it is true for pre=exilic Judaism. Maybe it is. I just would not present it as an uncontrovertable fact ... I think we need to do fuller justice to debates among critical Bible scholars, as well as historians of the Kabbalah. The rabbis worked damned hard to keep the Kabalah under their control and largely succeded but this does not mean that they always succeded. . Slrubenstein | Talk 22:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Are you noticing that the proposed text uses "Jewish philosophy"? I'm not sure what pre-exilic texts might fit under that rubric. Please clarify further if need be. Thanks. HG | Talk 22:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi good point and if we all agree I am glad - for some people the period between the Maccobees and the Mishnah is a time of transition and different terms can be used. But I think we are basically on the same page. Slrubenstein Talk 02:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I made the change, though I'm of course open to further discussion as needed. Cheers! HG | Talk 03:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sephirot

CheskiChips (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC) "Judaism often relates to God through different "aspects" of God (cf. Sephirot)" Is this perhaps a mistranslation? The sephirot refer to the matzales not the aspects of God himself, the creations of God should not be attributed the quality of being God. Such a mistake is a form of pluralism. Or more accurately stated; all created things relate to the different aspects of God and the matzales/sefirot are a created thing.

That's why I put "aspects" in quotes. Because they aren't aspects of God as the normal use of that term would imply in English. Certainly the sephirot are not "parts" of God, and are definitely only created things.

Btw, what Hebrew word are you transliterating as "matzales"? -LisaLiel (talk) 12:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should transliterate to 'mazalos'. Meaning approximately more than one mazol, or meaning mazol over time. How about the substitution of the words "...characteristics of Gods creation." ? CheskiChips (talk) 12:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The "aspects" wording is found in high quality translations, such as the "Gates of Light: Sha'are Orah" produced by the Bronfman Library of Jewish Classics. More importantly, we should keep in mind that the Jewish understanding of sefirot has gone in different directions at various times, so the concept is multifaceted. For instance, see Moshe Idel's chapter 6 in his 1988 tome, where he has sections on "Sefirot qua Essence of Divinity" ("the divine anthropos consists of a plurality of force"), "Sefirot qua Instruments or Vessels," "Sefirot qua Modes of Divine Immanence" ("essences -- are the infinite presence of God in the world"). So we might expand this slightly by acknowledging (sample idea:) "the sephirot may be considered aspects, characteristics, essences, or modes, of the divine" -- Thanks muchly. HG | Talk 13:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a sufficient wording, I am in agreement. Nice citations. CheskiChips (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Modern views that support a male-gendered God

"The feminist argument that traditional God-language stresses power, fear, rules, and hierarchy is essentially correct; but it misses the point that these things are required for the good of women as well as men."

"This genderless God also represents a profound betrayal of the Torah narrative."

— Matthew Berke, "God and Gender in Judaism", First Things 64 (1996): 33–38.

I'm not seeing these PsOV in the current text. Am I missing something? Are journal articles on "God and Gender in Judaism" relevant, reliable sources for the section?

The statements have "handle with care" written all over them. So I'd prefer someone else to do the handling. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 08:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The statements by Berke are evaluative (Is the gendering of God good or bad?) not descriptive. Personally, I'd recommend first editing and filling out the descriptive content and then moving to significant evaluative views. I'm aware that the feminist views are noteworthy enough, but I think reliable secondary sources may be needed to determine if Berke reflects a significant view and if he's the best representative of it. Thanks. HG | Talk 13:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

To determine if scholarly journals are permissible, pretend this is a non-religious subject. Scholarly peer reviews and journals are absolutely relevant, and in fact I would argue that they are very much needed here at Wikipedia. Books are the bread and butter of Wikipedia. Everyone has them and everyone uses them. Scholarly journals, however, are the vitamins of Wikipedia. These are the notable and verifiable nuggets that anyone can get -- if they are REALLY motivated. They cost money (like books do), but most people don't go to the trouble of getting them, and if they did they may not enjoy the rigours of scholarship needed to appreciate the journal itself.

Just to give an example, I'd like to comment on another article Christian the lion. This article directly relates to that wildly popular viral video on youtube from a 37 year old documentary about a lion cub born in a zoo that was lovingly raised by two Australians and then brought to Africa to be rehabilitated into the wild by the man behind the story of Born Free. The cub was actually "discovered" by accident by the actor who had played the man who did the rehabilitation. In any event, it's a ridiculously moving two minute clip from the documentary that everyone is wild about. It's notable, yes. But the content began from newspaper clippings and interviews available online. Those a verifiable -- but perhaps not permanently so. I've actually purchased the documentary, an autobiography, and a second biography (I got some of the last copies on Amazon before the prices went throught the roof on Albris into the hundreds of dollars apiece). As I go through these I'll build the documentation and more details -- which will take weeks. But imagine that I were a wildlife conservationist who subscribed to scholarly journals regarding animal rehabilitation with studies of this particular lion and the man who rehabilitated the lion.

1. Confectionary sugar -- newspapers and interviews
2. Bread and Butter -- documentary and books
3. Meat, Potatoes, Vegetables, and Vitamins -- scholarly journal articles

Clearly the scholarly journal articles are the pinnacle of what Wikipedia is about here. I would say, absolutely they should be included.

However, I would agree that for political reasons only approved people can use them on a Jewish subject in this article. I nominate HG for approval by the approval committe.Tim (talk) 14:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Please rephrase your point in a straightforward and concise manner. What edit are you suggesting or discussing? HG | Talk 15:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I am simply suggesting that journal entries should be allowed, and that you should be encouraged to edit. Wikipedia has a NPOV policy -- but that should be thought of as a AN&VPOV (all notable and verifiable points of view) policy. Please, edit, and please, use whatever scholarly or otherwise notable and verifiable sources you have access to. There needs to be more than just a single editor's acceptable POVs here.Tim (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Your encouragement is kind and appreciated. But see my reply on Alastair's Talk. BTW, I do think WP policy valorizes scholarly journals, properly so. Yet these range in quality. First Things has many academic contributors but it is not the highest quality journal (i.e., from academic standpoint) and I suspect it's not peer reviewed. In any case, Lisa (if you refer to her as the single editor) seems quite knowledgable and you folks will attract more editors, I think, if the divisiveness can stop and, as suggested earlier, the focus be on sources and not on the analysis/argumentation among editors. Hope this is helpful. I'll keep watching this page. Be well, HG | Talk 18:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

HG, you write: "you folks will attract more editors, I think, if the divisiveness can stop and, as suggested earlier, the focus be on sources and not on the analysis/argumentation among editors" -- ROFL! Touche! Now you're starting to sound just like Alastair!Tim (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

To respond to Alastair's quote from Matthew Berke, I don't think that an article in an explicitly Christian journal ([34]) which does not bring a single piece of Jewish source material, is relevant to the Jewish view of God's gender. Perhaps if you wanted to create an article or section on Christian views of Jewish views of God's gender, this would be an appropriate point of view. But I don't see how Matthew Berke's views are notable when it comes to the section in question.

For those who would like to read the article in full, it can be found here. The article only relates to Jewish views insofar as it is a critique of modern feminist views within liberal Jewish movements. As a source for those views, it is unnecessary. All of the Jewish views contained in the article can and have been cited as sources in their own right. All Berke adds is his two cents about those sources. Since Berke is not a rabbi or a Jewish theologian or, near as I can tell, any kind of authority about Judaism, his article truly is an opinion piece. And I find it ironic that Alastair, who tried to eliminate two sources which explicitly speak about what Judaism's views are on this subject, one by a well known and highly respected rabbi and one from a well known and widely used source for Jewish concepts, by labeling them as mere "opinion pieces" is asking why the POV of an actual opinion piece is not represented in the article.

I think this article raises an issue as well with what Tim is saying. Scholarly journal articles are absolutely not the meat and potatoes and vitamins of every Wikipedia article. Take, for example, Helen Slater. Are there journal articles cited on that page? No, of course not. Because journal articles are one type of reliable source among many, and they are to be used only when appropriate. Citations from books and articles by experts in a field are one thing. "Journal articles" as such are quite another. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

All that said, it occurs to me that while Alastair's quote is not any kind of reliable source for the Jewish view of God's gender, it is an excellent source for the statement that "These views are highly controversial even within liberal Jewish movements". As such, I've inserted this as a reference into the article. I have not changed the structure of the article, and I have not changed the wording of the article. I've simply inserted a reference. I hope this is (a) not seen as a controversial act, (b) understood as an implicit response to Tim's suggestion that only "approved editors" be allowed to insert such references, and (c) will not suffer instant reversion. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I was mistaken about Berke's article being from a Christian journal. I searched it online and found it on a Christian site, and did not notice that it originally appeared in a different journal, which is non-sectarian ([35]). I maintain my objections to the article as being un-notable as a source for the Jewish views of God's gender, since as I wrote, anyone may write a journal article, but I want to retract my mistaken attribution of the article. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I profoundly disagree with the comment "anyone may write a journal article" - this may be true if we are talking about ladies Home Journal or Good Housekeepiing, but not peer-reviewed academic journals. Now, I do not happen to know this particular journal and cannot speak to is notability but it should not be hard to find out using basic library tools - who publishes it, who is on the editorial board, how does it rank in citation indices? My point: notable academic peer-reviewed journals represent one notable set of points of view that must be included in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Friends, I love the discussion above. Each of you speaks so characteristically of your personalities, which I deeply enjoy.

Between you all, you cover a range of insightful angles on the issue, all of which I appreciate.

I particularly like Lisa's thoughtful restraint, and her willingness to seek to incorporate the source despite her reservations about it.

In a way I was naughty to provide the quotes and source. In an article, and the Jewish section no less, supposedly controversial at the moment, I dared to add what most would consider to be fuel to the fire.

But in my own quirky, arrogant way, I dropped in this little test, because I actually had confidence the team here are way above petty squabbles and pushing personal views. Actually, I wasn't really testing you, I was sincere, I do care, and it was just a source already in the biblio, and having HG around was a golden opportunity.

I feel precisely no need to contribute to the discussion above on content, because you all cover so many complex issues so well and so clearly from so many points of view. This is what I love about Wiki, and the Jewish team here are the best of the best.

Those of you who have known me for some time will "feel" the consistancy of this comment with many I have made in the past.

I don't merely enjoy you and respect you, I love you.

Sorry if I cause anyone embarrassment. Please feel free to delete this post as irrelevant to the topic. Shalom Alastair Haines (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This thread can be archived.HG | Talk 13:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Quick Note on Terms

The normative use of a word is based on the mainstream use and the historical context. Any deviation from that would require a modifier.

Christianity represents modern Trinitarians.

Judaism represents modern mainstream Jewish groups.

"Rabbinic Judaism" is much like "Apostolic Christianity" -- they speak about certain foundational historical contexts leading to the modern expressions of each religion. But there is no need to speak of modern "Rabbinic Jews" or "Nicene Christians." Neither needs the modifier because each is mainstream. The only modifiers should be confined to either historical groups, or groups outside of the mainstream.Tim (talk) 23:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for Judaism, but that sounds fair for Christianity. It's why Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox, despite anathemetizing one another, see a meaningful usage of the word Christian refering to all collectively in opposition to notable related but distinct groups like Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons.

If it were true for Judaism, it would be a neat way of drawing a similar line between Judaism and Messianic Judaism. MJ is obviously not completely Rabbinic. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, Messianic Judaism is even more problematic. Except for the "Compound Unity" Messianics, most of them are Christian. The "Compound Unity" ones aren't even that (they are neither Jewish nor Christian). And yet both Christian and heretical Messianics operate together as if they are part of the same group. In other words, Messianism is not a perfect subset of Christianity, but instead an overlap. However, religiously, they do not overlap with Judaism.

By "overlap" I'm not talking about individual parts, but rather the groups themselves. Some Messianic groups qualify as Christian ones. Others are heretical. But no Messianic groups qualify as Jewish ones -- as Judaism defines itself.

Lisa will argue that it's a tactic, and for many groups I will agree with her. However, Christianity DOES believe that Jesus is the "Jewish" Messiah. Belief in the Jewish Messiah should be Jewish, right?

Well, no. Because in the use of terms we aren't speaking of what Christians or Jews theoretically "should" be, but what their normative groups define themselves to be.

So, even if Messianic Judaism were 100% correct and Judaism 100% incorrect, "Judaism" still refers to the normative group.

I know I've rambled -- my exception to your post is to "not completely Rabbinic." I would argue for the above reasons that they aren't Rabbinic at all. They are simply... Apostolic.Tim (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add that this works for groups that consider themselves Christians as well, as do Latter Day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses. One COULD say "LDS Christianity" but you could not refer to it as "Christianity" without the modifier immediately and permanently attached to it. And that's why normative usage defers to simply "LDS" by itself. You'll notice that I normally call Messianics "Messianic". It's simple, unambiguous, shorthand. And it is without judgment. I simply mean to not confuse one self defined group for another.Tim (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the segregation. IMO, it yields to a term of Christianity that is a 4th century product. You are saying that since it has existed for 1600 years it takes precedence. I submit that the definition of Christianity that I prefer is 2000 years old and has existed since the time of Jesus Christ. If we are looking for age, then that would be the one.

What you are seeking to do is claim that Roman Catholicism and its splinter groups, because of 1600 years of history, are owners of the term. To be a Christian one must not only believe in

Jesus Christ, born of the virgin Mary, lived a perfect life, performed miracles in front of believers and critics alike, bled in the Garden, was crucified for the sins of mankind, rose the third day, returned to sit on the right hand side of the Father, will return again, and is the only way to Heaven...but also

you must believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. If you don't believe in the Trinity you are outside of Christianity. That definition is contrived.

The doctrine of the Trinity was never taught as a requirement of being a disciple of Jesus Christ except by the Roman Catholic Church and its splinter groups. You cannot use scripture to prove your definition because it does not exist within its pages. I reject your this definition and it belongs only on those respective church articles. It is fine to say discuss that different definitions of Christianity exist, but it is not appropriate to say that there is only a single definition. That would not be accurate and it is POV. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Storm, I am not talking about what Christianity should be. I'm only speaking about the normative use of terms. That's all. My assumption is that you consider yourself a Christian. As such, you should agree with Messianic Judaism that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, promised by the Jewish prophets in the Jewish Bible, and that he and all his disciples were Jewish. As the promised Jewish Messiah, then, Messianic Judaism is what Judaism should be. Or at least it is closer to what Judaism should be than what we normally think when we hear the word "Judaism" without some kind of modifier.

I'm not trying to be prejudiced against Messianic Judaism or LDS Christianity. All I'm trying to point out is that when someone says "Judaism" without a modifier, the normal connotation is not "Messianic Judaism." At the same time, when someone says the word "Christian" without a modifier, the normal connotation is not "LDS Christianity." That's all I'm saying. It could very well be that the most pristine, pure, and true form of religion is LDS Christianity. It could be true that all of us should be LDS. But, honestly, LDS missionaries don't go around encouraging people to be "Christians" and giving them a New Testament and moving on. They pause long enough to give them the detail that they are talking specifically about LDS beliefs and the Book of Mormon as well. That's all.

We are not trying to create ultimate truth. We're just trying to use terms in the shortest and simplest way that does not misdirect or confuse the readers. If you say "LDS" people know what you are talking about. But if you said "Christianity" they wouldn't necessarily know you are talking about LDS.Tim (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Tim your comment here both personalizes the discussion (i.e., via what an editor should believe) and is based on your own analysis. It would be better to advance an argument based on (secondary) sources. Anyway, what is the disputed edit at stake here? HG | Talk 20:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It was simply about the use of "Rabbinic Judaism" vs. simply "Judaism." "Rabbinic Judaism" actually applies to a specific time period in the formation of "Judaism". I was only giving reasons to agree with what Lisa said. As for personalization, all I'm saying is that the terms should be applied consistently on Wikipedia (you can see that consistency is my expressed "agenda" on my user page). If your use of a term is different from the normative definitions you would find if you double bracketed it (i.e. Messianic Judaism and Judaism point to articles describing unique religions, and Rabbinic Judaism should point to a historical period), then either the article or your use needs to change. That is, my "personalization" is that Wikipedia should agree with itself as much as possible. It may not always be possible, but we should do what we can. In other words, pretend all your terms are double bracketed as you edit. And you never know, they just may be by a future editor.Tim (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Process points. (1) Tim, personalizing includes things like: "you consider yourself a Christian. As such, you should agree with Messianic Judaism...." (2) It's hard to make out why the above thread goes into LDS, Messianic Judaism, apostolic christianity, Christian belief in messiah, etc. I assume these illustrations/analogies make sense to you folks, but they can drag down a Talk page, and meander from the edit at hand. Maybe that's where you all get yourselves in trouble.

Anyway, the "Traditional View" section does refer specifically to Rabbinic Judaism, aka "Judaism" in common parlance nowadays. The two terms are synonymous; but I dropped the unnecessary specificity as you suggested at top. Since we've agreed on the edit, the thread can be closed. Thanks muchly, take care, HG | Talk 23:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This thread can be archived.HG | Talk 13:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

HG -- I'll have to review your use of the modifier to Judaism as Rabbinic Judaism. It's only unnecessary if bracketing it would have taken you to the wrong article. Regardless... I've been sidetracked in an arbitration and will be retiring this screen name shortly, so I won't be around to make more input. The personalization examples I gave were attempting to speak to Storm in the context of his own point of view. Answering regarding LDS specifics was an analogous example regarding Messianic Judaism in relation to Judaism. In the discussion above, Ilkali argued that Messianic Judaism was a subset of Judaism, while Storm granted that it was a subset of Christianity. This called for a particular methodology to be discussed, and to be discussed in context to the relevant points of view of the various editors. In general, I simply proposed a principle, based on what Wikipedia readers normally do -- they'll look from article to article. As a favor to them, we should simply use terms that would lead them to articles that reflect the meaning we intend with the use of a term. It's not a judgment, per se. It's merely to make sure that the intended meaning is transmitted, and that "further reading" does not unnecessarily contradict the work we've devoted to the subject. In your own use -- whatever you intend to mean is what I wanted your readers to get. If that is Judaism, great. If it is Rabbinic Judaism instead, great.Tim (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"In the discussion above, Ilkali argued that Messianic Judaism was a subset of Judaism, while Storm granted that it was a subset of Christianity". No, I argued that, if Messianic Jews consider themselves Jews, then Wikipedia should classify them as such. This says nothing about how I classify them. Ilkali (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ilkali, the problem here is one of consistency.

• Messianic Jews want to be classified as Jews -- Jews do not want them classified that way.
• Storm suggested they be classified as Christians -- you suggested they be classified as Jews.
• The descriptions in Christianity, Judaism, and Messianic Judaism are already populated and sourced in other pages.

Your proposed principle held that self definitions dictate. But the self definition of Messianic Judaism as Judaism does not match a self definition of Judaism as decidedly not Christian. Although attractive in its simplicity, your proposition is inconsistent with itself (i.e. Messianic Judaism and Judaism are mutually exclusive in practice), it is inconsistent with other editors (I'd dare say in the high 90s percentile), and it's inconsistent with established precedent. But the worst part is the first -- being inconsistent with itself. The self definition of Messianic Judaism is excluded by the self definition of Judaism.Tim (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with you, I'm just correcting your misrepresentation of my position. Ilkali (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Please continue this discussion elsewhere, if it is germane to an article. HG | Talk 13:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

HG -- this is germane to any article that you do not want Messianic Judaism to be considered Judaism.Tim (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You or others are welcome to start a centralized discussion at MJ or elsewhere, but please do not continue this discussion here or any other specific article pertaining to Judaism. Thank you. HG | Talk 18:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay then -- per HG I no longer oppose classifying Messianic Judaism as Judaism. Go for it, Ilkali.Tim (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Classification of para-Christian groups

The current categorisation of groups as Christianity and other NT related views is a clever compromise, but temporary and unsatisfactory. Does anyone know how to call in experts on Christianity, they can sort this out for us. Alastair Haines (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a doctorate from a Christian seminary -- but I'll defer to whoever would like to come in from the Christianity wikiproject. The problem is that we still haven't resolved the use of terms -- and HGs proposal that we archive it only retains the problem. There has to be a sustainable process or this will continue here and everywhere else (although I don't intend to be a part of it).Tim (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

As stated above, global questions pertaining to categorization should not be held at a particular (or random or every) article Talk page. Please find another forum for such discussions. You might raise the issue at the Christianity WikiProject, etc. Thanks for your understanding and cooperation. HG | Talk 18:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

HG -- he's all yours. I'm out of it.Tim (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks HG, that's perfect. If MJ is not Judaism, Mormonism is not Christianity, simple, no discussion required, just as you say. Likewise JWs et al. I'll adjust it sometime if no one else does it beforehand. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Odd deduction..."simple, no discussion required." Is that sarcasm or are you serious? Please show me a neutral references that states a religion that acknowledges, believes, and teaches that Jesus is the only Begotten Son of the Father, born of the Virgin Mary, lived a perfect, sinless life, performed miracles, was crucified for the sins of mankind, rose the third day, appeared to his apostles and followers, ascended to the Father where he sits on his right hand side, and will return again one day is not Christian. When you have that, then we will discuss whether or not The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Christian. All you will have is the POV of apologists for different churches that have created a definition of Christian that would exclude everyone prior to 325. There was absolutely no concept of requiring belief in the Trinity to be a disciple of Jesus prior to 325. I look forward to seeing your neutral references and until such time, those edits will be rejected. --^StormRider 08:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that clear presentation of the Mormon POV. You prove my point. Mormons claim to be Christian to the exclusion of Trinitarians, Trinitarians claim to be Christians to the exclusion of Mormons. Wikipedia can neither take sides, nor attempt to settle the dispute.

This is not the place for you to ask me to prove Trinitarian Christianity to be correct. It is inappropriate.

Please provide a Mormon source that describes Trinitarian Christianity as authentic Christianity, i.e. a reliable Mormon definition of Christianity explicitly inclusive of Trinitarians. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

NO, you are not getting it. Mormonism has never, in its history, said another church was not Christian or part of the Christian faith. What I clearly stated above and which you have twisted is that to exclude Mormonism from Christianity is POV. I don't support any group or person that attempts to say that one church is more "Christian" than another; that is what you are doing.

Churches teach doctrines; without exception. Some want to call themselves the One, Holy and Apostolic Church and others want to say they are the true church. Wikipedia is not the place to define which is true and which is not; it is irrelevant to us. We might report that individual churches believe x,y, and z, but that is all. You are confusing the apologetic writings of churches for a definition of Christianity. That is not a proper standard because its is tainted by POV because of each church's perspective. Academics clearly define Christianity and within it are found everything from Catholics, Southern Baptists, LDS, to non-denominational home churches. It includes Trinitarians, modalists, henotheists, etc. That is not an LDS perspective, but an academic perspective. --^StormRider 09:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Storm, I'm not familiar with any major Christian denominations that regard Mormonism to be Christian. Christianity is a monotheistic religion, and the Mormon polytheism is not allowable. You are welcome to your own religion. Be proud of it! But it is not the same... and I don't think your missionaries really think it is, either, or else they wouldn't be actively converting Christians to Mormonism.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sikhism section

Some of the combining forms in the Indic script in this section seem to be incorrect, e.g. "ਸਚ ਖੰਿਡ ਵਸੈ ਿਨਰੰਕਾਰ ੁ ॥". I'm not sure if this is incorrect text, a problem with my browser (though I've tried 4 different browsers), or if they are intentional. Can someone who can read this language please clarify?--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip-off, this is vandalism, check the last line. It's also suspicious that supposed original language script and supposed transliteration have no english translation. I'm restoring the old material and removing some tags from the article while I'm at it. Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the last line gave it away as vandalism. From what I can find at other sites, "ਕੀਤੇ" appears to mean 'chess', and there do seem to be other references to chess in Sikhism at other sites (e.g. see http://www.sikhiwiki.com/index.php/Patti_Likhi). That said, the combining forms still seem wrong, so I prefer your version.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I love good-faith readers. I can also enjoy a good joke, especially one based on some research. Vandalism suggests something about motive. I can't ever know that, so I withdraw the description.

Perhaps I've misinterpreted you here, but that sounds just a little condescending??--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I can follow Devanagari but not Gurmukhī, the similar script used in the Guru Granth. The Granth is online in English, I doubt you'll find the word chess in it.

Pages 433 and 434 of the English translation of the Granth contain references to chess (from http://www.sikhs.org). There may be more, but it's not worth an exhaustive search.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, nice to meet you, hope you found something worthwhile in this article, whether it's improved you, you have certainly improved it, best regards. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Overdue cleanup

Some time ago, suspicious material was added to the Hindu section. Text was unclear, mostly unsourced, and the sources provided were not specified precisely, nor linked. The editor who supplied the text made no attempt to interact with other editors, despite the page being very active at the time. Now that I've had a chance to check it out, I have found that one source, alleged to provide support, does not even contain reference to the things it was supposed to support.

• Surendranath Dasgupta, A History of Indian Philosophy, Volume 1.

This contains no words beginning "shakt-" or "sakt-", certainly not on "page 31". It cannot support statements about shakti or shaktiman.

Another source was specified with a duplication of the author's name in reverse, with a scanning error of "L" for "i", suggesting the editor who supplied the reference didn't have access to a physical copy of the text. The correct reference is.

• Santilata Dei, Vaisnavism in Orissa, Orissa Studies Project, (Calcutta: Punthi Pustak, 1988). ISBN 9788185094144

One reference does actually address the claims that were made, but is quite explicit about dealing with WP:UNDUE primary sources—the well-known but unorthodox Hita Harivamsha, with only two obscure fragments of independent support. The pages either side of that cited provide context critical to evaluation the POV discussed on the cited page. The interested editor can confirm this by following the link below.

• Guy L. Beck, Alternative Krishnas, (State University of New York Press—SUNY Press, 2005), p. 68.

The final reference is discussion of the famous nobel literature laureate Rabindranath Tagore. A work no doubt reliable regarding literature, and addressing a subject unquestionably notable, but not the "Gender of God".

• Kakoli Basak, Rabindranath Tagore: A Humanist, (New Delhi: Classical Pub. Co., 1991). ISBN 9788170541332

An actual quote from this source, perhaps the author quoting Tagore citing a scripture or commenting on a tradition might be possible and relevant to this article, but as it stands, it raises questions, it doesn't answer any.

I've retained the source descriptions here, just in case they actually have some bearing on this article and can be included later. But currently, there is no evidence to suggest that they are helpful to this article at all.

As for the text supplied by the Wiki editor (whoever it was), I'm removing it until someone is happy to take responsibility for sourcing it in real time, which--I've been told--is about a fortnight. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Removing "Clarify Terms" section

I'm removing the "clarify terms" section, because a) there's nothing particularly relevant to the gender of God in there; b) if a reader wants to know about gender or God, ze can click the links in the first sentence. --Alynna (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, as I recall, part of its purpose was to distinguish "God" from "god", this article being about the former. The lede would imply that it is now about the latter. Which is fine. I know I felt strongly in the past that this article should be about God, but the current lede has me convinced that including polytheistic religions is a good idea.

There was one sentence in the "clarify terms" section that I think holds useful information:

A more precise term is gender role (sexual dimorphism of preferences in social behaviour), in particular those aspects of gender roles which are universal across cultures, like masculine generative, providing and protecting roles and their consequent authority (Steven Goldberg 1972, 1991; Brown 1991 and others), also the feminine maternal and nurturing roles, all of which are frequently observed by scholars of comparative religion, particularly in the common fertility motif of a Sky Father and an Earth Mother.

Something about how masculinity is associated with protecting/providing and femininity is associated with nurturing might be good in the lede. --Alynna (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You propose that clarifying the term god has nothing to do with the "gender of God". You might want to reflect a little more on that.

You propose that clarifying the term gender has nothing to do with the "gender of God". Ditto.

In fact, you even note that you could see how sourced definition of gender clarifies issues.

This article is not about God, but about gods (including God) and always has been, and it's good to see you agree this is a good idea.

Finally, I agree that more work can be done refining the lead, and a more explicit and sourced lead would be a step forward. The lead, as it stands, was provided to clarify things at a particular point of discussion, while leaving as many other things open. It was a "diplomatic" venture, of real merit, but not intended as a final word.

Among other things, the lead should give some indication of methodology. That might be a little ambitious at this stage, since I'm not sure we've clarified that issue to a point of agreement. But it is a very excellent thing to attempt to do this.

Currently, the methodology of the article is something like:

Aim--to give the reader an overview of the range of perceptions of gender in the realm of transcendent beings.

Method--to document the specific views of various religions relating to ascriptions of gender to their God, gods, or venerated spirits

Organisation--a simple attempt to classify material according to time, location and theological affinity for ease of assimilating information and comparing and contrasting

Conclusion--no single simplistic conclusion is presented, however certain patterns have been noted by reliable sources--both similarities and differences

Now, I have no particular objection to this "comparative religion" approach. It is just the Wiki-default approach. There are other methodologies, in fact ones I prefer to the current one. If you'd like to add new approaches feel free, now's as good a time as any to discuss that and how we could go about implementing it. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"Comparative Religion" section

I think the Comparative Religion section contains a lot of material that doesn't need to be there. Specifically, a broad history of religion does not belong in this article. However, those portions of the section that address the role of gender in animism, polytheism, and monotheism are worth keeping. They could be their own sections, or they could be paragraphs in the beginning of the article. Thoughts? --Alynna (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This article needs some kind of context. Two contexts are obvious—literature regarding "God" and literature regarding "gender". Personally, I'd like to see the subject approached from a scientific, philosophical and theological perspective—i.e. a theoretical approach. That is not the way others have approached the article, however. The way editors, to this point, have addressed the topic is via comparative religion. That's a valid methodology, and we don't really have to select one or the other, we can use both.

This article doesn't actually need any of the material on specific religions, unless it is addressing "God" from a comparative religion approach. But since it seems people want to compare religions here, we need reliable sources regarding that methodology, so readers know what to do with the information. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record

Four controversial edits were made recently that it would be wise to discuss before restoring. These involved:

• asserting that sourced definitions of god and gender are not relevant to Gender of God;[36]
• asserting that Messianic Judaism is authentic Judaism;[37]
• asserting that Mormonism is authentic Christianity;[38] and,
• asserting that "gender neutral" approaches to God in Christian theology are mainstream.[39]

To the best of my knowledge, all these assertions are POV at best, and quite possibly inflammatory or erroneous. I don't doubt the best of intentions, but they need careful sourcing, so this is not a matter of editorial opinion, committing Wiki to unreliable, non-neutral points of view. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"asserting that sourced definitions of god and gender are not relevant to Gender of God": False. No such assertion appears in the text, as you claim, and the closest thing on the talk page is this: "there's nothing particularly relevant to the gender of God in there" (emphasis mine). The question is whether this material is relevant enough. The advantage of wikilinking these terms is that we don't have to define them here. It is redundant material.

"asserting that "gender neutral" approaches to God in Christian theology are mainstream": False. No such assertion appears in the text.

"asserting that Messianic Judaism is authentic Judaism" and "asserting that Mormonism is authentic Christianity": You distort the issue by describing these positions as "POV at best". Both Mormonism is Christianity and Mormonism is not Christianity are possible points of view. Your preferred version of the article espouses the latter view, but contains no sources supporting it. In the face of myriad conceptions of both Mormonism and Christianity, and in the absence of any definitive external ruling, the proper thing to do is seek a project-wide ruling. Per-article conventions lead to inconsistency and needless argument.

For the record, all (or almost all) of the material you are defending here faced opposition when it was introduced, and never found consensus for inclusion. Ilkali (talk) 02:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ilkali, you have removed sourced text without discussion. That two editors both breach etiquette and vandalise a page doesn't make it right. The sourced text removed has stood scrutiny for a considerable time, and had no objection raised against it.

It's simple, no changes until sources have been consulted and discussed. No change until consensus is reached. If there is no consensus, then there is no change.

If you are sure you are correct, then you'll be able to provide sources, and those with contrary opinions will be unable to do so. Gather your sources and make your case.

I look forward to hearing from you when you're ready. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any of these assertions in the article. MJ most easily can be portrayed within Christianity, but it can also be discussed from position within Judaism. The only people who think the teachings of the LDS Church are not Christian are other Christian churches, which is apologetic or anti-Mormon in nature. Restorationism within the academic community falls squarely within Christianity without argument. I don't see any of the absolutes that you have presented above. What is your objective? Do you think that Christianity is a unified group or that doctrines can be portrayed as black and white? I am not sure I understand where you are trying to go with this line of thinking.--^StormRider 08:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Storm: "The only people who think the teachings of the LDS Church are not Christian are other Christian churches" -- uh, no, the people who think the teachings of the LDS Church are not Christian are Christian churches, not OTHER Christian churches, but CHRISTIAN churches. You have a religion; be proud of it. But you do disservice to both your religion and Christianity by confusing the two. I know of no Mormon worth his salt that wants to be considered a Trinitarian, and no Christian worth his salt who wants to be considered a polytheist. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 12:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"The sourced text removed has stood scrutiny for a considerable time, and had no objection raised against it". False. Your discussions on definitions were immediately challenged by myself and other editors on grounds of relevance, and there is an unresolved discussion above on classification of religious groups.

"No change until consensus is reached". If you had employed this principle yourself, the text in question would not be in the article.

Where is your source for the claim that Mormonism is considered by the academic community at large to be non-Christianity? Even more ridiculously, where is your source that the definitions are sufficiently relevant for inclusion in the article? Ilkali (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ilkali, please show me which Christian seminaries teach that Mormonism is Christian. Thanks.

There are other sections for discussing this matter, Tim. Ilkali (talk) 13:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You were the one who brought up the academic community -- or are seminaries not academic in your view?SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

(new indent) Which seminaries sponsored by which church? This whole conversation is a joke. Catholics are not Christian for some Evangelicals, does that mean that Catholics are not Christian? This type of screed is not germane to the topic. Pride of one's belief? Christianity is not uniformly anything. Christianity has been and currently includes all manner of beliefs about the nature of God. Individual Christian churches can say whatever they want about other churches, but that is their POV. There is only one religion that worships Jesus Christ as the Son of God through whom is found the only path to return to heaven and that is Christianity. If a church teaches and follows Jesus in this manner it is Christian. --^StormRider 17:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Chronological Order

I've put the religions in a chronological order, to remove the controversy. Mormonism is a great religion, like Islam, and deserves the respect of a separate section. Yes, BOTH Islam and Mormonism believe Jesus is the Messiah and will come again, but that doesn't mean they should be demoted into Christianity. They are separate religions, with their proud histories and identities. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As you are well aware, placing Mormonism outside the Christianity section tacitly asserts that it is not Christianity. Saying Mormonism is awesome does not undo that snub. Ilkali (talk) 13:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not a snub to separate the two religions from each other. But it is a snub to put them together. Theologically (per monotheism), Islam is closer to Christianity than Mormonism is, and no one questions the independent standing of Islam. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"Theologically (per monotheism), Islam is closer to Christianity than Mormonism is". Your opinion. Ilkali (talk) 13:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As a former seminary professor, sure -- and that opinion is mainstream for seminary professors. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice spin, but don't confuse opinion for knowledge or academic position. Islam does not teach that Jesus Christ is the only path to return to heaven, that baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is a necessary sacrament, and that Jesus is divine, the only Begotten Son of the Father. Who believes these type of things? That's right...Christians do. Your desire to paint Christianity as only for Trinitarians is nice apologetics, but it has nothing to do with Christianity. --^StormRider 17:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

What does the Trinity have to do with the topic?

The topic of this article is Gender of God, not Trinitarianism. The introduction to the Christianity section seems strange; it begins talking about early Christian conflicts that have nothing to do with gender. The opening paragraph reads:

"In Christianity, the New Testament is the primary source of beliefs about God. Perhaps the two most significant debates in Christian history sought to understand what the New Testament implied regarding:

• Jesus as both God and man (Christology); and
• God as three persons in unity — the Trinity.[18]

The three persons of the Trinity are God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The names "God the Father" and "God the Son", derived from the New Testament, clearly imply masculinity. In the case of the Son, masculinity is reinforced by the belief in his incarnation as the man, Jesus of Nazareth."

If we are talking about the early significant debates of Christianity, I understand this type of introduction, but it seems a very weak beginning to the topic. The issue to highlight is that Christianity believes that Christ was male. They also believe that if you have seen the Son, then you have seen the Father, which means that the Father is viewed as male, etc. etc. I think this introduction could be centered more on the topic. Thoughts?

Just to be clear, the doctrine of the Trinity has no direct correlation with gender, the topic of the article. The fact that each member of the Trinity is perceived as male does fit the topic, but the Trinitarian doctrine per se is not applicable.

What is odd is that the current section begins by stating that Christianity has significant conflicts over the nature of God, but then we have Tim trying his best to exclude groups that are part of this conflict. Tim are you saying that Christianity consists of a uniform set of doctrines? The last time I looked we have over 36,000 denominations in the world...that is hardly reflective of a uniform set of beliefs. Could you shed some light on us professor and tell us where Jesus said that the Trinitarian doctrine was a required belief to be one of his disciples? If not Jesus, how about Peter or Paul or any of the apostles. That belief was a product of 4th century Christianity and has nothing to do with Jesus and his teachings. --^StormRider 21:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Question: What does the Trinity have to do with the Gender of God?

Answer: According to a notable group of people called <insert name here> God = Trinity = Father, Son, Spirit. Father and Son are gendered terms.

Am I missing something? Alastair Haines (talk) 03:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's try another angle here. Speaking only for myself, I want to know more about the Mormon point of view, particularly in regard to the gender of God. I also want to know what the best sources of reliable information regarding it are. They will be Mormon sources, no one can know a Mormon POV better than Mormons.

Hypothetically, restricting attention to the subject of the Gender of God, Mormonism might be identical to Trinitarian Christianity. If that were the case, the sensible (and efficient) thing for us to do at this article, imo, would be to treat Mormons and Trinitarians under the same heading. For simplicity and convenience, Christianity would be a pretty good candidate for that heading, but Churches of Jesus Christ, might be just as good. There would be other options. But at this stage, I've seen no sources, only heard opinions regarding this.

However, on the subject of the Gender of God, Mormonism might be different to Trinitarian Christianity. This would be the case if Mormons and Trinitarians had different views of God (whose gender we are considering). In that case, we have a different dilemma. The two views need separate treatment and both need different names.

The place to start, surprise surprise, is with sources, and since no one else is offering them, I've found some for myself.

I hope Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and Bruce McConkie are reliable enough sources on Mormonism. Is there a Mormon editor around who could confirm or disconfirm that for us?

• "I wish to declare that I have always and in all congregations when I preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods." — Joseph Smith, quoted by Joseph Fielding Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370.
• "How many Gods there are, I do not know." — Brigham Young, in Discourses of Brigham Young, ed. John A. Widtsoe, pp. 22–23.
• "As each of these persons [Father, Son and Spirit] is a God, it is evident, from this standpoint alone, that a plurality of Gods exists. To us, speaking in the proper finite sense, these three are the only Gods we worship. But in addition there is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus gods." — McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 319.

Has Joseph Raztinger said "Amen" to this?

Alastair Haines (talk) 04:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)