Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-07-07 Shituf

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Status	closed
Request date	16:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Requesting party	Unknown
Mediator(s)	Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 18:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment	closable?

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|]]

Request details

To prevent the distortion of an article on a Jewish concept and to prevent editors from using non-Jewish (Christian) definitions of terms within the article. And to prevent editors from introducing a "Christian views" section into an article which is not about Christianity. -

]

Who are the involved parties?

• LisaLiel
• Tim
• Carlaude

There is a concept in Judaism called shituf. It refers to a lesser form of polytheism that is exempt (according to some rabbinic authorities) from the laws against idolatry.

This situation is complicated by the fact that Judaism views monotheism and polytheism differently than some other religions, such as Christianity, and views worship of a "Father", a "Son" and a "Holy Spirit" as essentially polytheistic, even though Christian theology sees this as monotheistic.

has been insisting on reading Christian theology into this article on a Jewish concept and keeps misidentifying the issue by saying that the polytheistic worship Judaism condemns is condemned as well by Christianity.

Despite this fundamental disagreement, we recently reached consensus ([1]). The consensus was that we would use this version ([2]), but would make two changes.

Change #1 was that we would replace the initial paragraph with this:

Shituf is the term used in Jewish law for worship of the God of Israel with an association of external powers, deities, or internal aspects. Any worship deemed by Judaism to fall short of pure monotheism is considered avodah zarah ("strange worship" or "idolatry"), and is forbidden both to Jews and to non-Jews, but shituf is a lesser form of avodah zarah which some rabbinic authorities consider to be permissible for non-Jews, since it does include worship of the One God of Israel.

And Change #2 was that we would add

into a "See also" section.

In less than 24 hours,

]

What would you like to change about that?

I want

]

Mediator notes

• Case submitted.
  talk) 16:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Administrative notes

Is this still in dispute? I'm trying to lessen the apparent load we have under open cases, so hoping I can close this.

]

The mediator never did anything to this case... and (I think)

talk) 18:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• sigh*

Thanks; closing.

Xavexgoem (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Mediator's suggestions

Discussion

This mediation appears to have been entered in error. Lisa and I worked out the wording for a paragraph [3] and a sandbox version of the Shituf article and I put it in a user-space sandbox with a link on the Shituf talk page. Carlaude made edits to the user-space version [4]. I thanked him for the edits, but also added a second link on the Shituf talk page with a timestamped version that preceded any edits that had gone beyond the scope of what Lisa and I had agreed [5]. Lisa apparently stumbled on my original link after I had put a second timestamped link and got Carlaude's edit instead of the one she and I agreed on.

There's not much to mediate about the article per se. There are three versions of the article floating around and I'm fine with whatever the consensus comes up with. Lisa was disagreeing with me at first and now she's disagreeing with someone else. I'm just content to retire from the discussion.

]

Oh -- for the record:

1. I'm okay with this version on Lisa's space [6].
2. I'm okay with this version on my space [7]
3. I'm okay with this version on L'Aquatique's space [8]
4. I'm okay with this Lisa edit on L'Aquatique's space [9]
5. I'm okay with this version in the main space [10]

Hope that makes the mediating easier...

)

Objections

Current Version

Tim and Carlaude, what are your objections to the current version?--Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 15:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shituf--"Reform Jewish views" under Christianity

Says "Moses Mendelssohn, the 18th Century Jewish enlightenment thinker, used the concept of shituf as cited in Tosafot to justify any form of association of God with another entity."

What Moses Mendelssohn seems to be referring to is Arianism (Tritheism) and mistaking it for Christianity, but this is not not made clear in the article. In fact the heading "Christianity" makes it misleading, as if it is Christianity. --

talk) 17:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Wouldn't that be

]

Mendelssohn considered it Christianity. If you disagree, that's fine, but this article is about a Jewish concept, and it has sources on that subject. Critiquing the sources is something you can do on your blog (if you don't have one, I'd be happy to help you set one up), but it's not what Wikipedia is for. -

talk) 21:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

While this is Jewish concept, this it is

not

a Jewish encyclopedia.

Yes,however it still should be included.--Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 18:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Mendelssohn considered Arianism to be Christianity-- and that Wikipedia does nothing but label it (actual) Christianity without another view available (the majority view) on its Christianityness-- is exactly the problem. --

talk) 17:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Ain, for what it's worth, my problem is the lack of an ability to work on a consensus with an editor who has to have the final word on everything. My only way to have peace was to give up and hide for a while, but this problem keeps following me from page to page. As stated in the request, I'm to be stopped from editing on certain subjects anywhere and everywhere on Wikipedia. Do I have a problem with the current version? You know what, I stopped caring about the current version after it became apparent that only Lisa was allowed to have the final say on it, even in my sandbox, L'Aquatique's sandbox, Lisa's sandbox, and finally the page itself. The final version in all four places is Lisa's. We just stepped back and let her do whatever she wanted so we could have some peace. And now it's followed me to the

talk) 18:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Please do not make personal attacks.--Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 18:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of POV

LisaLiel, Tim and Carlaude, please tell me your religion.--Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 16:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 16:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm Jewish. And I reject the claim that Mendelssohn considered Arianism to be Christianity. It may be, as Tim and Carlaude have argued, that a common Jewish view of Christian intent works out to be similar to an ideology called Arianism, but that doesn't mean that Mendelssohn had an opinion on Arianism at all.

Furthermore, as I've discussed on the Talk page of the article, Judaism doesn't care what Christian intent is. Worshipping a trinity is worshipping a trinity, whether Christians view it as three gods, three persons, three aspects, three functions, three dimensions, or any other thing. Such distinctions are utterly without interest to Judaism, and one of my main reasons for starting this case was the fact that certain editors seem intent on forcing those distinctions into the Jewish concept of shituf. -

talk) 19:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Jewish.

talk) 18:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Process

So is this it? Is this how "mediation" is suppost to work?

Again, this it is not a Jewish encyclopedia.

Even if Rabbinical Judaism does not care about belief, intent, etc. as you claim-- other people do!

Furthermore-- Wikipedia has no policy to justify a disregard of belief, intent, etc. in the setting up of headings and subheadings.--

talk) 21:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

No, it's not a Jewish encyclopedia. But it's a Jewish term. I'm not about to go into the Trinity article and point out that Jews consider worship of a trinity to be idolatrous. I'm not about to go into the Christianity article and point out that Judaism sees Christianity as a heretical sect that became malignant. To do so would be offensive. And unnecessarily combatative.

The comparison is a valid one. Christianity has taken terms from Judaism and represents them as meaning something that they never meant in Judaism. But Wikipedia is not for battling about such things. Even though Wikipedia isn't a Christian encyclopedia (just like it isn't a Jewish one), it's also not a forum for polemics or apologetics.

I don't like (personally -- as an editor I'm fine with it) the fact that Christianity claims that the Jewish messiah can be a deity. I find that incredibly offensive. But I live with it, because on Wikipedia, Christianity gets to define its own terms. If I want to object, I can create an article called

talk) 00:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

The problem has to do with the normative meaning of terms. "

talk) 19:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Not to be rude, but making Judaism look "ridiculously ignorant" is not a reason to change content.--Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 18:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could correct it to "unnecessarily" ignorant. That is, if it really is ignorant, fine. If not, then why make it appear so? Regardless, I think we've moved on from this issue. On a personal note I've found that Conservative Rabbis I know seem more familiar with this issue than Orthodox ones -- and I think the reason is that Conservatives are more likely to question their own sources and practices than Orthodox Jews. It seems reflected in written sources as well. The only source Lisa or I could find that seemed to grasp the Christian side seemed unsatisfactory from the Jewish side -- and that source was Conservative. In the end, it appeared that I was right that there were Jewish sources that actually grasped the issue from the Christian perspective, and Lisa was right that Orthodox sources do not see a need to do so. I haven't looked at the article in a while, but if I remember correctly, Lisa included the normative (Orthodox) Jewish view in the header, and to account for Christians who would recognize the disconnect, she included a Conservative source (Novak) in a Conservative subsection. If my memory is correct, that would have resolved the Wikipedia disconnect probelm (that is, the problem of a blatant contradiction of definitions between articles on Shituf and the Trinity). SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Issues

I want to add one thing. When Tim agreed to the version of the article that's currently there, he said that I could take this MedCab case down. I didn't, specifically because of Carlaude. Because I knew that even if Tim was willing to compromise, Carlaude would keep fighting, and I wanted a ruling that would say that what he wants is inappropriate. I hope that's how this ends. -

talk) 00:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

LisaLiel, what comparison? Also, is it true that you and Tim have settled your dispute? Also, I think that the links issue is a trivial issue.

Hi, I only found this page again because of the continuing dispute between Lisa and myself. This doesn't have anything to do with

talk) 09:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

You can save yourself some time, Tim. I'll stipulate it, except for the part about me starting the edit war on

talk) 18:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

And I'd like to note two things. One is that Tim said explicitly that the version of

talk) 18:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

All I want is some peace. I want to edit in collaboration, without hijacking, wikilawyering, edit wars, and an endless array of distractions. It creates a huge overhead for all involved. Also, I want you to tell me what you're NOT interested in so I can edit in peace for a while. So far my only recent success is in the

talk) 19:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I have to agree with

talk) 22:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

"Christian the lion". And you wonder why I bring up your background?

I can understand why you're touchy after what happened with the glossary. I'm sorry if you're still smarting about that, but I was hoping you'd come around to the view that the majority actually had a point in that case. Shituf, too. And the Gender of God thing... you have a chip on your shoulder, so when I fixed Alastair's bad edits, you assumed that I was aiming at you, and "shot back". You have yet to even acknowledge that I didn't take out the content you'd put in, and I know that by now you've seen that this is the case.

I'm sorry you felt that way. I'm sorry you're so angry about what happened in the other two articles that you're unable to apologize for jumping to conclusions in the third one. I wish there was some way to convince you that it's not you personally; that I just don't want Christian content in articles about Jewish concepts. -

talk) 19:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

On an aside, if you haven't seen the viral video on youtube, you should. I've given my own cat a lot more attention after the video, but he doesn't appreciate it as much as that darned lion did. To be honest, I haven't reviewed that particular facet of the edit history yet. It's possible that when I saw you making huge changes to a section I had just touched I assumed it was the same as before. I would still like the Blech quote in the article because it's a darned good quote, and right on topic. And I wish you could see that I've been striving for term and definition consistency on the encyclopedia. That was the point of the glossary, and the point of the contention on the Shituf page. Terms and Definitions either need to be consistent, or some kind of recognition of the mismatch should be made. Religions are bewildering enough without misdirection involved. Again, I just want some peace. It took me a few months to get back up to speed after the shell shock of the glossary.

talk) 19:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Honestly, I have no idea why you think the Blech quote is gone. Yes, I moved it from a cquote into a ref, but it's still there. He's referenced by name, with his entire quote given in the ref. From the moment you posted that reference until now, I have never removed it. Nor do I have any intention of removing it. Can you please just look and see that it's there? You don't have to even make a public admission that you were mistaken; it's enough that you recognize the fact. -

talk) 19:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

It's out of the body of the article, and the wording Blech has is better than our own wording. It shouldn't be hidden in a ref.

talk) 19:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Let's discuss it on the Talk page of the article. I disagree with you. I think that section has far too many quotes showing in the body already. They belong in references. And as it happens, that quote appears to contradict the one by Aryeh Kaplan (and the Reform one below), which it doesn't. You talk about your concern for not confusing readers; I suggest that putting that quote in the body of the article (which will result in my having to do the same thing with the other two quotes) will simply make things a lot more confusing. -

talk) 20:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]