Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yeshua and Jewish Kabbalah

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yeshua_and_Jewish_Kabbalah

Explicitly Original research Justin Eiler 19:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I have grave doubts that the originator of the article (User:Fivetrees, a very personable individual, but quite new to Wikipedia) is aware of the WP:NOR policies, so I'll go have a chat with him. In the mean time, however, this article consists entirely of original research. Justin Eiler 19:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Use of the phrase "brand new" in the first sentence is a pretty good indication of WP:NOR violations. --Keeves 19:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (if possible) Few scholars are experts in both (Jewish) Kabbalah and (Christian) Jesus. I know serious books on the topic exist but they are difficult to get a hold of. Is there anyone here who can compile a bibliography? It's a worthwhile topic for an article. --Haldrik 21:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comparing the article with serious books on the topic doesn't yield the result that you are hoping for. The article claims to be about something that also goes by the name of Christian Kabbalah. Books on such a thing exist. ISBN 0691005400 has a whole chapter, chapter 2, on the subject of Christian Kabbalah, which mentions people such as Martines de Pasqually. It bears zero relation to anything written in this article. For starters, this article is discussing completely the wrong century. The aforementioned book tells us that Christian Kabbalah has its origins in the 15th century. Both the chapter on non-Jewish Kabbalah in ISBN 1580910491 and the chapter on Caballism in ISBN 0521361915 (citing the Encyclopaedia Judaica) tell us that Christian Kabbalah lasted from the 15th century until the end of the 18th century, when it faded out. Uncle G 01:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The article has nothing to do with Christian Cabala. Christian Cabala is a Renaissance Period attempt to synchretize Jewish Kabbalah, Christian Theology, and Greek-via-Islamic Philosophy. The article is different. The article discusses if the historical Jesus himself is using an early form of Kabbalah during the Roman Period. Christian Cabala and Jesus's Proto-Rabbinic Kabbalah arent the same and are not even related. --Haldrik 10:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
      • The very first sentence of the article claims that it is about Christian Kabbalah. Please read the very first sentence of the article. Uncle G 11:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Reread the first sentence. It is about "Jewish Kabbalah" which isnt the same thing as "Christian Kabbalah", and it says the article is only related to Christian Kabbalah "in some part". The article is about Jewish Kabbalah. In editing the article, the reference to Christian Kabbalah should be removed from the opening paragraph. Christian Cabala has few if any references to the historical Jesus. --Haldrik 12:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Thanks, that's good suggestion. Changing. --fivetrees 21:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
          • The first sentence has now been altered. But that only makes your argument for keeping less tenable, not more. Instead of an article about something that we have some books about, that simply isn't in agreement with the books, we now have an article for which you haven't actually put forward any of these purported "serious books on the topic", and for which no "serious books on the topic" turn up in any searches for such books. I cited some books about Christian Kabbalah. I suggest that if you wish to make an argument that this isn't original research, you do the same for what you claim the subject of this article to be and show that there really are books on this subject. So far, it seems that there are not. Uncle G 21:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per concerns regarding original research. While it's certainly an interesting topic, there need to be reliable, verifiable sources from which to draw information. Until that is possible, the article is inappropriate for the encyclopaedia. --NMChico24 22:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete It is pure self promotion, concerning a made-up field. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I am an expert of the focal point of this topic (subject of kavim in both systems), but not of english writing or wikipedia styling. Wikieditors know this and always help to correct my editing or english errors. I started many religious wikitopics - participating here is too serious to me. So only rare experts of these both fields, understand importance and rising trend of this interesting, delicate and difficult topic. This is not my personal opinion, but clear fact of long years of research and this topic will become widely known and encyclopedic without my participation. If someone knows this topic better - please contribute, my task was to initiate topic of what others saw as separate particles (a lot of sources and studies published), but I already see as whole mosaic. Maybe some terms will be corrected, but the idea is already clear to many students who know both sides. The problem is that there are rare ones who know BOTH SOURCES GOOD ENOUGH, SYMMETRICALLY. Most of students know good enough only one side of question, or even confuse Jewish Kabbalah with some "general kabbalah" or "hermetic kabbalah"; know subject of Christian Jesus, but don't know Jewish concept of Yeshua or Gnostic logia, Gospels of Thomas and Philip etc., what is much different from general Christianity. There are a lot of near or similar studies on this field, but exact focal point is discussed only last 5-10 years. So citations, materials, references and publications will follow soon. To IMHO decisions about this topic can be made only by experts of Jewish-Torah-Hebrew Kabbalah (at least ashlagian or lurian, but there are more and deeper materials). And experts of (mainly non-christian concept of) Yeshua: at least Gospel of Thomas of Nag Hammadi Library in coptic, greek-koine New Testament or Brit Hadasha in hebrew. Please immerse into material deeper! --fivetrees 11:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • So citations, materials, references and publications will follow soon and decisions about this topic can be made ONLY BY EXPERTS OF BOTH FIELDS — Wrong. Citations should be given now. And it doesn't require an expert in the field to ascertain whether you are working from sources or not, and thus whether this is original research or not. If you are working from sources, they will be easy to cite. If you are condensing and summarizing the existing literature in a field, you will easily be able to say, right now, what literature you are condensing and summarising. So please cite your sources. Uncle G 21:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • What is most significant is not that Fivetrees claims to be an expert, but rather that he is the author of the article. Is he an expert? Where did he receive smicha? Or where did he get his postgraduate training? More important, expert or not, he cannot violate NOR. Where are the articles in peer-reviewed journals? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Pure original research and self-promotion about a made-up field. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Jayjg. Evolver of Borg 00:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Our father in heaven! Burninate! - crz crztalk 00:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - crz crztalk 00:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OR. Agree with User:Justin Eiler, User:Keeves, User:Jayjg, and others that this is explicit original research, specifically promoted as such. The author goes so far as to acknowledge in this very discussion that the field is so new sources aren't currently available and will be 'forthcoming', hence the topic is unverifiable. Given this a delete is unavoidable. Wikipedia exists only for topics that be verified by nonexperts, an article that cannot be so verified is by definition not encyclopedic. An article on historical or contemporary Christian Kabbalah appears sourcable and might be of interest, but this article, which claims that Jesus practiced a form of Kabbalah as it existed 2000 years ago, is about something else entirely. Delete. --Shirahadasha 00:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If you know exact subject of the article and both materials, but not one side - there are too much of sources to cite all of them at once and these parallels were found a lot of times earlier. I will rework an article completely keeping in mind original research and unverifiable and all written above, especially Wikipedia exists only for topics that be verified by nonexperts. Thanx for all training and critics sincerely! --fivetrees 01:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • A quick look at the two sources listed in the reference section: One clearly violates the reliable source policy. Yeshua as He is by Jake Ashcroft is a self-published work. Lulu.com is a vanity (self) publisher, as it explicitly states here "Lulu's not the publisher - you are." Assuming the other, Keys to the Kingdom by Migene Gonzalez-Wippler, despite its publication by New Age publisher Llewellyn Publications, is a reliable source, nonetheless the requirement of multiple reliable sources is not met. (Note that Wikipedia's article on Gonzalez-Wippler appears to have been copied verbatim from Llewellyn's web site). --Shirahadasha 03:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
      • You have to be careful with this kind of remark. As soon as you try to decide which publishers are 'real' publishers and which are not you are creating a lens through which you filter reality, usually ending up seeing what you set out to see in the first place. Llewellyn are a long standing publishing house of good repute. It is in the nature of the material that they publish that your problem lies. This kind of material is always going to have a high freak out factor. But saying they are a doubtful publisher because they publish things you don't grok is the first step on the road that leads to book burning. Tell me, would you suspect a publisher who only publishes in one field to be suspect if that field was anything other than religion? Somehow its ok if the major strands of major religions self publish their material but once a member of a minority group does so they are vanity publishing! As the wise Mr. Bob Dylan once wrote, "The times they are a'changin'" The existence of so called vanity publishers like Lulu perform a valuable service in allowing people who have written worthwhile books that wouldn't get picked up by a publishing house because their market is so specialised to publish them themselves. This is not vanity. This is accepting the realities of the market and finding your own solution. We are too accustomed to a world in which media of all kinds have a higher acceptance factor if they come from a 'reputable' source. This is prejudicing knowledge and as long as one does this one is a slave to media barons and publishing houses. I find it ironic that this kind of thing goes on on wikipedia! The whole point of wikipedia is to alleviate that slavery. To open people's eyes to the fact that everyone has knowledge and we can help them share it. As soon as you start to try to prejudice some knowledge over some other you are on the road to oppression.
      • Morgan Leigh 23:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Prime Facie violation of WP:OR -- Chabuk 01:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Jay et al. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 01:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, plus I have to say that when I read an article about a subject I know nothing about, and at the end of it I do not know any more than when I started, that is a very bad sign. 6SJ7 03:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom and all. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Move to Wikipedia:Examples of rank speculation and poor scholarship/Yeshua and Jewish Kabbalah. Post haste. Tomer^talk 07:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Jayg and others. --Daniel575 | (talk) 08:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per others. Any page referring to Jesus as Yeshua is treated (by me) with a very large grain of salt. JFW | T@lk 12:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete! You're making WP:OR cry. I'm not totally ignorant of this subject myself, since I'm involved in Messanic Judaism, and this article is ... just painful to read. There are references being added, but only ones that support the stuff on the page. That is not encyclopedic. Start over, from scratch, on the userpage of the author, and get help from others and source your article. --In ur base, killing ur dorfs 16:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because this violates Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. (See also: Wikipedia:Complete bollocks.) IZAK 21:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete This has absolutely no place on wikipedia. Jon513 14:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and have an expert repair it--Nielswik_(talk) 13:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that all parts are beyond repair in that the entire articlesimply expresses the author'sown point of view. What parts do you think can be "repaired?" What does "Yeshua" refer to? Jesus? Do you know of any Kabbalistic work or scholarship on Kabbalah that refers to Jesus in this way? I do not. Do you know of any Christian work that refers to Jesus in this way? I do not. Do you know of any of the scholarship on Kabbalah that says anything about Kabbalah and Jesus? I do not. Do you know of any documentation that supports claims that the Kabbalah, as we know it, existed during Jesus'life time? To my knowledge, all kabbalistic texts appear after the destruction of the Temple (and thus after Jesus) and I do notknow of any reputable scholar who has claimed that Jesus had any influence on the kabbalah. Do you? Your vote suggests that you think this is a real, valid, encyclopedic topic. I really just want to know why you think this. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The page has been userfied to User:Fivetrees/Yeshua_and_Jewish_Kabbalah. Justin Eiler 00:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, violates OR policy. This is overkill as this article will obviously be deleted. "After lurian Kabbalah affirmed, that Yeshua was an expert in Kabbalah..." [sigh]... This kind of reminded me of the editor a couple years back who kept insisting on adding to the Jesus article that Jesus' teaching methods took the form of koans (and I'm comparing the OR content, not the editors, fivetrees seems to be a polite editor who edits in good faith). --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I have some expertise in this subject area. This article has great potential. I have had correspondence with the author when editing other Kabbalah articles and he does know what he is talking about. imho this work is not original research, but the fact that the author's first language is not English is really working against him here. I have spoken to the author at some length regarding this article and I believe it can be brought into line with wikipedia's policy regarding original research. He does have the sources to cite to demonstrate that this is not original research. I will help him to render this article into English more accurately. Please don't rush to vote to delete this article as it is an area of research which has few exponents in English and it is worth taking some effort to help get this article to meet wikipedia's policy.

Morgan Leigh 23:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Only "experts in both fields" can make decisions on this topic? Absolutely not. Delete it now. KrakatoaKatie 23:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fivetrees

It is widely known, that teaching of Yeshua was based on Torah and on no other source, as he himself states being fulfillment of the law (Torah) and he recites Torah numerous times.

It's widely known, that Jewish mysticism is based on Torah too and main sources of Jewish Kabbalah (Zoar etc.) are mystical commentaries of nothing except Torah or related sources.

So it's clear, that both Yeshua and Jewish mysticism come from the same root.

Could such obvious correlations altered by something other more important?

Are there any doubts about this ?

I hear arguments in the voting, that Yeshua's teaching is rooted in some other source except Torah/TANAKH. And that Jewish Kabbalah is based on every source except Torah/TANAKH.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.