Talk:Michael Lerner (rabbi)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Rabbi
If people whose semicha isn't universally recognized aren't called by the title "rabbi", then by this logic, no Conservative, Reconstructionist, or Reform rabbis should be called "rabbi". I added "rabbi" back in at the top. Dreyfus 01:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Dreyfus, as well as others disgusted with RK's repeated anti-Jewish-Renewal edits on this and other articles, will be pleased to know that RK has been banned from editing Judaism-related articles for one year.
[edit] rabbinic ordination
rabbis have been historically defined as those who have recieved the Jewish tradition from another who has received it... going back to the first rabbis. Since the founder of Aleph, Zalman Schecter-Shalomi, unquestionably received his simcha in an acceptable, orthodox manner, those ordained by him should also be fully recognized as rabbis. The term "rabbi" does not connote any clerical role, but only that one who knows the Jewish tradition and is a teacher of it.
While the Aleph program of study is less rigorous than other yeshiva programs, it should still be recognized so long as affiliation is mentioned to avoid confusing him with an Orthodox rabbi.
[edit] Error in the Lerner article
Apologies if this is posted in the wrong spot - I'm not too familiar with the Wikipedia editing system. Anyway, there is I think an error on this page, since it states that Lerner supports a binational state in Palestine/Israel. Lerner has in published articles specifically opposed a binational state on the grounds that in it, the Jewish people wouldn't have national self-determination. I haven't been able to find any reference outside this Wikipedia article that states that Lerner supports a binational state, nor anything in his writing that suggests it. 141.117.102.38 19:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)Dale Whitmore
- I've gone ahead and made the deletions that Dale suggests. To include the reference to Lerner's support for a binational state, I think the editor should provide a footnote that can be checked. I've also deleted the category Reconstructionist rabbi because Lerner is not one. Though one or more of the rabbis who sat on his beit din may have been ordained Reconstructionist rabbis, that does not make him a Reconstructionist rabbi. He is not and never was a member of the Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association (RRA). The RRA does not accept "private semichah" candidates for potential membership. Sam* 04:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Recognition by Orthodox community?
I will repeat my question: why is it important to mention that representatives of the Orthodox community do not recognize the rabbinical credentials of someone who does not claim to be an Orthodox rabbi? How is this "crucially important for his authority"? CJCurrie 01:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- I notice attempts to give Mr. Lerner more reputation than he has in reality. Not to note that this "rabbi" is not-recognized by any Orthodox Jewish authority is POV. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
How many Reconstructist rabbis are recognized by representatives of the Orthodox community? CJCurrie 01:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- You mean if I don't come up with a number, you'll remove the factual phrase here to support you POV edits in New anti-Semitism? ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I was (and remain) quite willing to take this discussion as a standalone argument unrelated to NAS. My point is that it may not be especially notable if someone from the Reconstructionist community hasn't been given rabbinical accreditation from a representative of the Orthodox community. CJCurrie 01:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry but in this case, your POV is "especially notable". Thank you for expressing it. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "my POV". My argument is as follows:
(i) It is (presumably) not unusual for individuals recognized as rabbis in the Reconstructionist community to lack accreditation from representatives of the Orthodox community. (If I'm mistaken on this point, please correct me).
(ii) Therefore, it is not unusual for individuals who identify as rabbis to be denied accreditation from representatives of the Orthodox community.
(iii) The fact that Lerner lacks such accreditation is therefore neither surprising nor noteworthy, and does not invalidate his authority.
(iv) Therefore, there is no compelling need for us to mention that he lacks such accreditation.
The article already includes extensive discussion of his credentials. Mentioning this as well appears both unnecessary and gratuitous. CJCurrie 02:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Why should WP undermine mainstream Jewish beliefs? Let me guess: because it would be NPOV. LOL. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying that Reconstructionist Judaism is non-mainstream? (And don't tell me that it's statistically small -- we both know that isn't the same thing.) CJCurrie 03:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
More to the point ...
This article already notes (in more detail than is probably necessary) that the institution from which Lerner graduated is not accredited by many in the Orthodox and Conservative communities. Throwing in "non-recognized by any Orthodox authority" elsewhere in the article is at best superfluous, and at worst a sneering aside. CJCurrie 03:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- See above: he is not even a Rec. rabbi. WP should not give Mr. ML superfluous authority. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say he was a Rec. rabbi. I'm saying many people who *are* Rec. rabbis likely aren't recognized by representatives of the Orth. community either, and that Lerner's status on this front is far from unique. Also, I don't believe it's for us to determine whether Lerner's rabbinic credentials are "superfluous" or not. If you want to comment on the AAJR's status in the Jewish community, perhaps you could write an article on the group rather than re-inserting an unnecessary aside here. CJCurrie 04:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- The justification for clarifying his credentials outside the Jewish Renewal world, especially Orthodoxy, is that the article cited "Orthodox rabbis" as a partial basis for his credentials. Therefore, either the point is left in and made NPOV or it is deleted. I (Narcissus14) chose to leave it and make it NPOV. But simply reversing my edits is not wiki-ish, my friends. Be honest, fair, and NPOV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Narcissus14 (talk • contribs) 21:58, March 26, 2007.
-
-
- Your initial edit which I reverted cited no references, and therefore seemed to be based on your own POV and WP:OR. Now that you've included references, it is clear that that was not the case, although I'm not familiar with allexperts and I don't know whether it's is a credible source with respect to matters of halakha. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 17:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I reviewed the Michael Lerner article at allexperts.com and in my opinion it's not a reliable source. Its comments about Lerner's semicha are vague and unsourced: "Lerner identifies himself as a duly ordained rabbi, although many of his critics [who?] dispute that claim on grounds that he was given a private rabbinic ordination by a beit din consisting of three "Jewish Renewal" rabbis, whose ordinations are recognized only by those within the Jewish Renewal community and Reconstructionist Judaism, the smallest of American Judaism's major congregational bodies. ... Orthodox Judaism, the Reform movement's Central Conference of American Rabbis, and the Conservative movement's Rabbinical Assembly typically consider such an ordination invalid. Although that process, known as semicha, was common in the past after years of independent study, it is much less frequent in the United States these days. To pursue the structured rabbinic training seminary or institution background is more typically the norm." As I wrote, the statements are vague ("typically", "less frequently"), unsourced, and worst of all, they're not specifically about Lerner. I edited the paragraph to say what the source, a news article, can support.
-
-
-
-
-
- If you can find other reliable sources that say that (a) the Orthodox, Conservative, or Reform movements never accept private ordination and therefore must reject Lerner (because his ordination was private), or (b) the movements specifically reject Lerner (for whatever reason), or something else about Lerner, put it back in. WP:BLP has tough rules about what you can write about a living person, and writing negative things that are vague and can't be attributed to reliable sources can't be included. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 02:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] NPOV
This reads too much like a promotional article. Not to the point where it's ridiculous, but definitely to the point that it's unencyclopedic. --Leifern 20:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC) This is true. Plus, when I added quotations from Lerner most recently published book, thyey were removed. Someone seems to police the page in a way that keeps an article on a minor but controversial political figure reading like a press release form Tikkun. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Evidence-based (talk • contribs) February 11, 2007.
- Your paragraph was deleted because it was plagiarized from a newspaper article. When you put it back, I edited it so that it was no longer a cut-and-paste version of the Forward article.
- Please, please think about what I wrote on your Talk page:
- I hope you've had a chance to see the changes that have been made to your contributions, especially those at Tikkun (magazine), Michael Lerner (rabbi), and Jewish Voice for Peace.
- I hope you'll take a little time and (a) review the change logs on those pages and (b) read the links at the top of this page, especially Wikipedia:How to edit a page and Wikipedia:Manual of style.
- Your contributions are important, but you shouldn't copy and paste material directly from your sources. Review some of the ways in which other editors have changed your contributions to see how to turn your links to outside sources into footnotes or external links. ...
- As I've written before, if you have questions, please ask. There are plenty of people who would like to help. Every article has a Talk page (click on the Discussion tab). You can post a message for any editor on her/his personal Talk page as well. Malik Shabazz 19:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Malik Shabazz 23:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know the original source of the article, but portions of it seem like they were copied from press releases, especially all the quotes that praise Lerner. I added a tag that flagged the article as "unsourced." I tidied up the article this week -- in the process, I deleted rave reviews for several of Lerner's books -- but I have neither the time nor the interest to research Lerner's life to find reliable sources for this article. Maybe somebody else will do it. Malik Shabazz 23:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Conspiracy Theorist
I just removed the section entitled "Conspiracy Theorist." It was copy-and-cut plagiarized [1] and hopelessly POV. However, the facts themselves were basically true. If someone wants to add the section back in, it would provide some balance to the article. Unfortunately, articles indicating his real beliefs are scattered all over the Internet. - Pingveno ( talk | contrib ) 11:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Evidence-based (talk • contribs) restored the paragraph you removed, word for word, in another section. I've been editing the article for the past few days, and I edited the paragraph from the Forward so (a) it isn't a cut-and-paste job and (b) it's NPOV. Malik Shabazz 22:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
