Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toledano Tradition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 No consensus (default keep). Although this is a long debate in terms of word/byte count, most of the discussion is about content and normal editing issues like merging, neutrality, moving/renaming and forking, and as such are not applicable to deletion. These issues should be taken up at the article talk page, or an article RFC. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Toledano Tradition

Toledano Tradition (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This article is about Kabbalah. The name of the article, "Toledano Tradition", is a term used only in the books of one kabbalist, Warren Kenton and by his followers. The term is not used in any traditional works of Kabbalah, nor by any scholars of Kabbalah. The term "Toledano Tradition" is very closely tied to the books of Warren Kenton, and with no one else. The article also contains diagrams from Kenton's books. Given that, the article should have been directed at a discussion of that particular aspect of Kenton's teaching....if such an article is justified. Instead, much of this article, as it now is, just duplicates part of the history section that is already in the Kabbalah article Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Nomination fixed per comment on nom's talk page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice to re-creation. As it currently stands, the article is little more than a POV-based fork of Kabbalah that serves to advance the position of the Kabbalah Society. The modern restorationist movement of the Toledano Tradition, as spearheaded by the Kabbalah Society, may or may not be suitable for inclusion depending on whether sufficient reliable references can be found. However, the current article is simply a promotional vehicle that disregards our principles of no original research, balanced and comprehensive presentation, and inappropriate content. It has little to do with presenting the named topic in an encyclopedic fashion, instead acting as a shallow vehicle for its claims. It would be like if the Latter-day Saint movement article said little to nothing of the movement, instead simply presenting its version of continuity and history (such as the Great Apostasy and Restoration) as fact. Alternatively, it would be as though the Kemetism article presented the Kemetic view of ancient Egyptian history and religion, and their sympathy with modern Kemetism uncritically and unqualified. This is not simply poor content, but a complete deviation into a POV fork. However, deletion of this fork should not prejudice the creation of an appropriate article under this name. Vassyana (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice to re-creation, or merge. I think Vassyana's comments, above, sum up the problems with the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolm Schosha (talk • contribs) 15:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Discussion continues on this project's dicussion page. abafied (talk) 12:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Retain and expand: Case against deletion:
    • As noted on the Toledano Tradition page, the TT refers to the ecumenical culture of al-Andalus and how, subsequently and more importantly, it affected and influenced the work of the Spanish and, later, the Provencal Kabbalists. That is why there is a detailed section of the history of Kabbalists/ism of that period on the TT page. What the Kabbalah Society and Halevi did was revive the pre-Luranic tradition, name it specifically and work within it. As such, that needs no imprimatur from anyone, scholar, rabbi or Wikipedia. For further discussion to support this see Talk:Toledano_Tradition. Further, neither base their work on pixie dust, but on an established lineage of Judaic mysticism up to the time of Luria. The Toledano Tradition exists - attested to by scholarship over the last century and a half: the question of the name has nothing to do with anyone here or elsewhere. Did anyone give an imprimatur to Isaac the Blind at the time he introduced the title "Kabbalah" into his mysticism? No. Neither was it questioned by anyone. The point concerning the name is as spurious as the one on diagrams.
    • The diagrams I put up are mine; made by me; that can be checked on Wiki:Images. All modern Trees of Life derive from the one devised by Isaac the Blind; they differ. The other that I put up derives from one in a photo of a Yemeni Kabbalistic manuscript dated 1474, in which eleven interlocked circles are the source for the diagram of Jacob's Ladder - see Kedourie, E., ed., The Jewish World, Thames and Hudson, 2003, p66. Yes, Halevi uses similar ones: no, my diagrams do not appear in his books. They constitute no evidence for a change of status of the Toledano Tradition page.
    • The article is not a "promotional vehicle". No evidence has been offered that it is, merely opinion. Further, sources were put up by me to support the tradition in the TT article itself and on its discussion page: they have been ignored by Schosha and assessed as being erroneously used in this article by Vassyana, again without supporting evidence or sourcing. Neither, it appears, have read all the references or books on the source list; neither have much knowledge of this particular area of study; neither have put up source material of their own to support what must remain opinion only, even when asked repeatedly in some cases. People are free to read the discussion, evidence and sources on both pages of the Toledano Tradition entry.
    • The work of the Kabbalah Society is detailed on its own page, though it is as yet a stub and could do with expansion: the work of Halevi is also detailed on its own page - Z'ev ben Shimon Halevi. The Toledano Tradition page was kept separate from those precisely because the page needed work on the history of the Toedano Tradition and on the work of the particular Kabbalists, many of them having Neoplatonic elements in their work. In that regard, it is significant that Schosha deleted all references to the Neoplatonism of the Kabbalists without any discussion after they had been sourced; he had appended citation tags only to the Neoplatonic references. When I put up so many other sources by Jewish scholars, he could no longer ignore the fact that Neoplatonism was introduced into Judaic mysticism by those rabbis and Jewish mystics. That he has also provided no sources or evidence either countering or supporting that indicates either ignorance of the period, or personal bias against Neoplatonism in Judaic mysticism, or both.
    • This article is, as yet, unfinished. It needs more content on the history; not less. abafied (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


reply to
Case against deletion

I want to restate briefly the problem with the article and reason for the RfD. The article is presented as a balanced account of the history of Kabbalah and summery of the goals of Kabbalah. But it is not balanced because it represents the teaching of one Kabbalast, Warren Kenton...a Kabbalist who is not in the mainstream of Jewish Kabbalah tradition. Since Kenton's ideas are particular to him it it is necessary to make that clear, which the present article does not. Rather the contrary it claims to be objective and balanced. Compare this statement in the article:

During these periods, Kabbalists incorporated into their expositions and exegeses a degree of Neoplatonism that conformed to the requirements of Jewish theology and philosophy, though, to some extent, in medieval times, it conflicted with the Aristotelian approach to Jewish philosophy by Maimonides and his followers [[1]]

to this more balanced statement:

Beyond the specifically Jewish notions contained within the kabbalah, some scholars believe that it reflects a strong Neoplatonic influence, especially in its doctrines of emanation and the transmigration of souls (see Neoplatonism).[2]

Clearly the second quote is more sensitive and more balanced, admitting the views of religious Jews, who reject the presence of Neoplatonic influence; while also stating that a contrary scholarly view also exists. This is a single example, but the extent of unbalanced statements results in an article that amounts to original research. Of course, if it was presented as the thinking of Kenton (who is notable), there would be no problem; and it might be acceptable to merge the article with the Warren Kenton article. Because even the name of the article, Toledano Tradition, is completely tied to Kenton that might make sense. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Response to the above. If all that is required is that, currently, Orthodox Jews disagee that Neoplatonism influenced the Spanish/Provencal Kabbalists, a statement to that effect can be incorporated into the original article, along with the work and names of rabbis who do so. However, academic research since the 19thC. indicates otherwise (see Toledano Tradition page for general references and Talk:Toledano_Tradition for some more detailed references), and the Columbia Encyclopedia entry quoted gives no references to those scholars who have disagreed. In fact, of the four authors which are quoted in a footnote at the bottom of the Columbia page, two are academics who support the influence of Neoplatonism in Kabbalah, Scholem and Dan/Talmage; of the other two authors, Weiner's book is about his personal quest in Kabbalah and Rosenberg's book concerns sexuality and psychology in Kabbalah. I would submit that the Columbia Encyclopedia entry is a little short of references to back up the statement Schosha quotes. However, If Malcolm Schosha would be so kind as to pass on the names of those scholars who do disagree, their work, too, could be referenced in the article, along with a statement that they disagree.
  • Further, there is no case for merging this article with Halevi's biographical page: the WikiBiog.Project people would rightly have such additions concerning the historical lineage of the Toledano Tradition deleted as irrelevant to a biographical article. That is the reason why the stand-alone page for the Toledano Tradition was put up.
  • On the question of balance, the first quote that Schosha put up has in the original statement on the Toledano Tradition page a reference, ref. no, 12, to Lenn Goodman's book, Neoplatonism and Jewish Thought, in which he states that Maimonides and others disagreed with the Jewish Neoplatonists: this, alongside investigations into the influence of Neoplatonism on Kabbalah, does not constitute imbalance. Goodman is a notable academic and scholarly editor in the field of Jewish and Islamic Philosophy, of which Kabbalistic studies are a part. I have yet to see any articles, academic or otherwise, that view his work as unbalanced. If Malcolm Schosha has references to any of those, I would be pleased to have them.abafied (talk) 07:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


see the talk page, which is where this where all this talk should be (it seems to me). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep but make sure to add in acc. to Kenton where appropriate. Try to find out if any critiques have been written of this view. The basic distinction between Lurianic and pre-Lurianic (and pre-Cordoverian as well) Kabbalah is certainly valid. Making Avicebron or even Halevi a representative seems wrong though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolf2191 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Suggest focusing the AfD on the sole question of whether the subject being presented is notable and can be reliably sourced. The question of whether Warren Kenton's view is notable is separate from whether most religious or academic scholars agree with it or whether the article describes the relevant perspectives in a neutral way. AfD addresses whether the subject is suitable for an article, not whether the present article is of good quality. Poor quality articles can be cleaned up eventually. If a merge is appropriate this can be dealt with. Once we address whether the subject is suitable for an article, all the other issues can be dealt with. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply to Shirahadasha Thank you for your helpful comments. In my view the first problem is the name of the article. "Toledano Tradition" is a term 100% associated with Warren Kenton and his followers. The term is used by no one else, so its use amounts to a code word identifying Kenton's views (which are highly influenced by Gurgjieff and Ouspensky). It just is not a suitable name for the subject matter of the article. The name of the article itself strongly implies its POV, and that is a point of view not suitable for this article....if, indeed, it is suitable for any article at all. A second problem, connected to the Kenton POV, is the claim that Kabbalah developed in the Girona group from the Neoplatonism of Solomon ibn Gabirol. This is a view that was disproved by Gershom Scholem, but the creator of the article, Abafied, will not consider doing without it. In any case, any useful content in this article could be merged, some into the the Warren Kenton article (where the term "Toledano Tradition" would be in place), and some into the history section of the Kabbalah article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand that point. If his followers call it the "Toldabo tradition" and if he has a significant amount of followers, then Toledano Tradition is the name to go by. Scholem's criticism should certainly be mentioned and the article should be restructured to show that we are dealing with a fringe group (calling themselves Toledano Tradition) rather then a reputable academic interpreation of Kabbalah.Wolf2191 (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Wolf2191, the name "Toledano Tradition" would be okay if placed in a context that makes it clear it is the Warren Kenton POV toward the history of Kabbalah. But in this article, the only people who understand the source of the POV are a relatavly small number of people familiar with Kenton, and most people will have no way to understand there is a POV. In fact the editor who created the article maintains there is no POV. If the name of the article was changed to something like "Early Kabbalah in the Sephardi tradition", and any problematic statements were balanced, then there would be no need for this AfD. But if you take a look at the article's talk [[3]] page, where most of the content was generated in the last two and one half weeks, you will see the editor, Abafied was not receptive to such changes. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    • WP:FRINGE gives guidance on how to determine whether fringe theories should be included in the encyclopedia. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Clarification: I'm not expressing an opinion on whether it is a fringe theory or not, just noting that it could still be included even if it were. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete without prejudice to re-creation or Completely Rewrite and add content from the Kenton Tradition Warren Kenton and the Toledano tradition is important with many external sources and many shelves of books and lots of followers. SUch an article on the Kenton school and its teachers would be imporatant, just as the Kabbalah Centre is important. But this article as it stands is about medieval Kabbalah with 2 lines about Kenton. The Jewish Encyclopedia in 1901 considered Kabblah as Neo-platonism as do many contemporary scholars. That discussion of the role of Neoplatonism in Kabblah belongs elsewhere- either under "kabbalah" or "Neoplatonism and Kabbalah." The debate over Neoplatonism is not a specifically Warren Kenton discussion- Kenton just relies on the pre-Scholem views- that are back in fashion with some scholars. Kenton's contribution is not his citation of 19th century scholarship on Neoplatonism and Kabblah, rather to create a universal kabbalah thatis not Alester Crowley or Golden Dawn. It is not a fringe group among Universal and non-Jewish kabbalistic teachings--Jayrav (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Jayrav, In the Kabbalah article there is now only a short mention of the debate over Neoplatonic influence, in the last paragraph here[[4]]. It would be good to expand this and/or link to a separate article on the subject. (But, truthfully, that whole section, as it now is, seems very speculative, and disorganized too. I am disinclined to remove any of it because I have hopes someone with the necessary knowledge will improve it.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Jayrav, If the main complaint about the Toledano Tradition article is that there is a too brief explanation of Halevi's revival and his extensions of Kabbalah, that can be remedied. The brief section detailing his work can be expanded (though some of the differences were spelled out in the introduction to the article). At this stage, that can be done by reference to his books. Scholarly work on his sources is in the process of preparation; it will not be completed for some time.
On Neoplatonism in the Spanish/ Provencal Kabbalists 9th--13thCs., that is a necessary part of the Toledano Tradition. My research indicates that their work was heavily influenced by Neoplatonic theories of emanation; that, at the time, was an innovation - one Maimonides argued against later, as mentioned in the article, though briefly. That, too, can be expanded. Precisely because there was argument then between the rationalists and the revelationists, is one reason why Neoplatonic influences were spelled out in the article and should not be excluded or hived off into a general article.
The section, too, on Caro, Cordovero and Alkabetz needs expanding; their history concerns how the Toledano Tradition was carried to Safed. No mention has been made, as yet, of how the Toledano Tradition affected post-Lurianic Kabbalah because, to my knowledge, no research has yet been undertaken in that field of studies. abafied (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Abafied wrote: "My research indicates that their work was heavily influenced by Neoplatonic theories of emanation; that, at the time, was an innovation - one Maimonides argued against later, as mentioned in the article, though briefly." I am sorry Abafied, but you seem to be arguing to retain, and apparently expand, your original research in the article. There is nothing wrong with doing original research, but Wikipedia is not the place to publish it. Moreover, when you write, as you have above, that "On Neoplatonism in the Spanish/ Provencal Kabbalists 9th--13thCs., that is a necessary part of the Toledano Tradition." you are in effect saying that the article really is, by design, unbalanced POV. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Move all contents and Rediect page to Z'ev ben Shimon Halevi (aka Warren Kenton) where it belongs. Seems to be well-researched and if its Kenton's view it must go on the article about him. IZAK (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and Stubbify. The notablility of the subject, the approach of Warren Kenton to the Kabbalah, has been adequately established. However, the present article does not describe this approach or contrast it with others in a neutral way, rather, it reads like an essay presenting the correctness of the approach as fact and speculating as to how other approaches came to go astray. Moreover, it's not clear the extent to which most of the article actually sticks to Warren Kenton's theory. Radical surgery is needed to correct this, virtually the whole article needs to be rewritten, so the outcome of this AfD should be stubbify. --Shirahadasha (talk) 05:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment for closing admin. This would be acceptable to me, even though I stated my position as "delete without prejudice". This would essentially serve the same purpose as my delete opinion, which is to eliminate the inappropriate focus and synthesis that forms the substance of the current article. That is, a drastic stubbing of the article would essentially produce the same result as a delete and re-create. Vassyana (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • NB: Abafied is at this time in the process of completely reorganizing, and will soon start to rewrite, the Kabbalah article. The likely result will be that anything that she is forced to remove from her defective Toledano Tradition article will soon wind up included in the Kabbalah article; and there will be no one who understands the issues to prevent it. Wikipedia's complete inability to deal with those editors who are determined to misuse it is a fascinating spectacle. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
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.