Template talk:Messianic Judaism/Torah
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Torah I would like to propose that Torah be added to the template. The Torah is central to the Messianic movement, and is a central item in many Messianic synagogues. Messianic organizations also exist to promote Torah reading. Sources: [1], [2], [3], [4]
- Perhaps an article such as Messianic view of the Torah needs to be created, similar to the list of articles here Torah#Other views of the Torah, and then link to that article, which itself, of course, would link to Torah. I think it is fair to say that the Messianic view of the Torah is very different from the Judaic view, especially as regards the Oral Law. Different branches of Messianism have differing opinions on this (just comapre yashanet.com with rabbiyeshua.com) So there seems to exist a rich and fertile area in which to develop a Messianic view of Torah. -- Avi 17:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think that's a worthwhile endeavor, however, I'm not so sure what would be the difference between Torah and a Messianic view of the Torah since the content of Torah would simply stay the same in such a transfer with only Messianic additions. I do see the reason in creating a separate article to act as a "buffer" in explaining that Messianics may refer to Torah or Tanakh or to Bible when saying "Torah," yet such an article does not exist yet. In Old Testament#The Torah-Submissive View this is an appropriate subsection describing one of the many views of Torah, however it's not inclusive of all views, and a link to that specific view is better placed as a See Also reference in Messianic Jewish theology. This brings us back to the current scenario: the intent of the inclusion of Torah in this template is to directly link readers to the foundational use of the term in Messianic Judaism, a term which is always inclusive of the information presented in the summary of Torah. What do you think? I can provide sources for this claim too. inigmatus 17:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Because of previous agreement, and because no one seems to want to provide a source proving that Torah is not relvant to Messianic Judaism, I am readding the link back to the template. Furthemore since Torah is not owned by Judaism, this point is not in dispute. 17:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)inigmatus
- The only reason this Template was allowed to be re-created after it was deleted via TfD was because you promised not to add items that were already on the Judaism template, which was the reason it was deleted in the first place. Please don't break that promise, or pretend agreement where there is none. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agreed to no such definition for this template. Show me where that was the condition for this template re-creation. Show me further where ANY template is defined as NOT containing links found on another template, unless you intend to include the main Judaism template on the Messianic Judaism page. There is no need to censor a template just because another religion's template contains the same links. Show me where THAT's a wikipolicy, anywhere. inigmatus 01:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_5#Template:Messianic_Judaism says the template should be deleted. WP:CSD#General_criteria CSD G4 says that the recreated template can be deleted immediately. The only reason the admins held off deleting it immediately was because of an understanding that the content would not duplicate the previous Template. If you insist on violating that agreement, then this template will simply be deleted, per CSD G4. Which would you prefer, the existing template, or none at all? Jayjg (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Jayjg, your threat here comes close to WP:WL. Since when did we stop discussing content (Torah), and start threatening legal procedures to shut this conversation down? Your behavior is not helpful to an honest and open discussion about the necessity of including Torah in this template. If you dispute the purpose for this template, or the validity of Torah as meeting a valid Primary Goal for this template, then please debate why it doesn't meet it. If you dispute a Primary Goal, then dispute that on the main discussion page. Otherwise, take your wikilawyering elsewhere and let's get to work on producing a useful template. For now, you have not produced any valid reason for not including Torah except for the recursive argument "it was deleted". Perhaps you can give an argument that will stand the test of common sense. Perhaps not. Until then, this item is still in dispute. inigmatus 19:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- On the contrary, your defences of this re-created template are Wikilawyering. Re-read the TFD discussion; we don't need POV forks of existing templates, which is why this one was deleted. Jayjg (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- From WP:POVFORK "POV forks usually arise when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) to be developed according to their personal views rather than according to consensus. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be nominated for deletion." Tell me now, how is adding the link Torah to this template, a POV fork when I'm attempting to get a consensus discussion started on it here in the first place before its even added to the template? Please explain. Better yet, start contributing to this current discussion so a resolution on this topic can be arrived at from non recursive means. inigmatus 19:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- This Template was a copy of the Judaism template. It was deleted in TfD, in which most of the delete votes objected to the redundant and misleading inclusion of various items from the Judaism template. Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_5#Template:Messianic_Judaism It was re-created against policy, and could have been deleted again immediately by any admin per WP:CSD G4. It was not, in the hope that those re-creating it would take heed of the reasons for deletion listed in the TfD, honor them, and instead create a template with items that were unique to Messianic Judaism, and thus avoid intersection with the Judaism template. If you do not honor that TfD decision, then I will delete this template, per WP:CSD G4. The reasons are very clear. Do you have any new points that you have not already made? Jayjg (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Instead of starting a revert war, and threatening 3RR (which would lead to my having your admin powers being reviewed as abuse), you could actually start by asking the last question you posted here first. Yes there are new points that I have not already made, however, I was waiting for the current points to be addressed. Currently this submission meets Primary Goals 3 and 4 as a separately named Messianic Torah page would be completely redundant with Torah. Do you agree or disagree? However, your disregard for constructively addressing the purposes of this template, or discussing submitted items that meet Primary Goal criteria, then you obviously disagree with the Primary Purposes of the template, then perhaps instead of nitpicking this one template item, why don't you voice your dispute about one or all of the Primary Purposes you disagree with and we can work from there more constructively than to waste time and energy throwing the wikilawyering book at each other? Or are you not really interested in seeing this template being improved - that you are instead just harassing the editors who are working on it? I would hope you aren't, and I am placing my faith that you aren't. But if you continue reverting and saying Torah is "not accepted" vs "see current discussion" when there is no consensus that includes any Messianic whatsoever, and discussion is still ongoing, then may it be on record that this is your refusal to address the issues brought up in this page, or the purposes of this template, in a constructive manner. I look forward to your reply. inigmatus 01:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- See previous comment. Jayjg (talk) 20:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Your previous comment does not address anything I just said. Perhaps you can clarify where in your previous comment is it noted as an answer to the question: "Currently this submission meets Primary Goals 3 and 4 as a separately named Messianic Torah page would be completely redundant with Torah. Do you agree or disagree?" And please, quit reverting my changes on the template discussion page since any final judgement to the inclusion of a particular item is to be by CONSENSUS only, and not by POV. These particular items have not been "not accepted" per consensus; and until you address my question here, Torah, and even Tanakh, are still being discussed. inigmatus 23:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- You're asking the wrong questions. If this template starts duplicating entries from the Judaism template again, it will be deleted, per WP:CSD G4. That was the consensus. Jayjg (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- If your only argument against including Torah on Template:Messianic Judaism is because it exists already on Template:Judaism, then as proof of your willingness to compromise, will you allow Template:Judaism to be listed on Messianic Judaism? Please note that your response to this question will be referenced in any future dispute about this matter. inigmatus 00:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- You're asking the wrong questions. If this template starts duplicating entries from the Judaism template again, it will be deleted, per WP:CSD G4. That was the consensus. Jayjg (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Your previous comment does not address anything I just said. Perhaps you can clarify where in your previous comment is it noted as an answer to the question: "Currently this submission meets Primary Goals 3 and 4 as a separately named Messianic Torah page would be completely redundant with Torah. Do you agree or disagree?" And please, quit reverting my changes on the template discussion page since any final judgement to the inclusion of a particular item is to be by CONSENSUS only, and not by POV. These particular items have not been "not accepted" per consensus; and until you address my question here, Torah, and even Tanakh, are still being discussed. inigmatus 23:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- See previous comment. Jayjg (talk) 20:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Instead of starting a revert war, and threatening 3RR (which would lead to my having your admin powers being reviewed as abuse), you could actually start by asking the last question you posted here first. Yes there are new points that I have not already made, however, I was waiting for the current points to be addressed. Currently this submission meets Primary Goals 3 and 4 as a separately named Messianic Torah page would be completely redundant with Torah. Do you agree or disagree? However, your disregard for constructively addressing the purposes of this template, or discussing submitted items that meet Primary Goal criteria, then you obviously disagree with the Primary Purposes of the template, then perhaps instead of nitpicking this one template item, why don't you voice your dispute about one or all of the Primary Purposes you disagree with and we can work from there more constructively than to waste time and energy throwing the wikilawyering book at each other? Or are you not really interested in seeing this template being improved - that you are instead just harassing the editors who are working on it? I would hope you aren't, and I am placing my faith that you aren't. But if you continue reverting and saying Torah is "not accepted" vs "see current discussion" when there is no consensus that includes any Messianic whatsoever, and discussion is still ongoing, then may it be on record that this is your refusal to address the issues brought up in this page, or the purposes of this template, in a constructive manner. I look forward to your reply. inigmatus 01:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- This Template was a copy of the Judaism template. It was deleted in TfD, in which most of the delete votes objected to the redundant and misleading inclusion of various items from the Judaism template. Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_5#Template:Messianic_Judaism It was re-created against policy, and could have been deleted again immediately by any admin per WP:CSD G4. It was not, in the hope that those re-creating it would take heed of the reasons for deletion listed in the TfD, honor them, and instead create a template with items that were unique to Messianic Judaism, and thus avoid intersection with the Judaism template. If you do not honor that TfD decision, then I will delete this template, per WP:CSD G4. The reasons are very clear. Do you have any new points that you have not already made? Jayjg (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- From WP:POVFORK "POV forks usually arise when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) to be developed according to their personal views rather than according to consensus. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be nominated for deletion." Tell me now, how is adding the link Torah to this template, a POV fork when I'm attempting to get a consensus discussion started on it here in the first place before its even added to the template? Please explain. Better yet, start contributing to this current discussion so a resolution on this topic can be arrived at from non recursive means. inigmatus 19:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- On the contrary, your defences of this re-created template are Wikilawyering. Re-read the TFD discussion; we don't need POV forks of existing templates, which is why this one was deleted. Jayjg (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Jayjg, your threat here comes close to WP:WL. Since when did we stop discussing content (Torah), and start threatening legal procedures to shut this conversation down? Your behavior is not helpful to an honest and open discussion about the necessity of including Torah in this template. If you dispute the purpose for this template, or the validity of Torah as meeting a valid Primary Goal for this template, then please debate why it doesn't meet it. If you dispute a Primary Goal, then dispute that on the main discussion page. Otherwise, take your wikilawyering elsewhere and let's get to work on producing a useful template. For now, you have not produced any valid reason for not including Torah except for the recursive argument "it was deleted". Perhaps you can give an argument that will stand the test of common sense. Perhaps not. Until then, this item is still in dispute. inigmatus 19:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_5#Template:Messianic_Judaism says the template should be deleted. WP:CSD#General_criteria CSD G4 says that the recreated template can be deleted immediately. The only reason the admins held off deleting it immediately was because of an understanding that the content would not duplicate the previous Template. If you insist on violating that agreement, then this template will simply be deleted, per CSD G4. Which would you prefer, the existing template, or none at all? Jayjg (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agreed to no such definition for this template. Show me where that was the condition for this template re-creation. Show me further where ANY template is defined as NOT containing links found on another template, unless you intend to include the main Judaism template on the Messianic Judaism page. There is no need to censor a template just because another religion's template contains the same links. Show me where THAT's a wikipolicy, anywhere. inigmatus 01:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- The only reason this Template was allowed to be re-created after it was deleted via TfD was because you promised not to add items that were already on the Judaism template, which was the reason it was deleted in the first place. Please don't break that promise, or pretend agreement where there is none. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Because of previous agreement, and because no one seems to want to provide a source proving that Torah is not relvant to Messianic Judaism, I am readding the link back to the template. Furthemore since Torah is not owned by Judaism, this point is not in dispute. 17:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)inigmatus
- I think that's a worthwhile endeavor, however, I'm not so sure what would be the difference between Torah and a Messianic view of the Torah since the content of Torah would simply stay the same in such a transfer with only Messianic additions. I do see the reason in creating a separate article to act as a "buffer" in explaining that Messianics may refer to Torah or Tanakh or to Bible when saying "Torah," yet such an article does not exist yet. In Old Testament#The Torah-Submissive View this is an appropriate subsection describing one of the many views of Torah, however it's not inclusive of all views, and a link to that specific view is better placed as a See Also reference in Messianic Jewish theology. This brings us back to the current scenario: the intent of the inclusion of Torah in this template is to directly link readers to the foundational use of the term in Messianic Judaism, a term which is always inclusive of the information presented in the summary of Torah. What do you think? I can provide sources for this claim too. inigmatus 17:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 3O: Torah is not "owned" by Template: Judaism
Torah is a link that is not WP:OWN by Template: Judaism, thus the inclusion of this item on Template: Messianic Judaism should NOT be based on whether or not it happens to exist on that template. The reason for this is quite obvious: Torah exists on many templates, such as Template: Books of the Old Testament, Template: Infobox Halacha, and to exclude one template from having a link to an article that happens to exist on another template, is not found anywhere in Wikipedia policies - especially in light of the fact that Template: Judaism itself is considered by the majority of Jewish editors on Wikipedia to be inappropriate for inclusion on Messianic Judaism and related articles, and since the Messianic Jewish editing community can't convince the Jewish editing community to allow Template: Judaism on Messianic Jewish related articles, the separated Template: Messianic Judaism is exempt from criteria that affects any relationship between the two. To allow such a criteria to be weighed in the inclusion of Torah with Template: Messianic Judaism is anti-Messianic Jewish, censors one group by a much larger group, violates WP:NPOV and goes against WP:OWN. inigmatus 00:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm here from third opinion. As much as I understand why there is a debate about it and I understand the reasons behind the opposition, I do think it should be included. I understand that a lot of Jewish movements feel that the Messianic don't use the Torah (or at least shouldn't), but more than a small number of them do. It really is only right that it exist in this template as well. --132 12:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- That's not what the debate is about. This template is the re-creation of a deleted template; it should be deleted right now under WP:CSD G4. The TFD discussion itself was quite clear that the reason for deleting the Template was that it duplicated items in the Judaism Template. So long as the current Template does not do so, I'm provisionally leaving it up. The second it starts overlapping the Judaism Template again, it will be deleted. Jayjg (talk) 04:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- So you're saying the reason for deletion of the Messianic Judaism template in the first place was because it overlapped with the Judaism template - so then, are you advocating that you'd be fine with the Judaism template being added to the Messianic Judaism article!? Awesome! I'll get to that right away if you are. If not, then tell me how deleting a template for its overlap with another template is a valid TFD reason when you would be saying the other template couldn't even be used in the first place! Furthermore, 3O agrees that Torah should be added to the Messianic Judaism template. What have you to say to that? Shall we take this to dispute resolution? inigmatus 19:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- What on earth are you Talking about? Please don't troll. And no, there's no dispute resolution necessary for CSDs. Jayjg (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Don't accuse me of trolling. WP:CIVIL in case you forgot how to discuss things in a productive manner. The TFD was not decided by consensus when none of any Messianic contributor's comments were taken into consideration in the final decision. A CSD will not resolve the necessity of a template to point readers of Messianic Judaism articles to other relevant articles. So far your only argument against including Torah on this template seems to be "because it exists on the Judaism template." If this is your only reason, then perhaps you support the addition of Template:Judaism to Messianic Judaism? Please respond. inigmatus 00:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- What on earth are you Talking about? Please don't troll. And no, there's no dispute resolution necessary for CSDs. Jayjg (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- So you're saying the reason for deletion of the Messianic Judaism template in the first place was because it overlapped with the Judaism template - so then, are you advocating that you'd be fine with the Judaism template being added to the Messianic Judaism article!? Awesome! I'll get to that right away if you are. If not, then tell me how deleting a template for its overlap with another template is a valid TFD reason when you would be saying the other template couldn't even be used in the first place! Furthermore, 3O agrees that Torah should be added to the Messianic Judaism template. What have you to say to that? Shall we take this to dispute resolution? inigmatus 19:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- That's not what the debate is about. This template is the re-creation of a deleted template; it should be deleted right now under WP:CSD G4. The TFD discussion itself was quite clear that the reason for deleting the Template was that it duplicated items in the Judaism Template. So long as the current Template does not do so, I'm provisionally leaving it up. The second it starts overlapping the Judaism Template again, it will be deleted. Jayjg (talk) 04:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
