User talk:RK/Archive 6

Anonymous editor at Nation of Islam and anti-Semitism

The anonymous editor at Nation of Islam and anti-Semitism is still rather busy, and because he uses several different IP addresses is able to revert at least a dozen times. Currently he's deleting information from various sources, and trying to segregate statements from one leader into a special section (he previously tried to delete this information). Would you mind providing some assistance in bringing NPOV to the article? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can give a hand. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I dont know how to help. I suggest asking an admin to lock it. I will attempt. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wetman

I had a very brief dealing with him. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:27, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Khazars

Khazars has been nominated for Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates. Given your lively participation in Wikipedia Judaism-related issues, I thought this might be of interest to you. Your vote and/or comments would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! --Briangotts 16:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thimerosal

As a scientist, would you mind weighing in on the Thimerosal article? My main point is that the objections to thimerosal must be noted, even if they aren't "proven." --Leifern 16:15, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

Will do. Already have started editing slightly; I may have more to add later this week. RK

NPOV article?

a user clled RK edited my question out of the wikipedia NPOV file before it could be answered, if its you ( and im not sure) could you answer my question?

gabriel simon

You have confused me with RickK. And he moved your question from the article, to the Discussion page, as per Wikipedia policy. RK 18:37, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Jewish Philosophy

I read your introduction and I think it is pretty good. I am (sadly to say) somewhat out of touch with Jewish philosophy -- it has been a very long time since I read Saadia Gaon or Will Herberg or Franz Rosenzweig. I do have two suggestions though. First, I think when you lay out three basic approaches, you should name names (always a good idea). But this begs the question: when you refer to these three different points of view, are these points of view held by non-philosophers, or by philosophers? I think that both kinds of views should be represented, but I do suspect that how philosophers (I mean Jewish, but it is worth seeing if non-Jewish philosophers have addressed this issue. For example, Spinoza may be a Jewish philosopher who, however God-intoxicated he was, felt he had to break with Judaism. But while I am pretty sure Bertrand Russel would have scoffed at Jewish philosophy (as he scoffed at Christianity), what would Wittgenstein, Dewey, or Nietzsche have said? I can actually imagine each of them being sympathetic to the idea of Jewish philosophy. Wittgenstein saw all ways of talking about the world, including his own philosophy, as a "language game;" Nietzsche grounded his philosophy in his reading of European culture and history (why not see Jewish philosophy as a philosophy that grounds itself in the culture and history of the Jews? I think this is what Rosenzweig was trying to do, and maybe Fackenheim, and this approach does not require the philosopher to submit to "authority" (as Saadia did). Thise leads to my second suggestion, which is to call attention to the heterogeneity of philosophy. When you talk about people who believe philosophy and religion can be reconciled, what exactly do you mean by "philosophy?" Do you mean an existing philosophy, like Philo trying to reconcile with Plato, Rambam with Aristotle, Herman Cohen with Kant? Or do you mean "philosophy" in the abstract -- some idea of what philosophy is, or abstract criteria for determining whether something is "philosophical" or not? I realize that I am raising a bunch of questions you may think go far beyond the task of an introduction. This is why I said your intro is pretty good -- good enough to provide readers of the article with some general orientation. But I suspect that if any contemporary Jewish philosophers -- or secular philosophers -- read it, some would find it too much of a simplification. I hope you don't mind my being frank. I'd like to think that you and/or others over time can improve the intro. For now, I just have these concerns, but certainly no objections. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:20, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Steve, thanks much for your constructive criticisms. I agree with each of your points, and I have started working on clarifying this text in line with your suggestions. I am not making any edits on this point until I receive some feedback from a few of my peers on other forums. RK 01:25, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

--

dear Slrubenstein and simon, I'm very interested in the entire historical trajectory of Jewish philosophy, starting wth Philo, but I'm not nearly as well versed as I would like to be. I heard Emil Fackenheim speak once at the Institute for Christian Studies, Toronto; he was from the Philosophy Faculty of the University of Toronto across the street. So, I will try to keep abreast of your discussion and will look at the Wiki entry for Jewish Philosophy page with keen anticipation. It may take me some time even to return a very general remark like "Great" "Okay" or "Terrrible," as tho I had any standing to do so. All the best in getting started Slrubenstein. And thanks simon for leaving your calling card chez moi Reformatikos, assuming Slrubenstein's Jewish Philosophy was the reason you summoned me. Thanks to for some of the stimulating questions you ask, really probe.

Slrubenstein is just getting started, so we should allow him and people who will soon enuff add their own developments, to find their space and pace, I would think. Still, your comments are on the digital record, and I may want to take up a few in discussion. For instance, Spinoza is not either a Jewish philosopher (without nuance) nor a Dutch philosopher (without nuance), and these two categories can't be binomialized on the further grounds that we can also predicate of Spinoza that he was a pantheist philosopher and on and on. But there seems grounds to prioritize these three: Spinoza was a Jewish pantheist Dutch philosopher of Portuguese origin (Sephardim) in an Azhkenazi Jewish environment. More, what adjectival order would be most appropriate? pantheist Jewish Dutch of Portuguese Sephardim origin? or Dutch Jewish Portuguese Sephardi pantheist philosopher? The semiotics of the word order resi;ts om some quiet shifts of emphases, and a judgment on what it means for a rejected Jew to be closely identified as in some way - his own intentionality? - a Jewish philosopher - that would seem to be an implicate perhaps.

Another brief exploration. We could add to our adjectives for the esteemed pantheist, since he is Jewish, that he could be called a "pre-Holocaust" phliosopher. After the Holocaust Jewish philosophy began to be pursued in a major new way, without necessarily invalidating any of the old ways (altho some would argue contrariwise). But, more urgent, is the question of your question as to why not see Jewish philosophy as a philosophy that grounds itself in the culture and history of the Jews? But the very question carries a hidden presupposition: you rule out the possiblity of a self-standing Judaic philosophy earnestly in touch with and generating varieties of contributions and schools at once Judaic and philosophical. Indeed, there already exists tons of philosophy that never raises above the rich cultural and historical scholarship about Jews and by Jews. I could understand any Jews who said, "We want more!," more than "Jewish" philosophy, more than the philosophies of a thousand different humanist schools written by Jews, we want the More that is indicated by philosophies rooted in the problems and issues of Judaic faith in God and His Torah. Humanists should not so emphasize the nonJudaic commonplaces in Jewish culture and history whereby Mount Sinai is rendered a mere afterthawt. But if you wanted an example of what you're suggesting just go to Harold Bloom (Yale literary critic and friend of the former anti-Semite Paul de Man, his collegue on the Yale lit factulty). Bloom says that the Jewish religion after the Holocaust has a Moses - namely, Sigmund Freud, who in the few years before he died in England, wrote The End of an Illusion, which said in so many words that the Jewish religion was an illusion, like all others religions, except his religion of psychoanalysis thru which, Bloom says, Freud wrote the novels that make up his pseudo-scientific corpus. Reformatikos

Chabad (Lubavitch) Judaism

I wanted to hash out some things about your views re Chabad. First, I would like to know why you think it is important that some members of Chabad have very heretical ideas. This is not surprising to me in the least. I doubt that there is a single synagogue with a minyan in the whole world where there isn't a single person who holds clearly heretical views. Do you seriously believe your own synagogue is an exception? To go and find heretical views and misunderstandings in a huge movement full of baalei teshuvah is about as surprising as finding ants in a garden. Second, I want to know where you got your claim that the Rebbe's views regarding the role of the tsaddik are more controversial than the rest of Hasidim. Who exactly criticized him and how does he deviate from, say, Noam Elimelech? PhatJew

I am certain that every synagogue has members that have heretical beliefs - and we aren't even getting into my own personal theories about Jewish theology!  ;-) As to my ideas about Chabad, I originally got them from my own experiences as a regular in Chabad house for a number of years. Since then, my suspicions were sharpened by the many articles and books written about them, by religious scholars, rabbis, and even essays by ex-Chabadniks. These essays and books are cited within the Chabad article.

As for where I got my views that Chabad's new ideas about tzaddikim are heretical, I can only say that this is what many Orthodox Jews now believe. This dissension does not stem from the existence of quotes in their early literature on the topic. What really matters is how they now understand and explain such quotes. And their understandings of these quotes have caused other Orthodox groups to recoil in shock. I do not know of a single Chasidic leader who agrees with Chabad's views about the rebbe being God enclothed in a human form. And yes, I know that other Chasidic groups have similar sounding quotes within their teachings. But they do not understand these quotes in the way that many Chabad Jews now do. Similarly, Reform Jews and Orthodox Jews have similar quotes about the primacy of Torah in a Jew's life - but what is important isn't the quotes we can find here and there. What is more important is finding out how they understand and apply their teachings - and when we do so we find significant differences. RK 01:25, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

As to the first point: I am not denying that there are heretics in Lubavitch. I am asking why you feel this is somehow more important than those in your own synagogue? Why is this suddenly something that needs to be brought up in every conversation about Chabad? Why is Chabad so different than any other Jewish group? As far as the second point: how many Chasidic leaders do you know? How strong is your Yiddish? Chabad is extraordinary among Chasidic groups only in its willingness to translate its texts and beliefs for the common Jew. This is something that only Breslauv even comes close to. I'm sorry, friend, but you are making a very grievous mistake here. Not to mention the fact that you are sticking with the Ashkenazi community. Similarly "shocking" views are also deeply enmeshed in Sephardic writings. The groups that you speak of have recoiled at these ideas since the time of the Baal Shem Tov and possibly even the Arizal. This is nothing new. Just read up on the articles on Hasidism. If you pay attention to my editing to the Chabad articles, you will see that I have been trying to put this debate into its proper context. The people who are shocked and outraged at Chabad now are the heirs of the same people who were shocked and outraged at the Alter Rebbe over 200 years ago. There is a long history between Chabad and the various groups that are now issuing condemnations. It is sad that these fights keep on being fought so many years later. You have to take a good look at how you define heresy. The vast majority of Orthodox Jews don't really believe that Moshiach will come any time soon, even though that is clearly heresy, too.User:PhatJew

First off, you are confusing me with the leadership of Orthodox Judaism, and with many Jewish scholars. If I personally stopped writing on this issue, nothing would change. Secondly, you ask "why you feel this is somehow more important than those in your own synagogue?" Because no one in my synagogue worships Jesus or Menachem Schneerson as God, or believes that our synagogue's deceased rabbi is really "not dead", and will come back to rule the world. That is why this is so much more important than the skepticism of a few people in my own synagogue. RK

How are you defining the leadership of Orthodox Judaism? Is Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu not included in that? If you define Orthodoxy as everyone who agrees with you, then you will always be right. And, there are just as many people worshipping Jesus in your synagogue as there are people worshipping the Rebbe in Chabad. Just ask your Rabbi. There are plenty of "Messianic" Jews floating around. The "not dead" thing is from Tanya, if you haven't read it, you should. There is more skepticism because there are people finding new excuses for the same old fights they have been having forever. User:PhatJew

You also ask "Why is this suddenly something that needs to be brought up in every conversation about Chabad?" It is not sudden at all. For decades many Orthodox Jews have viewed Chabad as beyond the pale of any form of normative Judaism. This messianic movement has been long in the making, and this phenomenon is well documented. You also ask "Why is Chabad so different than any other Jewish group?" Please read the article, and the books and articles referenced within. It is considered very different because of their incessant messianism, and the way that a large faction of Chabad is developing into what is called neo-Christianity. RK 17:34, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

You realize that the incessant messianism traces all the way back to the cherem against the Baal Shem Tov, right? You also realize that the misnagdim lost that fight, but still are trying to fight, right? User:PhatJew

Oh Boy,

Check this out: Hinduism and Judaism Cordially yours, Slrubenstein | Talk 18:34, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re:Wetman

Wetman, in my experience, is not truly a troll, but he is a persistent and rather throughgoing secularist who sometimes seems to have an agenda to "debunk" religion. He is often quite articulate and can often make valid points. Sometimes he may have a "blind spot" caused by his secularism; his discussion with you may be an example of this. FWIW, Rlquall 03:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New: Template:Judaism

Hello. I've started a little project at Wikipedia:Sandbox/Template:Judaism as you can see...please help out in any way you can, or tell me why I should just stop it. :-p Tomer ^TALK 14:50, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

"Reverend" Cantor

Merlinzor (talk · contribs) aka 68.195.57.9 (talk · contribs) appears to have a particular fixation on Lawrence Eliezer Kepecs, Catholic-Jewish reconciliation, and the use of the term "Reverend Cantor". Would you mind looking at his recent edits and giving your opinion? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to get to this soon. I've been busy at home and at work for the last week, and for some reason Wikipedia seems awfully slow to respond to my edits today. I don't understand why anyone today would use the term "Reverend Cantor" for any Jewish cantor/hazzan. From my upbringing I know that a few Modern Orthodox congregations in the USA used this term briefly; my own Orthodox synagogue was led by the Reverend Battalion (a cantor) as well as by our (RCA) Rabbi, but this useage was not widespread in any of the Jewish denominations. This terminology seems to stem from its use in England. AFAIK, today this term is not used. We could mention its useage as a historical note in the articles on hazzans, but we should not use this when referring to an individual in any article. Its use today is a geographical and historical anachronism, and it can only cause confusion among readers. RK 14:39, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

David Ray Griffin

Rk, thanks for weighing in on the David Ray Griffin article. The material you deleted was simply abridged from book reviews reflecting the notions considered by Griffin. Perhaps the problems you perceive stem from a lack of distinction between the topics and the author's concerns about dampened coverage of these topics. Perhaps, rather than deleting mention of topics Griffin wants addressed, you could rephrase the passages? Ombudsman 00:06, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Chiropractice

RK, I happened to read some of the discussions in which you were involved regarding chiropractice. I just wanted to say that I believe you are a fair and intelligent individual. I wanted to compliment you and let you know that even we Anonymous Cowards appreciate the contributions you make to this community :-) -- 24.175.19.107 22:36, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. Some of the adherents of chiropractic medicine, homeopathy, and other forms of alternative medicine can be bullies, and it isn't easy for anyone to edit these articles. I stay here, however, on the hope that Wikipedia is slowly improving for the better. Our new policies, especially Wikipedia:Verifiability, help to weed out the worst edits. RK 14:18, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Evangelicalism

I am reverting the article on Evangelicalism to the most previous. The article goes from the historical to the most current. The 'common usage' you refer to is only specific to the U.S. where fundamentalism has been confused with evangelicalism. Fundamentalism is a subset of Evangelicalism. Not all adherents to Evangelicalism are Fundamentalists. I propose that the article goes from the historical to the current day description.

Robbie Giles 15:28, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Jesus

Care to check out the brewing revert war on Jesus concerning BC/AD -- and the stubborn comments by Arcturus and Rangerdude on Talk:Jesus? I think your input would be valuable. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV, help

Please look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate and consider voting, and perhaps responding to critical comments. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Need your opinion Nazi vs, German occupation

RK - let me know what you think (i.e., vote) here: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/German military occupation of Norway during World War II --Leifern 22:59, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

An award for you

This Hero of Belarus is awarded for your tireless efforts to improve Wikipedia.

You have faced vandals and endured edit wars and long-term disputes. You have contributed large amounts of content. Surely, there are few as deserving of this award as you.

lots of edits, not an admin

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. I understand you're currently under arbcom restrictions, but if you are ever in a position where you're interested in becoming an admin (even now), can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. I've marked you on this list as "restricted". Feel free to update this as well. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) July 3, 2005 18:25 (UTC)