Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-07-07 Shituf

Request details
To prevent the distortion of an article on a Jewish concept and to prevent editors from using non-Jewish (Christian) definitions of terms within the article. And to prevent editors from introducing a "Christian views" section into an article which is not about Christianity. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Who are the involved parties?

 * LisaLiel
 * Tim
 * Carlaude

What's going on?
There is a concept in Judaism called shituf. It refers to a lesser form of polytheism that is exempt (according to some rabbinic authorities) from the laws against idolatry.

This situation is complicated by the fact that Judaism views monotheism and polytheism differently than some other religions, such as Christianity, and views worship of a "Father", a "Son" and a "Holy Spirit" as essentially polytheistic, even though Christian theology sees this as monotheistic.

Tim has been insisting on reading Christian theology into this article on a Jewish concept and keeps misidentifying the issue by saying that the polytheistic worship Judaism condemns is condemned as well by Christianity.

Despite this fundamental disagreement, we recently reached consensus. The consensus was that we would use this version, but would make two changes.

Change #1 was that we would replace the initial paragraph with this:

' Shituf'' is the term used in Jewish law for worship of the God of Israel with an association of external powers, deities, or internal aspects. Any worship deemed by Judaism to fall short of pure monotheism is considered avodah zarah ("strange worship" or "idolatry"), and is forbidden both to Jews and to non-Jews, but shituf is a lesser form of avodah zarah which some rabbinic authorities consider to be permissible for non-Jews, since it does include worship of the One God of Israel.'''

And Change #2 was that we would add Trinitarianism, Tritheism and Arianism into a "See also" section.

In less than 24 hours, Tim with his accomplice Carlaude, has reneged on his agreement, and has proposed a "consensus" version of the article which includes a "Christian views" section. The "Christian views" section also explicitly calls Christianity a monotheistic religion, thereby forcing the Christian definition of monotheism into an article on a Jewish concept. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What would you like to change about that?
I want Tim and Carlaude to be prevented from making edits to articles on Jewish concepts which insert Christian concepts into them, particularly when Judaism differs with Christianity on such concepts. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediator notes

 * Case submitted. LisaLiel (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Administrative notes
Is this still in dispute? I'm trying to lessen the apparent load we have under open cases, so hoping I can close this. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The mediator never did anything to this case... and (I think) Tim took his dispute with LisaLiel elsewhere. -- Carlaude (talk) 18:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * sigh*
 * Thanks; closing. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
This mediation appears to have been entered in error. Lisa and I worked out the wording for a paragraph and a sandbox version of the Shituf article and I put it in a user-space sandbox with a link on the Shituf talk page. Carlaude made edits to the user-space version. I thanked him for the edits, but also added a second link on the Shituf talk page with a timestamped version that preceded any edits that had gone beyond the scope of what Lisa and I had agreed. Lisa apparently stumbled on my original link after I had put a second timestamped link and got Carlaude's edit instead of the one she and I agreed on.

There's not much to mediate about the article per se. There are three versions of the article floating around and I'm fine with whatever the consensus comes up with. Lisa was disagreeing with me at first and now she's disagreeing with someone else. I'm just content to retire from the discussion.Tim (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh -- for the record: Hope that makes the mediating easier...Tim (talk)
 * 1) I'm okay with this version on Lisa's space.
 * 2) I'm okay with this version on my space
 * 3) I'm okay with this version on L'Aquatique's space
 * 4) I'm okay with this Lisa edit on L'Aquatique's space
 * 5) I'm okay with this version in the main space

Current Version
Tim and Carlaude, what are your objections to the current version?--Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 15:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Shituf--"Reform Jewish views" under Christianity


 * Says "Moses Mendelssohn, the 18th Century Jewish enlightenment thinker, used the concept of shituf as cited in Tosafot to justify any form of association of God with another entity."


 * What Moses Mendelssohn seems to be referring to is Arianism (Tritheism) and mistaking it for Christianity, but this is not not made clear in the article. In fact the heading "Christianity" makes it misleading, as if it is Christianity. --Carlaude (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be WP:OR?--Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 18:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Mendelssohn considered it Christianity. If you disagree, that's fine, but this article is about a Jewish concept, and it has sources on that subject.  Critiquing the sources is something you can do on your blog (if you don't have one, I'd be happy to help you set one up), but it's not what Wikipedia is for. -LisaLiel (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * While this is Jewish concept, this it is not a Jewish encyclopedia.
 * Yes,however it still should be included.--Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 18:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that Mendelssohn considered Arianism to be Christianity-- and that Wikipedia does nothing but label it (actual) Christianity without another view available (the majority view) on its Christianityness-- is exactly the problem. --Carlaude (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ain, for what it's worth, my problem is the lack of an ability to work on a consensus with an editor who has to have the final word on everything. My only way to have peace was to give up and hide for a while, but this problem keeps following me from page to page.  As stated in the request, I'm to be stopped from editing on certain subjects anywhere and everywhere on Wikipedia.  Do I have a problem with the current version?  You know what, I stopped caring about the current version after it became apparent that only Lisa was allowed to have the final say on it, even in my sandbox, L'Aquatique's sandbox, Lisa's sandbox, and finally the page itself.  The final version in all four places is Lisa's.  We just stepped back and let her do whatever she wanted so we could have some peace.  And now it's followed me to the Gender of God article.  There was no problem until the day after I made my first edit in a Jewish subsection of that article.  Then, POOF.  Full scale edit war.  And even there I just had to walk away and let Lisa edit however she wants to edit.  The only edit I've dared make so far was to restore HER wording change in the intro that another editor turned into syntactical soup.Tim (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do not make personal attacks.--Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 18:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement of POV

 * LisaLiel, Tim and Carlaude, please tell me your religion.--Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 16:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure. --Carlaude (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm Jewish. And I reject the claim that Mendelssohn considered Arianism to be Christianity.  It may be, as Tim and Carlaude have argued, that a common Jewish view of Christian intent works out to be similar to an ideology called Arianism, but that doesn't mean that Mendelssohn had an opinion on Arianism at all.


 * Furthermore, as I've discussed on the Talk page of the article, Judaism doesn't care what Christian intent is. Worshipping a trinity is worshipping a trinity, whether Christians view it as three gods, three persons, three aspects, three functions, three dimensions, or any other thing.  Such distinctions are utterly without interest to Judaism, and one of my main reasons for starting this case was the fact that certain editors seem intent on forcing those distinctions into the Jewish concept of shituf. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Jewish.Tim (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Process

 * So is this it? Is this how "mediation" is suppost to work?


 * Again, this it is not a Jewish encyclopedia.
 * Even if Rabbinical Judaism does not care about belief, intent, etc. as you claim-- other people do!
 * Furthermore-- Wikipedia has no policy to justify a disregard of belief, intent, etc. in the setting up of headings and subheadings.--Carlaude (talk) 21:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it's not a Jewish encyclopedia. But it's a Jewish term.  I'm not about to go into the Trinity article and point out that Jews consider worship of a trinity to be idolatrous.  I'm not about to go into the Christianity article and point out that Judaism sees Christianity as a heretical sect that became malignant.  To do so would be offensive.  And unnecessarily combatative.


 * The comparison is a valid one. Christianity has taken terms from Judaism and represents them as meaning something that they never meant in Judaism.  But Wikipedia is not for battling about such things.  Even though Wikipedia isn't a Christian encyclopedia (just like it isn't a Jewish one), it's also not a forum for polemics or apologetics.


 * I don't like (personally -- as an editor I'm fine with it) the fact that Christianity claims that the Jewish messiah can be a deity. I find that incredibly offensive.  But I live with it, because on Wikipedia, Christianity gets to define its own terms.  If I want to object, I can create an article called Jewish objections to Christianity.  Or, you know, use the Christianity and Judaism article.  Or blog about it.  Similarly, if you want to create an article called Christian objections to Jewish understandings of what it means to worship a trinity, feel free.  But the Shituf article should not be a place for that kind of thing.  Hell, you might as well go into Talmud and create a section called "Christian views", because the Talmud says things that Christians might disagree with.  Sheesh. -LisaLiel (talk) 00:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem has to do with the normative meaning of terms. "Christianity" is well defined.  "Arianism" is well defined.  "Shituf" is well defined.  Each is okay in it's own microcosm.  To Jews, "Christianity" means something different than it does in its normative historical definition.  Jews apply "Shituf" to the term "Christianity" with the definition "Arianism."  That's not a problem while being limited to a Jewish audience, but in a common forum either the term needed to be changed, the definition needed to be changed, or a disclaimer of a term and definition mismatch was in order.  Fortunately, I was able to negotiate a broader definition wording so that it wouldn't EXCLUDE historically defined "Christianity" from a term being APPLIED to "Christianity" (an obviously illogical thing to do in a common forum).  Without the broadening of the definition, Judaism looks ridiculously ignorant.  Thankfully I was able to get enough comments from enough Orthodox Rabbis to get my wording into play.  But look at the overhead involved.  This actually took time out of the busy schedules of people who aren't even on Wikipedia!Tim (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to be rude, but making Judaism look "ridiculously ignorant" is not a reason to change content.--Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 18:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I could correct it to "unnecessarily" ignorant. That is, if it really is ignorant, fine.  If not, then why make it appear so?  Regardless, I think we've moved on from this issue.  On a personal note I've found that Conservative Rabbis I know seem more familiar with this issue than Orthodox ones -- and I think the reason is that Conservatives are more likely to question their own sources and practices than Orthodox Jews.  It seems reflected in written sources as well.  The only source Lisa or I could find that seemed to grasp the Christian side seemed unsatisfactory from the Jewish side -- and that source was Conservative.  In the end, it appeared that I was right that there were Jewish sources that actually grasped the issue from the Christian perspective, and Lisa was right that Orthodox sources do not see a need to do so.  I haven't looked at the article in a while, but if I remember correctly, Lisa included the normative (Orthodox) Jewish view in the header, and to account for Christians who would recognize the disconnect, she included a Conservative source (Novak) in a Conservative subsection.  If my memory is correct, that would have resolved the Wikipedia disconnect probelm (that is, the problem of a blatant contradiction of definitions between articles on Shituf and the Trinity). SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Additional Issues

 * I want to add one thing. When Tim agreed to the version of the article that's currently there, he said that I could take this MedCab case down.  I didn't, specifically because of Carlaude.  Because I knew that even if Tim was willing to compromise, Carlaude would keep fighting, and I wanted a ruling that would say that what he wants is inappropriate.  I hope that's how this ends. -LisaLiel (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * LisaLiel, what comparison? Also, is it true that you and Tim have settled your dispute? Also, I think that the links issue is a trivial issue.


 * Hi, I only found this page again because of the continuing dispute between Lisa and myself. This doesn't have anything to do with Shituf (which no longer has any of my or anyone elses's input past the third line, but was completely rewritten by Lisa ALONE), or Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms (which no longer exists), or about Gender of God which is now in close administrative watch because of yet another edit war Lisa initiated.  In each case the edit war and destructtion of collaboration on the pages happened when I had the audacity to add a source of some kind in a Jewish section of an article.  And for the record (since I see you asked above), I'm Jewish.  But Lisa continually and repeatedly slams me because I converted to Judaism and wasn't born Jewish.  In any case, it will take a few days going through all of the contrib history to document this.  I doubt it will do any good.  But this problem follows me from page to page and doesn't have anything to do with the "page" but apparently with my status as a Jew.Tim (talk) 09:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You can save yourself some time, Tim. I'll stipulate it, except for the part about me starting the edit war on Gender of God.  I simply made an edit, and you and Alastair were the ones who reverted it 7 times between you. -LisaLiel (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And I'd like to note two things. One is that Tim said explicitly that the version of Shituf that's there now is okay with him.  If he's taking that back now, it's hardly my fault.  The other thing is that Tim is now going around telling people that (a) I've asked in this case that he be prevented from editing articles on Jewish concepts, and that (b) this ban has been implemented.  It's obvious that (b) is untrue, but I hope Tim will take the time to reread what I requested above and see the difference between what I actually requested and what he is claiming (falsely) that I requested.  I have no problem with Tim editing articles on Jewish concepts, nor do I have any problem with him editing any other articles.  My complaint is his insistence in at least two articles on introducing Christian ideas into such articles and sections.  There's a place for just about everything on Wikipedia.  I want him and Carlaude to stop pushing Christian views into Jewish concepts. -LisaLiel (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * All I want is some peace. I want to edit in collaboration, without hijacking, wikilawyering, edit wars, and an endless array of distractions.  It creates a huge overhead for all involved.  Also, I want you to tell me what you're NOT interested in so I can edit in peace for a while.  So far my only recent success is in the Christian the lion article based on that charming documentary about the hugging lion.  And please don't get any ideas there!  Even if I'm relegated to some obscure corner of the internet where I can be safe, I want to KNOW it's safe.  I've been in about four edit wars now on different articles and they are all with you.  Please, just tell me where I can have some peace.Tim (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Tim's assesment of LisaLiel's practices: intense bullying, pointyness, and taking stands over issues that are purely POV. For example, Lisa says below, "I just don't want [something] content in articles about [something else]." That is basicly the definition of a POV article.-- Carlaude (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"Christian the lion". And you wonder why I bring up your background?

I can understand why you're touchy after what happened with the glossary. I'm sorry if you're still smarting about that, but I was hoping you'd come around to the view that the majority actually had a point in that case. Shituf, too. And the Gender of God thing... you have a chip on your shoulder, so when I fixed Alastair's bad edits, you assumed that I was aiming at you, and "shot back". You have yet to even acknowledge that I didn't take out the content you'd put in, and I know that by now you've seen that this is the case.

I'm sorry you felt that way. I'm sorry you're so angry about what happened in the other two articles that you're unable to apologize for jumping to conclusions in the third one. I wish there was some way to convince you that it's not you personally; that I just don't want Christian content in articles about Jewish concepts. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * On an aside, if you haven't seen the viral video on youtube, you should. I've given my own cat a lot more attention after the video, but he doesn't appreciate it as much as that darned lion did.  To be honest, I haven't reviewed that particular facet of the edit history yet.  It's possible that when I saw you making huge changes to a section I had just touched I assumed it was the same as before.  I would still like the Blech quote in the article because it's a darned good quote, and right on topic.  And I wish you could see that I've been striving for term and definition consistency on the encyclopedia.  That was the point of the glossary, and the point of the contention on the Shituf page.  Terms and Definitions either need to be consistent, or some kind of recognition of the mismatch should be made.  Religions are bewildering enough without misdirection involved.  Again, I just want some peace.  It took me a few months to get back up to speed after the shell shock of the glossary.Tim (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I have no idea why you think the Blech quote is gone. Yes, I moved it from a cquote into a ref, but it's still there.  He's referenced by name, with his entire quote given in the ref.  From the moment you posted that reference until now, I have never removed it.  Nor do I have any intention of removing it.  Can you please just look and see that it's there?  You don't have to even make a public admission that you were mistaken; it's enough that you recognize the fact. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's out of the body of the article, and the wording Blech has is better than our own wording. It shouldn't be hidden in a ref.Tim (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's discuss it on the Talk page of the article. I disagree with you.  I think that section has far too many quotes showing in the body already.  They belong in references.  And as it happens, that quote appears to contradict the one by Aryeh Kaplan (and the Reform one below), which it doesn't.  You talk about your concern for not confusing readers; I suggest that putting that quote in the body of the article (which will result in my having to do the same thing with the other two quotes) will simply make things a lot more confusing. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)