Talk:Sefer HaTemunah

"Inappropriate Tone" banner

I added an "Inappropriate Tone" banner to this article because it seems to be written with the assumption that the religious ideas in the article are, in fact, true. This seems un-encyclopedic.

For example, one passage in the article states that "This theory is supported by a quote from the Midrash", rather than "The author supports this theory with a quote from the Midrash" or "This theory is consistent with a quote from the Midrash". The quote as it is in the article assumes the Midrash is true and can be used to support the theory, while the two versions that I proposed both indicate the connection between the theory and the Midrash without this implied assumption. However, as I do not know about this particular fact myself and do not have access to the relevant source, I do not know how best to rephrase this.

The above is only one small example among many others. While it seems clear to me that these need improvement, I do not have sufficient knowledge to make many changes and still be confident that I have not distorted the intended meaning. Help would be appreciated. Augurar (talk) 04:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The article assumes nothing. The article is well sourced, there's no original research, and the readers are educated enough to understand what they read. If you could find sources about controversy, you are welcome to add a section, but please never tag DYK article without discussing it first. I removed your tag, because as for right now it is nothing more than original research. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I tweaked the wording according to User: Augurar's proposal.--PinkBull 05:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Great! Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I expressed myself properly. It seems (judging from your defensive tone) that you took my comment as some kind of personal affront. I apologize for this unintended happening. Due to this difficulty with communicating the changes I felt should be made, I have taken the risk of making some changes myself. Most of the changes were removal of weasel words and other phrases that I felt to be un-encyclopedic. I was somewhat limited in what I could change without further research, so I also added some "clarification needed" and "who?" tags so that someone with more knowledge can edit this. I feel that claims like "One Hebrew letter is missing altogether" need an explicit attribution, like "According to Joe Schmoe, one Hebrew letter is missing altogether", rather than just an inline citation note. Augurar (talk) 06:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all this is not a very good idea to tag an article during it appearance at the Main page.

So... articles are immune to improvement when appearing on the Main page? The tags are useful because they allow someone who knows about the subject to see that their help is needed. Tags also warn readers of which parts of the article are more or less reliable. Of course, fixing the issue is always the best, but tags are better than nothing. Augurar (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Now about your concerns. I will work on some of them, but the others are not my call. For example you questioned this statement: "Torah reads differently depending on which sephira the world is in" (How differently) How should I know how differently. If according to the author one letter of Hebrew alphabet is missing, and then it will be revealed, of course the Torah will reads differently, but for me to say how differently means to make an original research. I've removed your request for clarification there.

Whether or not you can clarify this statement, it needs clarification. In what way does the Torah read differently depending on the sephira? How, exactly, does the reading depend on this? What does "reads differently" even mean? Furthermore, who makes this claim? For these reasons, I put the clarify tag back. I will also add a talk page section to discuss this. Augurar (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

For "Some scholars say that this is the missing letter", I removed your because it is not specified in the source.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Not good enough. See WP:WEASEL. The assertion needs attribution beyond "some scholars". I put the "who?" back. Augurar (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

May I also suggest you remove your other "who"? It is not really important who exactly thinks what. What is important it is to show there are different opinions on the subject.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I still think this is important information based on Wikipedia's policies. Augurar (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

I'm removing the following from the article, as the sources are unreliable and/or redundant. Melchoir (talk) 05:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

As it is written in the Talmud, (Sanhedrin 97a,) "...Six thousand years shall the world exist, and one [thousand, the seventh], it shall be desolate…". In other words, "In this cycle the fields are planted and harvested for six years and left unplanted in the seventh year."

Until quite recently, the age of the universe as calculated by scientists was 15 billion years.

The Earth's paleontological records can also be explained using Sefer ha-Temunah, specifically the concept of the creation of the other worlds before Adam. This is taken to mean that the Torah teachings do not contradict science.

Sefer ha-Temunah posits that the world as we see it is incomplete, not because something is missing, but because human beings are not able to see everything. Learning to see the space around the letters is as important as seeing the letters themselves. In Sefer ha-Temunah the four-pronged Shin represents the next cosmic cycle, based on Chesed (kindness).

• Larry Gordon (July 12, 2006). "Zoo Torah". www.5tjt.com.
• "How Old is the Universe?". NASA.

Please never do such drastic changes before you discuss them at the talk page. I reverted all your changes.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Which part would you like to discuss? Melchoir (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to discuss all the changes you have made one change in a time, but right now I'm working on a new article that I'd like to finish first please. I hope you would not mind, if I an to return to this one tomorrow or later tonight? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure! Melchoir (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(independent)Okay, I removed this text "Sefer ha-Temunah posits that the world as we see it is incomplete, not because something is missing, but because human beings are not able to see everything. Learning to see the space around the letters is as important as seeing the letters themselves. In Sefer ha-Temunah the four-pronged Shin represents the next cosmic cycle, based on Chesed (kindness)" together with the source of course.

Now let's please talk about the sources starting with the easiest ones [1] and [2]

One is NASA site, the second one is the site of University of Michigan What's wrong with those two? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The domain name of a webpage doesn't matter. What matters is the process by which a text was composed and published, because we are asking the reader to trust that process. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html doesn't list an author. For all anyone knows, it was written by an intern in the press office with no review by scientists. http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm is merely a term paper written by a couple of students in the early 90s; it might have been graded, but it probably hasn't been corrected. If it resurfaces someday as a finished Ph.D. dissertation, then we'll consider it. Melchoir (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

At the bottom of NASA page there's a name Dr. Gary F. Hinshaw. Age of the Universe is using this source [3], but it is only an abstract. Will you prefer this one?

Scientists believed the Big Bang happened 15 billion years ago. It is a well known figure, confirmed by many sources [4];[5];[6] and so on. Would you like me to change the one I used for any one of those?--Mbz1 (talk) 01:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want to use the WMAP result, the obvious source is a WMAP journal article. I already did this. On second thought, though, this newer preprint is an even better source: http://arXiv.org/abs/1001.4538, which gives 13.75 +/- 0.13 Gyr. I'll make the change again.

The "15 billion years" figure is out of date. It should not be used in the present tense. Melchoir (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the article! Let's move on please.

Would be this source sufficient [7] for this quote "As it is written in the Talmud, (Sanhedrin 97a,) "...Six thousand years shall the world exist, and one [thousand, the seventh], it shall be desolate…"." to stay in the article? --Mbz1 (talk) 04:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

No, but one of these would be:

• Weiss, Herold, A day of gladness: the Sabbath among Jews and Christians in antiquity, Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, p. 27, ISBN 1-57003-468-0
• McArthur, Harvey K. (1971), "'On the Third Day'", New Testament Studies, 18, Cambridge University Press: 81–86, doi:10.1017/S002868850002350X

See the difference? Melchoir (talk) 04:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I could say I understand what you mean, but why to use the sources that repeat the original versus using the original the text of Talmud itself? Anyway if you would not like to use the source I suggested, maybe you will be OK with this one? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I take it back. http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_97.html is closer to "the original" than it first appeared! You could cite it like this:

• Freedman, H., Isidore Epstein (ed.), Tractate Sanhedrin, Hebrew-English edition of the Babylonian Talmud, vol. 19, London: Soncino Press, ISBN 0-900689-88-9. Republished as Carol A. Valentine (ed.), "Babylonian Talmud: Sanhedrin 97", come-and-hear.com, retrieved 24 July 2010

The original volume and year should be checked. Melchoir (talk) 06:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It was published on February 1, 1987. I will add it tomorrow with your permission, please. It is late, where I am now. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think 1987 is right... from http://www.come-and-hear.com/tcontents.html :

"SEDER NEZIKIN

35 volume Edition — 8 volumes — First Edition 1935

Reprinted 1952 — Reprinted 1956

18 volume Edition — 4 volumes — First Edition 1961"

Anyway, it's not a big deal, I'll just add what I've got to the article. What's next? Melchoir (talk) 08:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

(independent) I found that book here, and thought it is the date.

I removed this text "In other words, "In this cycle the fields are planted and harvested for six years and left unplanted in the seventh year." It could probably be found in some better sources, but I could live without it in the article.

What's wrong with this source [8]?--Mbz1 (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It's just some website that posts submissions from its readers. I don't consider it a reliable source, and I doubt http://www.jewishmag.com/8mag/worlds/worlds1.htm could have gotten published by a reputable publisher. The author line says:

• "Baruch (Brian) Crowley is the author of two books dealing with strange anomolies in NASA photographs of Mars that show what could be pyramids and what looks like a huge carved face staring out into space. Evidence for a former civilization...?"

To put it mildly, Crowley is not representative of the mainstream of thought on Kabbalah, the Talmud, or paleontology. At best, Crowley could be used as a primary source for what Crowley thinks -- but I don't think most readers will care what he thinks. Melchoir (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, how about this source [9]?--Mbz1 (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Much better! Here Kaplan discusses the writings of Israel Lipschitz. This history of ideas should be explicitly laid out in the article. Melchoir (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind doing it yourself please? You can do it much better than I could of course. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Very well. Let it never be said that flattery doesn't work on me. ;-) Melchoir (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Flattery? Not at all. I just read your user page: ""Melchoir" is an intentional bastardization of "Melchior". Like the wise man, I take male pronouns." ☺ (highlighted by me)

What do we have left?--Mbz1 (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that's it! I removed the remaining citations to the same works; no content removal was necessary to do so. Melchoir (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Past or present tense?

I am unsure of which tense to use when referencing Sefer ha-Temunah and/or its author. Should I write "Sefer ha-Temunah states" or "Sefer ha-Temunah stated"? Also, "the author believes" or "the author believed"? I looked at WP:TENSE but was unable to ascertain what is correct in this case. Augurar (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"the Torah reads differently..."

The article states that "the Torah reads differently depending on which sephira the world is in." This claim is unattributed and doesn't make sense to me. Can anyone clarify this? Augurar (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

page 222--Mbz1 (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I have incorporated this information into the article, hopefully in a readable way. Augurar (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)