Talk:Kabbalah

Reversion of recent good faith edits by User RavShaul

@RavShaul: I have had to revert your recent good faith edits to the last version by @Arjayay:. The main reason is that you have removed a large amount of text that is supported by citations and replaced it with text that is not supported by citations. This is a violation of Wikipedia policy. While you have noted that you are an expert in this area this is not a reason supported by Wikipedia policy to make the kind of edits you have made. The reason for this policy is that there have been instances of people coming to Wikipedia and claiming to be experts and making edits to articles without adding supporting citations. This has resulted in a lot of erroneous information being added and a great deal of damage being done to Wikipedia as a whole. See for example the Essjay Controversy. Wikipedia has no mechanism for establishing the veracity of the claims of people purporting to be experts. This being the case we must proceed using the body of published work as the basis for our edits. Please see Verifiability for more information on this policy. I encourage you to contribute to this article and will be happy to help you in making your edits meet the requirements of Wikipedia's policies. Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@MorganLeigh I did include sources. The sources were Daat Tevunot ànd Derech Hashem by Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto. Do not worry I do not have time to waste on edits on Wikipedia any more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RavShaul (talk • contribs) 07:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

No, RavShaul you did not cite any sources, you merely mentioned some names in passing. These are not citations which readers can check to verify the information, as this would require author, publication, date, page number and ISBN, or URL depending on whether the source was printed or on-line.
Furthermore, given that your additions and deletions were identical to those by the blocked 188.64.207.197 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), it appears that you are also guilty of WP:Block evasion, especially as the IP was blocked at 13.02 and you made your fist edit at 13.06. Arjayay (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Arjayay Derech Hashem and Daat Tevunot are easily available online. They are published by multiple authors. The works are a comprehensive discusion on Jewish Theology and according to Msaoretic (Orthodox) the only comprehensive works on the subject in clear languages, if you want to block me simply delete my acount. Oh that is right wikipedia.does not allow users to delete their accounts. The truth is the content offends you because I dared to say one must be a Jew to be considered practicing The Jewish Kabbalah Tradition, which is of course sourced in Derech Hashem. Because Derech Hashem is comprehensive the entire book is needed to be read to understand my statements. Sadly I realize that wikipedia is simply a matted of opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.19.85.213 (talk) 11:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for new WikiProject

At Wikipedia: WikiProject Council, I have made a proposal for a new WikiProject - WikiProject Mysticism. Since the Kabbalah is linked with Jewish mysticism (indeed, the article on Jewish mysticism has wikilinks to Kabbalah, I wonder whether any readers or editors of this article would be interested in my proposal? Vorbee (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Relations with Mandaeism

I would like to copy the section from Mandaeism regarding the relation with Kabbalah found here into the article. The information from Nathaniel Deutsch, R. J. Zwi Werblowsky and Marek Vinklat would be useful. Please comment if you have concerns. Mcvti (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

From Mysticism to Magic?

Maybe there should be a section when, where mystical Kabbala moves into Maigical (practical Kabbala).

Also when Kabbalistic talismans were first used or the oldest known Kabbalistic talismans.

~~ Ted ~~ 2607:FEA8:4A2:4100:6176:95AF:D85D:D9C1 (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Woeful lack of verification

This article is a disastrous mess of quite possibly largely unsourced or at least poorly verified or single-sourced material, let alone getting onto the issue of needing secondary sources to provide an analytical overview and lend weight to primary ones. There are fundamental WP:V failings – a situation made doubly woeful by the subject's status as a significant, vital topic. Unless the more woeful issues with under-sourcing are addressed, the only reasonable course of action will be the deletion of some pretty large tracts of the page. A certain amount of judicious trimming is also demanded by the page's current length, which is close to 90kB of readable prose, and thus also presents overall length issues per WP:TOOLONG. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)