| Revision as of 07:24, 29 June 2004 editIZAK (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers86,943 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:13, 29 June 2004 edit undoSlrubenstein (talk | contribs)30,655 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| :Slrubenstein:Many Misplaced Pages articles have started off far worse than this one has. To sit on the sidelines and sling mud at an article, especially by using an "expletive" that should be "deleted", in the context of a scholarly discussion is very sad. Maybe you should clean up your own act and wash your figurative mouth out with some soap and water before passing judgment on a subject about which you admit you know nothing. However, be that as it may, yes, this article, like tens of thousands of others on Misplaced Pages needs work and polishing, which it will invariably get eventually. Cool your heels. ] 01:39, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC) | :Slrubenstein:Many Misplaced Pages articles have started off far worse than this one has. To sit on the sidelines and sling mud at an article, especially by using an "expletive" that should be "deleted", in the context of a scholarly discussion is very sad. Maybe you should clean up your own act and wash your figurative mouth out with some soap and water before passing judgment on a subject about which you admit you know nothing. However, be that as it may, yes, this article, like tens of thousands of others on Misplaced Pages needs work and polishing, which it will invariably get eventually. Cool your heels. ] 01:39, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC) | ||
| I stand by what I wrote. As I wrote, I know something about this topic, and the article as it stands is at best misleading. It does not need "polishing," it needs massive correction, which will inevitably involve deleting much misleading or wrong material. ] | |||
Revision as of 21:13, 29 June 2004
I hate to say it, but this is a really crappy article. It does not specify who has the views provided -- many people or few, scholars or non-scholars, critical or orthodox, clerical or lay -- so it is fundamentally uninformative. The phrase "some people" in this particular context is laughable (ALL views are held by "some people"). Perhaps some narrow groups of people use "mystical vs. mythological" this way, but it doe snot seem to reflect sound schoalrship on Jewish mysticism, nor does it use the words "myth," "mythology," or "mythological" the way social scientists, historicans, or literary critics use the terms. There are some people active here who know more about Jewish Studies than I do, but I am fairly well-read for a non-expert and none of this makes any sense to me, so what value does it have for a wider audience except to misinform them? If there is some value to this article, then at the very least it needs much more context and specificity for it to make sense. I can't begin to improve it without just deleting it and starting from scratch, so if I have misunderstood the article as intended by the contributers involved, I hope they will work on this, soon Slrubenstein
- Slrubenstein:Many Misplaced Pages articles have started off far worse than this one has. To sit on the sidelines and sling mud at an article, especially by using an "expletive" that should be "deleted", in the context of a scholarly discussion is very sad. Maybe you should clean up your own act and wash your figurative mouth out with some soap and water before passing judgment on a subject about which you admit you know nothing. However, be that as it may, yes, this article, like tens of thousands of others on Misplaced Pages needs work and polishing, which it will invariably get eventually. Cool your heels. IZAK 01:39, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I stand by what I wrote. As I wrote, I know something about this topic, and the article as it stands is at best misleading. It does not need "polishing," it needs massive correction, which will inevitably involve deleting much misleading or wrong material. Slrubenstein