Talk:Messiah in Judaism

Change in Historical Views: Talmud

I made a change in Historical Views: Talmud. It was written there: He [Elijah] answered him, 'This is what he said to thee, To-day, if ye will hear his voice.'

"if ye will hear his voice" is not the meaning of the sentence. It is a sentence taken from a verse in Psalms 95;7: "today if you will listen to his voice".

The true meaning of the sentence is "listen to his voice", it is also the only right translation there is.

It means to obey, to listen to what G-d says to you and do what he tells you to. Not to hear his voice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.167.80 (talk • contribs) 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Missing discussion of Haymanot

The article addresses the role of the Messiah in various sects/denominations of Judaism. But it does not address Haymanot (tradition of Beta Israel).

Missing Daniel 9

This is completely missing the historical calculation of the Messiahs coming to around the first century AD using the Daniel 9 prophecy, which at that time was huge and resulted in many messianic claimants (including Jesus) and 3 catastrophic messianic wars. For example where is Bar Kokhba? He was considered the Messiah by the leading rabbi at the time. This is a big part of history so idk why it's not included in a supposed encyclopedia unless the goal here is present ONLY the modern Jewish perspective and ignore all of history. 173.230.28.18 (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, where is the cross-reference or discussion of Sabbatai Zevi, also wildly hailed to be the Messiah? 173.230.28.18 (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Claiming to be the Messiah was a great move for mobilizing revolt by rabblerousers. And, remember: if one succeeded in liberating the Holy Land, he was truly the Messiah. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

add picture of jesus christ

this article needs a picture! 2600:8806:6505:7100:847B:785C:1421:F53D (talk) 02:24, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Jesus is not the Messiah in Judaism. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

A picture of Graham Chapman, perhaps...? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:46, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

But he was just a very naughty boy. But seriously, not at all sure about the rationale for this in this article. Is it on the basis of it being a representation of the Jewish rejection of Jesus as messiah? In which case a more explanatory caption might help. DeCausa (talk) 09:04, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

TBH, part of the basis is that I thought this article could use a picture or 2. I thought this one was ok since it conflates Jesus and Judaism a bit, though it's of course based on NT. Category:Paintings of the public life of Jesus Christ has more to pick from. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:38, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I might be overthinking it, but it might come across as insensitive (or Christianity-centric?) having a pic of Jesus in this particular article unless it is to specifically illustrate the Jewish rejection of Jesus. That, after all, is the only relevance of Jesus here. DeCausa (talk) 09:53, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Since the section on him is reasonably substantive, I don't think a picture in that section increases Christianity-centric-ness very much, but that's me. This is subjective, but I think the current pic can be seen as less insensitive than something like a Ecce homo painting, which arguably illustrates Jewish rejection of Jesus. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:04, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I think that would definitely look provocative! DeCausa (talk) 10:09, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

i think the concept of "rejection of jesus" comes from a foundational misunderstanding that is rooted in a double bind. The concept of maschiach wasn't singular, and around yeshua's time, melekh ha-maschiach had more precedent in conversation, with the bar kokhba revolt and other related incidents there were many attempts to "table-set" in a way for a "melekh ha-maschiach" to happen. It would be inappropriate to foreground what is, at its core, understood to be a foundational misinterpretation of jewish texts, even if the christian tradition is rooted in judaism. Reminder, even if it's popular, if it isnt verifiably rooted, it leans towards promotion of Wikipedia:Fringe theories and attempting to legitimize what exists as a separate tradition for a reason as more of a central voice to the jewish tradition than it has been asserted by *anybody* but christians and sympathizers.

remember, there was a war surrounding this, and with the lack of *jewish literature* that describes yeshua, we cannot formally verify that this tradition is rooted in judaism aside from its inclusion of the "old testament."

remember, anybody who attempts to call themselves the sole arbiter of truth foundationally violates the humility required *by study* of torah, let alone rooting another tradition in it.

Jesus being *a jew* does not make him infallible to miscommunication and misinterpretation, also known as being "lost in the orchard."

And finally: being “provocative” is not an editorial guideline. if anything, the impulse to insert such imagery evokes a longer polemical history—the same one that brought us the censorship of the Talmud, and theological coercion.

It doesn't sound neutral to me to promote a fringe theory as central or relevant to the degree you suggest to a tradition that has long disavowed it.

Is this an attempt at retaliation? Who exactly do you wish to "provoke" with this article? Housemousemarie (talk) 23:01, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Who is this directed at? It's incomprehensible and irrelevant to anything that's appeared in this thread. DeCausa (talk) 10:15, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I think it's a language issue? You agreed that adding a picture of the Ecce Homo painting would be 'provocative' (with the implication that is a negative) and HMM somehow thought you meant it would be a good thing and you wanted to do it.

Same thing happened to her when I described an essay as 'interminable'. She apparently thinks that is a threat of violence (against the essay?).

WP:CIR - a certain level of English comprehension is needed for someone who wants to contribute to the encyclopedia MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Why does an article on the Messiah in Judaism need a picture of Jesus? GothicGolem29 (talk) 00:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

No article technically "need" pics, but there is a large section on Jesus in the article, so it's not unreasonable to have one. Perhaps it would be a good idea to mention more people from List of Jewish messiah claimants in the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough maybe as you said more people from that list should be mentioned and then some more pictures added so its not just jesus. GothicGolem29 (talk) 12:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Proposed Re-Evaluation: Archetypal vs. Singularist Framing of Moshiach

While the article currently describes the Jewish messiah as a singular future redeemer, there is growing scholarly and community-based interest in understanding moshiach as an archetype rather than an individual. This perspective situates messianism within a broader relational and spiritual context, reflecting historical and textual fluidity prior to the crystallization of a singular redeemer figure under Roman imperial influence. The Hebrew term moshiach (anointed) functions more like an adjective than a proper noun in earlier texts, often applied to kings, priests, and prophetic figures. The subsequent translation into the Greek Christos introduced objectifying tendencies that solidified messianism as a singular ontological role—arguably more a product of syncretism and colonial theological framing than of Jewish tradition itself. Would it be appropriate to reflect this interpretive range fully within the main article, given this is an article about jewish messianism rather than christian? Including both the singularist and archetypal understandings could enrich readers' grasp of Jewish eschatology’s diversity—especially given its evolution through historical trauma, linguistic slippages, and imperial pressures. Housemousemarie (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

This is not how Wikipedia works. You need to do the following: (1) per WP:V produce sources that meet our WP:RS criteria which explicitly supports your assertions (2) establish that those sourced assertions meet the WP:DUE requirement (3) gain editor support for their inclusion per WP:ONUS and WP:CONSENSUS. Pending that, I've reverted you. DeCausa (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I’ve reinserted the phrasing with citations from established scholars in Jewish mysticism and historical theology—including R.J. Zwi Werblowsky, Jacob Neusner, James Kugel, Gershom Scholem, and Moshe Idel—who have written extensively on the diversity of messianic thought within Judaism, particularly the tension between archetypal and literal interpretations.

To be clear, this isn’t fringe speculation, but an attested scholarly perspective that predates and critiques the later crystallization of messianic singularism—especially under the pressures of Greco-Roman ontological frameworks.

I’m fully open to collaboration on phrasing or sourcing to meet WP:RS and WP:DUE. But I’d caution against framing the archetypal interpretation as undue when, historically speaking, it represents one of the original and deeply Jewish conceptualizations of moshiach.

Let’s aim not for dogmatic consensus, but for epistemic range. Housemousemarie (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Don't revert again. You need to read the links I've already given you before go any further otherwise you'll just end up blocked. We have have policies that we all have to follow if we want to edit here. DeCausa (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Understood. I have followed WP:V by citing multiple scholars—Scholem, Idel, Neusner—whose work is foundational to the study of Jewish messianism and clearly supports the archetypal framing. The reversion of sourced, good-faith edits without engaging the content itself or offering counter-sources seems inconsistent with Wikipedia's collaborative ethos.

If there are specific concerns about the reliability or relevance of those sources, I’m happy to discuss them in detail. But threats of blocks for engaging in sourced dialogue come across less as policy enforcement and more as gatekeeping. I’ll leave this here for now, but I hope we can return to collaborative discussion when there’s room for dialogue. Housemousemarie (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

You need to propose inline citations with page numbers. Names of authors in an edit summary doesn't work here. You also need to argue that this is a preponderant view. And have you read WP:ONUS. This is just the regular way we all edit. DeCausa (talk) 22:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely—thanks for the clarification. I’m in the process of formatting inline citations with page numbers drawn from published works by Scholem (The Messianic Idea in Judaism, p. 1–37), Idel (Messianic Mystics, esp. chapters on archetypal messianism), and Neusner’s works on Second Temple diversity. These scholars do not represent fringe views but foundational perspectives in Jewish historiography and mysticism.

While the archetypal framing may not be preponderant in modern lay discourse, it reflects deeply Jewish interpretive traditions and precedes Roman imperial singularism. Including this alongside the dominant reading would reflect WP:DUE and offer fuller historical nuance. I'm happy to continue this collaboration—truth emerges best when plural views are permitted to breathe. Housemousemarie (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I’d also like to respectfully note that while I’ve provided citations from foundational scholars in Jewish messianic studies, no alternative citations have been offered to substantiate the reversion or to support a singularist framing as the exclusive or preponderant view.

Per Wikipedia’s collaborative ethos and WP:CONSENSUS, the burden of refutation is reciprocal—especially when edits are made in good faith, sourced, and reflect historically attested interpretive strands.

If consensus is truly the goal, shouldn’t multiple views be presented proportionally, with sources on both sides? Otherwise, we risk reverting not because a perspective lacks validity, but because it disrupts a preexisting narrative. Housemousemarie (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

The existing text stands and those that want to change need to gain consensus support for the change. That's the essence of WP:ONUS and WP:BRD. While the archetypal framing may not be preponderant in modern lay discourse, it reflects deeply Jewish interpretive traditions sounds like it's going to be a problem in Wikipedia terms. It's unlikely that "deeply Jewish interpretive traditions" will be included in Wikipedia's voice and certainly not in the prominence you gave it in your edit. But set out your arguments here and see if you can gain WP:CONSENSUS support. That's the way it's done. DeCausa (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

“The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.”

While I’ve cited multiple reliable sources to support my addition, I’d respectfully note that the original singularist framing likewise demands citation if it is to be maintained as exclusive. Wikipedia’s policies do not exempt preexisting content from WP:V or WP:DUE scrutiny.

Moreover, reversion without engaging the substance of the argument—and without offering counter-sources—suggests an uneven application of editorial standards. Threats of blocking for good-faith edits, especially when citations are forthcoming or already provided within the preexisting article body, even if not the specific edit itself, risks inhibiting policy-guided discussion.

When engaging with historical concepts embedded in ongoing traditions, it's essential not to conflate prevailing modern perceptions with the consensus of voices within the tradition itself.

This is especially true in contexts—like Jewish messianism—where imperial disruption, theological syncretism, and modern interfaith polemics have shaped the discourse in ways not always reflective of internal developments.

I remain committed to WP:CONSENSUS and welcome discussion on how best to reflect the interpretive range present in the sources cited. Housemousemarie (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

No, you're not getting it. The existing text is deemed to have consensus support and stays until there is a new consensus i.e. if you want to change it you need to establish a new consensus. To do that you need to do these things:

1. Produce citations with page numbers against text that you want to put forward. To be clear, you have not done that.
2. Provide evidence that what you want to say is the preponderant view - because that's the way you've presented it in your edit. To be clear, you have not done that. If it's a minority view it still may be possible to include it in the article - but not in the way you have. You have to make it clear what its status is.
3. Once you have done 1 and 2, persuade your fellow editors to agree with you. To be absolutely clear, the onus is on you as the editor that wants to make the change.

Hopefully, that's clear now what you need to do. DeCausa (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Yup, while some scholars have described the Messiah in terms of "archetype", it is by no means the mainstream academic view.

And, no, Jewish scholars are not excluded from being part of the mainstream academic view. I mean: scholars like Shaye J. D. Cohen and Joel S. Baden hold mainstream academic views, and are employed by the Ivy League.

Morals: when there is a significant minority view, we render it somewhere in the body of the article, but we don't present it as the truth in the voice of Wikipedia. E.g. I searched Google Books for "messiah archetype neusner" or "messiah archetype scholem" (without the quote marks). I did not dig really deep, but the results I saw aren't promising.

"Adam was an archetype." What does it mean? A Jungian archetype? Or that Adam was the first of his kind (i.e. what archetype originally meant)? Or does it mean that Adam was a very typical man? This has to be explained when using the word "archetype". tgeorgescu (talk) 13:22, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

You are resorting to quoting out of context? A single phrase does not mean much when divorced from the wider arguments in the book or chapter which contains it. Dimadick (talk) 00:59, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Exactly, this.

While scholars like Scholem, Idel, and Neusner may not use the exact phrase “archetype” in a way that lends itself to quick keyword results, their full treatments of messianism clearly contextualize “mashiach” more as a descriptor—a role or attribute—than as an ontologically fixed individual. Their analyses often trace how the term functioned fluidly across different periods, texts, and intentions.

That’s not to deny the development of a singular messianic figure, particularly in post-war theological frameworks, but it would risk violating WP:NPOV to disproportionately foreground what was historically a later crystallization over earlier—and well-attested diversity of interpretation.

There’s an ancient precedent within Jewish theology for archetypal framing (e.g., Adam, Moses, even Israel itself). The distinction between “mashiach” and “ha-mashiach” is not just grammatical—it’s central to the interpretation of subsequent events. To conflate them without acknowledging the discursive and historical gap would be to impose a modern theological lens on a far older conversation.

Just to clarify: the concern here isn’t about whether Jewish scholars are part of the “mainstream academic view” (of course they are), but rather about how historical complexity within Jewish thought is often flattened when filtered through frameworks—academic or theological—that presume ontological singularity as a default.

Within Jewish tradition itself, and as reflected in the Gemara and broader exegetical literature, there is a rich precedent for interpretive plurality as an honored part of meaning-making.

In this light, it would be dogmatic to treat the notion of a singular messiah as the only valid expression of Jewish messianism as even a few words later in the article messiahs are mentioned as a plural. It would also neglect the fact that interpretive diversity—including the archetypal framing—already appears within both the "Messiah" article and this one.

My suggestion is not to radically reinterpret the tradition or article, but to more accurately represent the multiplicity of views that have existed historically, rather than asserting that one formulation is more “correct” than the sources can support.

Doing otherwise imposes an externally derived conceptual rigidity upon a tradition that has long negotiated these categories with nuance and care. A balanced article should reflect that history—not collapse it.

It’s also worth underscoring that this article focuses specifically on messianic concepts within Judaism. While later theological traditions may offer convergent or divergent readings, the intent here is to reflect how the category of mashiach developed within Jewish thought, across time, genres, and denominational contexts. Housemousemarie (talk) 03:32, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

That Judaism had and has a diversity of views: granted. That there could be one or more Messiahs: granted. What I cannot grant is using (Jungian) archetype without proper sourcing. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:33, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Adam was an archetype. was only an example for why it is needed to define for our readers what "archetype" means. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think it’s fair to conflate any use of the term “archetype” with the Jungian model—though I appreciate the caution, and I’m entirely open to refining the language. My aim isn’t to assert a final formulation, but to keep us from retrofitting later interfaith interpretations into the foundational Jewish tradition. If that means describing the messianic idea adjectivally or with another term, great. I’m happy to collaborate on language that preserves nuance without overstating any singular reading.

The key point here is that within early Jewish thought, the idea of a singular, ontologically fixed messiah doesn't arise until after the Jewish-Roman war. Framing it otherwise risks obscuring the historical forces—often political—that shaped that development.

Just to clarify: I didn’t describe Adam specifically as an archetype, though I understand how broader scholarly trends might lean that direction. When I say “archetype,” I mean a typological function, a conceptual role—not a Jungian universal. Suggesting that “messiah” originates in its later formulation, ha-mashiach, or even suggesting the latter term was not rooted in this paradigm, elides crucial linguistic and historical distinctions—especially given its theological parallels with Christos, which was explicitly singular. Whether this suggests a mistranslation or otherwise is hotly contested, so on that front I'll relent, but the point stands that it would not be consensus to dismiss the points I've raised, even if there is still room for negotiation on the exact wording, the point is to raise the conversation.

And to be clear, none of this is original synthesis. The view that Jewish messianism historically encompassed a plurality of meanings—some typological, some national, some eschatological—is not new, nor is it unique to any one interpreter. Foundational scholarship by figures such as Gershom Scholem, Jacob Neusner, and Moshe Idel reflects this multiplicity in both thematic scope and historical analysis. This framing aligns with WP:NOR, as it simply presents what reliable sources have already articulated: that messianic language in Judaism evolved within distinct theological, cultural, and political contexts. The suggestion to clarify language around “messiah” or “figure” is an attempt to more faithfully represent the range of interpretations documented in the secondary literature.

The gap between the Jewish conceptualization of messiah and what WP:Fringe_Theories addresses is vast. Even if certain later theological constructs became influential enough to birth new traditions, anchoring them too tightly within this article would shift focus away from Jewish messianism itself. This is why I’d support a separate article to trace those later theological appropriations—while keeping this one rooted in the diverse, multivocal sources of Judaism.

As it stands, the current phrasing leans toward a theological retrojection that risks collapsing one of Judaism’s most interpretively rich concepts into a singular mold it was never meant to fit. It’s worth considering how certain framings may reflect post-event theological consolidation rather than representing earlier consensus. Housemousemarie (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

As of now, I have (re)instated the disputed information tag. Despite the personal belief of user DeCausa, the use of the tag is not to advance personal opinion, but in response to the dispute raised here. Please do not revert good-faith edits rooted in dispute without first ensuring the dispute is entirely resolved as per WP:Consensus. Just a reminder, you cannot remove this tag unilaterally, and doing so risks future necessity of administrator involvement. Housemousemarie (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Two issues:

1. WP:BURDEN has not been fulfilled;
2. this accusation of "Singularism! Singularism!" is based upon a severe misreading of the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:14, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I find your personal opinion on my read to be reductionist and neglectful of your concession quoted directly here: "That Judaism had and has a diversity of views: granted. That there could be one or more Messiahs: granted. What I cannot grant is using (Jungian) archetype without proper sourcing."

I'm not suggesting a reinterpretation—I’m suggesting we remove the interpretive framing that overrepresents one later lens as central, being a titular "The" messiah; as that term is reflective of the term melekh ha-maschiach, which aligns more with the modern Western conceptualization of a messiah. But to frame it as the central Jewish understanding gives undue weight to what is commonly accepted to not be a widely held view, even for its time, with messianic discourse central to the schism between temple and rabbinic Judaism.

I'm not "severely" or otherwise misreading the article, you may be misreading my dispute—or worse, intentionally reframing it to avoid addressing its core.

I've assumed good faith this far, but you are resorting to narrow framing to dissuade from disputing the concept of a titular "The" messiah as central to Jewish discussion of the concept.

So far, there are a few more than two issues with your argument:

1: the burden not being fulfilled *yet* does not mean the information is not disputed, or that the developments we've reached satisfies consensus based on prior consensus. It's not about saying "maschiach ben david and ben joseph were never characters to begin with!" it's recognizing the weight those figures were given by later figures from outside of the tradition, sometimes in the name and wake of war, and other times in expectation or preparation.

2: If you disagree on the exact wording, instead of resorting to reductionism, recognize I do not suggest the multiplist view should take precedent *over* the singularist view, as you seem to suggest, I'm only suggesting that we don't overemphasize what was only discussed by a few sources within the larger library of messianic literature. This means that, given the word "figure's" lack of inline citations, it too would be grounds for removal via dispute, and thus, we need to negotiate the rewording, or somebody needs to find verifiable sources that suggest the use of "The Messiah" as reflective of the term maschiach and not particularly melekh ha-maschiach.

3: You've already relented that "messiah" can refer to more than one person within the context of jewish tradition, and so, attempts to maintain the status quo and call policies without attempting to *improve* the argument in terms of the neutrality you criticize it as lacking only serve to further your non-response, we've already established that I'm not looking to radically reinterpret the article, only to call for reflection of the nuance already present in other articles on the subject that discuss the jewish lens.

4: When you say "E.g. I searched Google Books for "messiah archetype neusner" or "messiah archetype scholem" (without the quote marks). I did not dig really deep, but the results I saw aren't promising." It's incredibly clear that you looked for buzzwords instead of addressing the underlying issue, that being "the messianic conversation within Judaism." Whether this is a minor language barrier issue or otherwise, I'm not sure, but the point stands that the way that Neusner and Scholem describe the *concept* or surrounding environment of the formation of maschiach, while maybe not using the word "archetype" directly, they clearly give more nuance to the earlier interpretations of messianism without imposing later assertions as definitive in their treatment.

5: You are incredibly precise; And that doesn't go unnoticed in its application (or non-application) to certain areas of debate. You've used semantics more as a way to dismiss criticism than to negotiate a better consensus understanding, and by that metric, bring your points of focus into question. You feel partial to singularism. Great! Let's negotiate a middle ground that satisfies consensus rather than attempt to attack any criticism as personal opinion. As hard as it is sometimes, we're meant to Assume Good Faith, and attempt to negotiate per the terms of WP:Consensus. And no, silence does not equal consensus, especially on topics as sensitive as this. Housemousemarie (talk) 08:47, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

You might want to consider WP:TEXTWALL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:51, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I hear you, don't get me wrong, but when people render intentionally loaded statements such as "this accusation of "Singularism! Singularism!" is based upon a severe misreading" It's impossible to address the depth without getting into a text wall. If you'll bear with me, by reading the discourse you can see the circular reasoning employed, and it has to be addressed accordingly. I think the article you linked puts it best, "Simplest is just to ignore it if it's not relevant to you."

Read a single page of the Gemara, any page, come back, and tell me that walls of passage-driven debate, just like this, are not central to discussion and exegesis of Jewish tradition, and that difficulty to traverse them is less than a method of ensuring higher-quality discussion.

Besides, if brevity guaranteed clarity, we'd have resolved Pirkei Avot in a single tweet by now. Housemousemarie (talk) 09:06, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Fwiw, I've never heard of Pirkei Avot. But I have on occasion reflected that understanding of WP policies and guidelines (and essays) is not always unlike understanding of other extensive texts like the Talmud etc. Happy editing! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:22, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's all about the process, not the destination, and, at the end of the day, we're all here to cultivate better understanding. Thank you for your input, and happy editing to you too. :)

Housemousemarie (talk) 09:48, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

At this point, does anybody have any counter-arguments, or is the consensus that we need to wait until someone comes along to strengthen the neutrality of wording?

I'm open to collaboration on how exactly we do that, but, unless somebody outlines a decent argument with inline citations that trace back to the primary source prove this conflation between maschiach and melekh ha-maschiach as more than a modern and interfaith retrojection, I'm going to have to reinstate the {{disputed}} tag, as it would violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view to disproportionately foreground outside traditions views as more authoritative to the development than they are able to be proven. Remember, this isn't personal opinion, it's dispute over foregrounding of translations that lie outside of the language and culture's core standards and have been imposed either by later traditions or outside actors, whatever their reasoning may be.

Remember, unless someone has citations to support the specific wording represented in the article, we need to discuss a way to express these concepts in a less biased way to later interfaith interpretation. Housemousemarie (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

The consensus is no one has supported what you are saying. Of the 6 editors that have either engaged with you in this thread or with your edits tothe article, none have offered you support. Doeasn't that tell you something? DeCausa (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

no, the consensus is that, that none of you have attempted to suggest a better wording nor have you provided inline citations that support the current wording standing. The only thing you disagree with is the information being disputed at all. Doesnt that tell you something? Housemousemarie (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

like, as much as i appreciate your input, you're not engaging in good faith attempts to improve the article, nor are you abiding by rules of consensus. you've devolved to personal attacks, biting, and threats multiple times in response to criticism, so i'll ask directly, why do you disagree with a more nuanced reflection? why can't you respect that a dispute does not immediately have to stand as the final version reflected? this is the *start* of the conversation, not the end of it, and attempting to reverse that serves a particular motive. Please, your input has been in no way constructive. If you'd like to provide citations or alternative wording, go ahead, but otherwise, do not reply again parroting the same personal opinion over and over without engaging the argument, because that does not constitute consensus nor does it constitute an argument. Housemousemarie (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

just to be clear, noone owns consensus, and bringing up a concern should be grounds for investigation and or clarification, not immediate dismissal based on personal ignorance or disbelief. saying "I dont think you have a point" is nothing short of deflection. Housemousemarie (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

if you disagree, prove why you're right, with inline citations, or the dispute tag stands. stale consensus does not override dispute, and if you continue down that line of thought, you risk being blocked from the conversation for repeated violation of the processes and policies towards reaching another consensus. Housemousemarie (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

De Causa has repeatedly and very patiently explained the editing and consensus process to you, and explicitly explained how you can make changes without walls of text.

Could we try to do that instead of you just making demands and saying that we have to prove that what you want to edit is wrong? If you’ll just follow the normal process I’m sure you’ll find it works fairly well. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 23:29, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

i'm not saying you have to prove what i want to edit is wrong, i'm saying you have to prove what you want to *stand* is right.

nothing more, nothing less.

without inline citations, the wording is contested. from this point without citations, we can either negotiate more neutral wording, or delete the wording entirely, those are the only options.

Point stands, this is still a dispute. Do you disagree? Housemousemarie (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Remaining with the consensus version does not require proof. You are the one who wants to make changes, and as has been explained to you repeatedly, if you want a *specific* change, propose it. If you think some *specific* wording is wrong, point to it and tell us why. If you’ll aren’t able to express what specific fact you disagree with, there is no dispute. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

respectfully, i already have, and i've said that i'm open to further negotiation so the wording doesnt disproportionately reflect any particular view as more relevant than is verifiable. remember, by the standards of "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page." this information could have merely been outright deleted, but i doubt that would result in anything but an edit war, because a lot of people feel they own the conversation. the burden of proof is on those who *restore* content as well, which would include the refutation of this dispute. until there are sources that *directly* support the view expressed, that particular aspect is not a part of previous consensus, nor does "previous consensus not require proof." when a good faith and sourced dispute has been raised, it is equally your burden to prove why the wording should stay the way it is in the article. Housemousemarie (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

on top of that, decausa was unwilling to engage with sources provided until they meet the standards of inline citations, not even on the talk page, in the edit. that doesnt sound like patience to me, but i'm not here to assume anything other than good faith. I've raised a valid point, conflating maschiach as a whole within jewish thought exclusively or primarily with melekh ha-maschiach would be a narrow view, and would violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. why should i be any different to accept that the wording is neutral without citations to back that claim up? Housemousemarie (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

and just to clarify: i’m not objecting to the need for citations—i’m asking that we don’t treat current wording as exempt from them simply because it’s been unchallenged.

if “mashiach” is being framed exclusively in terms of melekh ha-mashiach, that represents one theological current, not the totality of Jewish tradition. to assert that as neutral without inline sourcing demands the same scrutiny being asked of alternative framings.

wikipedia’s neutrality doesn’t favor whichever version appears first. It requires ongoing reflection. and that reflection begins with the recognition that a dispute has been raised in good faith, with sources. the question isn’t whether I’m “right”—it’s whether we’re willing to engage what’s actually been cited.

Housemousemarie (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I’m going to stop reading all of your posts, the wall of text approach is too much.

Yes, they were *extremely* patient with your refusal to discuss specifics and provide sources for specific quotes to gain consensus. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

thank you, as now somebody can actually engage with the argument, and the citations i provided further, which include the very citations you ask for in point 4 of this comment: [1]

Without suggesting alternative wording, or citing why the current consensus stands, you fail to address the dispute; which is the exact wording "THE messiah," as it's more representative of melekh ha-maschiach than the concept of messiah as a whole in judaism.

If you arent going to read the whole dispute and surrounding literature, dont make sweeping claims or judgements of its validity. Housemousemarie (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

as per the consensus being unsatisfactory by the standards challenged and thereby relented by decausa [2] <-- there, until the wording has formal citations supporting it, i'm reinstating the dispute tag. We can either negotiate how to best implement this understanding, or people can continue to post non-responses. Either way, the dispute stands, as the notion of a singular messiah as central was relented as a later development, and not the authoritative interpretation. Housemousemarie (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

That link just goes to another of your interminable essays, it does not cite a source of any kind.

As you’ve decided to lie about sources, I will be removing the unsupported tag.

Why do you refuse to post a source that supports you? Wouldn’t that be easier than acting like this? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 00:37, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

If you are unable to read the WHOLE DISPUTE, do not respond again, and do not continue to revert the dispute tag, or i will have no choice but to consider your acts to be vandalism/edit warring, and *specifically* bring them to the ANI as such.

Since you are unwilling to read the dispute, here are a few of the sources i've linked, and this is not an exhaustive list.

point stands; either come back with citations to support the version that stands, or please leave the argument. do not attempt to remove the dispute tag again. Housemousemarie (talk) 00:46, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

and to be clear, i’ve cited sources—multiple. the refusal to engage with them because they appear in paragraph form rather than inline formatting doesn’t invalidate their relevance.

the current wording does not cite inline sources to support its singular framing. that makes it open to dispute under WP:NPOV, WP:BURDEN, and WP:V.

if anyone wants to collaborate on more nuanced language that reflects documented pluralism within Jewish messianic discourse, I’m here. if not, the dispute tag reflects that lack of resolution—accurately and in line with policy.

refusing to read the full thread while accusing others of dishonesty isn’t civil, constructive, or aligned with Wikipedia’s editing ethos.

the tag stays, as the discussion remains open. Housemousemarie (talk) 00:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Wait, I see you were finally willing to *partially* source your claims, thank you, we’re making progress.

So, on Wikipedia, we don’t just point to an entire book and say “this supports what I want to say”. As people have explained to you several times, we reference the statements from the sources, for instance by providing a quotation and hopefully a page number. Where in those sources did you find the claim you want to make? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 01:43, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

and, in reference to my "interminable" essays, what do you mean? that my dispute should be "terminated" due to its length? is that a threat? Housemousemarie (talk) 00:54, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

You… should probably google the word “interminable”.

Or do you know what it means and you’re lying again to pretend it’s a threat? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

To cut a long story short, if Neusner, Scholem, and others don't use the word "archetype", then neither should we. If they say there was a diversity of views, does our article say otherwise? If they say there were more than one Messiah, does our article say otherwise? They of course can be WP:CITED, but for what they did say, not for what they did not say.

I mean: some paragraphs are singularistic, but others are not so. The article as a whole is not singularistic.

What WP:V means: provide a real book with a real page number. If HMM can't provide a page number, then HMM should provide a verbatim quote. Or provide a short scholarly article.

What HMM shouldn't do is handwaving at certain scholars or at certain books.

About buzzwords: if the word "archetype" is HMM's own interpretation of Neusner, Scholem, a.o., we have no use for HMM's own interpretation.

What I did find: "archetype of the text" (because "original text" is kind of deprecated), and "the archetype of the Tabernacle". tgeorgescu (talk) 06:27, 7 July 2025 (UTC)