User talk:IZAK/Archive 1

IZAK (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email)

This is an archive of past discussions about User:IZAK. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Hello there IZAK, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit Wikipedia:How does one edit a page and experiment at Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. BTW, thanks for starting the Aryeh Kaplan - I "wikified" it for you. Cheers! --maveric149

Ok, thank you. I am reading thru the "guidelines". Thanks for your feed-back. User:IZAK

Hi IZAK. Can I just check that you know how to do a redirect? It's just that I've corrected a couple that you've created. To create a redirect, type #REDIRECT [[destination page]] with no return. -- Graham  :) | Talk 22:58, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Yet again I am finding myself clearing up all your redirects after you. Have you actually read the message I left for you above? -- Graham  :) | Talk 03:18, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Dear Graham, Thanks for the good work. Sorry, I do seem to have overlooked the finer points of the "redirects"! Thanks for bringinging this to my attention. IZAK

---

Hi IZAK,

I'd appreciate it if you were more careful with edit summaries. A recent edit summary of yours to Jew made it sound as you though were an admin asking others to limit links in the Conservative section to 3. First of all, I don't believe you are an admin (unless I missed something completely). Second of all, admins aren't anybody special -- we just handle extra tasks. We certainly shouldn't ever, as a principle of Wikiquette, throw our weight around by saying "I, as an admin, tell you to do this" -- that wouldn't be right. And if you're saying that, whether or not you're an admin, you're giving the impression to others that admins can do this: not good. I'm assuming you just misspoke, but I really hope you'll try to avoid this in the future. It reflects badly on the work we do here when we mislead others, especially when we mislead them about our personal rights and powers. Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 20:38, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've looked at things a little more -- it appears you were following Raul's request. Don't worry too much about it, but (for the reasons above) please do avoid it in the future! Thanks. :-) Jwrosenzweig 20:41, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jw, as you see, I have not tried to be an "admin". In the brief few words alloted to a summary, I was conveying to someone else the message that there HAD been a request from an admin person to cut links down. Sometimes you can't "win"... :-) IZAK

IZAK, I moved your Mormon Israelites section to the Mormonism article. Thanks a bunch for the contribution! Tom (hawstom) 21:59, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

IZAK, I am told this contribution of yours needs to go in the Mormonism and Judaism article, but I am too lazy to put it there myself. Would it be too much of an imposition to ask you to do it? Tom (hawstom) 04:59, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Some branches of Mormonism, as well as other modern religions, maintain that their members are Israelites. Most prominently the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) holds that those who are baptized by a Latter-day Saint (LDS) Priesthood authority become an Israelite and thereby become one of God's chosen people by covenanting with God in baptism. By being confirmed as a member of the LDS Church and given the "gift" of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, a member is said to become an "adopted" Israelite, whether or not there are biological relations to ancient Israelites.

One popular doctrine in Mormonism is that ten lost tribes of Israel exist in the form of their Gentile descendents, and in the future they will gather in the Americas and establish a new Zion. The tenth Article of Faith of the LDS Church states, "We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes". The LDS Church maintains that this is actually occuring in the current day, as people are converted. This is discussed in more detail in the article on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. See also Mormonism and Judaism."

Did so as you requested. IZAK

Hi IZAK -- It's a pretty serious allegation that Anwar Sadat was "pro-Nazi" as opposed to "anti-British" -- do you have some citations that are pretty clear that he was a supporter of the Nazis? Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 03:22, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

HI Bcorr: I am surprised you do not know this piece of important history. See even the source Mustafaa cites [1] says clearly: "...And finally, the young Sadat admired Adolf Hitler whom the anticolonialist Sadat viewed as a potential rival to British control..." IZAK 04:39, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

See some important examples from the web:

• Islam’s Nazi Connections :"...Major Nazi sympathizers of this era include Ahmed Shukairi, the first chairman of the PLO; Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar Sadat, future presidents of Egypt; and the founders of the Pan-Arab socialist Ba'ath party, currently ruling Syria and Iraq. One Ba'ath leader has since recalled of this time: "We were racists, admiring Nazism, reading their books and sources of their thought. We were the first who thought of translating Mein Kampf." Many of the Nazi sympathizers of this era have never repudiated their beliefs; some still openly parade them....Thankfully, the Nazis of course lost WWII and the abortive alliance between Islam and Nazism never panned out. Sadly, there exist Moslems today, not on the fringes but in the mainstream of their nations, who still view this as a great lost opportunity based on profound natural affinities." IZAK 04:39, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Islamism, fascism and terrorism : "Islamism, or fascism with an Islamic face, was born with and of the Muslim Brotherhood. It proved (and improved) its fascist core convictions and practices through collaboration with the Nazis in the run-up to and during World War II. It proved it during the same period through its collaboration with the overtly fascist "Young Egypt" (Misr al-Fatah) movement, founded in October 1933 by lawyer Ahmed Hussein and modeled directly on the Hitler party, complete with paramilitary Green Shirts aping the Nazi Brown Shirts, Nazi salute and literal translations of Nazi slogans. Among its members, Young Egypt counted two promising youngsters and later presidents, Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar El-Sadat. Whether al-Banna, who had already been in contact with German agents since the 1936-39 Palestine uprising against the British, or someone else introduced Sadat and his free officer comrades to German military intelligence is not known. But in the summer of 1942, when Rommel's Afrikakorps stood just over 100 kilometers from Alexandria and were poised to march into Cairo, Sadat, Nasser and their buddies were in close touch with the German attacking force and - with Brotherhood help - preparing an anti-British uprising in Egypt's capital. A treaty with Germany including provisions for German recognition of an independent, but pro-Axis Egypt had been drafted by Sadat, guaranteeing that "no British soldier would leave Cairo alive". When Rommel's push east failed at El Alamein in the fall of 1942, Sadat and several of his co-conspirators were arrested by the British and sat out much of the remainder of the war in jail...." IZAK 04:39, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Beyond the Pale: Nazism, Holocaust denial and the Arab world :"...When in 1953 a rumour spread that Hitler was still alive, the Egyptian newspaper Al Musawwar asked several leading Egyptian personalities to write him a personal letter. One of those who did so was Anwar Sadat. His message was this: "My dear Hitler! I congratulate you from the bottom of my heart. Even if you appear to have been defeated, in reality you are the victor. You succeeded in creating dissentions between Churchill, the old man, and his allies, the Sons of Satan ... Germany will be reborn in spite of the Western and Eastern powers. There will be no peace unless Germany once again becomes what she was." IZAK 04:39, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• 1942-1952, Egpyt: Nasser's Nazis and the CIA : "In the summer of 1942, when German General Erwin Rommel’s Afrikakorps were poised to march into Cairo, Anwar Sadat, Gamal Nasser and their buddies were in close touch with the attacking force and – with help from the Muslim Brotherhood – were preparing an anti-British uprising in Egypt’s capital. A treaty with Germany had been drafted by Sadat. It included provisions for German recognition of an independent, but pro-Axis Egypt, and guaranteed that “no British soldier would leave Cairo alive.” When Rommel’s push east failed in the fall of 1942, Sadat and several of his co-conspirators were arrested by the British and sat out much of the remainder of the war in jail. Islamist-fascist collaboration did not cease with war’s end. King Farouk brought large numbers of German military and intelligence personnel as well as ranking ex-Nazis into Egypt as advisors. It was a bad move. Several of the Germans, recognizing Farouk’s political weakness, soon began conspiring with Nasser and his “Free Officers,” who, in turn, were working closely with the Muslim Brotherhood, to overthrow the king..." IZAK 04:39, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

IZAK, thank you for your detailed reply with citations. I have to say that each of them -- such as the http://www.us-israel.org/about/index.shtml -- are very pro-Israel sites, and are not very balanced, IMHO -- and shouldn't be the basis for such strong allegations. I did some searching of my own, and the only citations I could find were eaither very clearly pro-Israel, right wing (like these from Campus Watch and Commentary magazine) were reader reviews of books like The Closed Circle here: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1566634407/002-9789435-4591258?v=glance&vi=customer-reviews -- or were comments left on bulletin boards, etc., like this one from the Seattle Times comment board: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/nation-world/mideast/comments.html

Also, the same Asia Times article you quote above [2] goes on to say:

"And yet another player fond of playing all sides against the middle had entered the game prior to Farouk's ouster: In 1951, the CIA's Kermit Roosevelt (grandson of president Teddy, who in 1953 would organize the overthrow of elected Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadegh and install Reza Pahlavi as Shah) opened secret negotiations with Nasser. Agreement was soon reached that the US, post-coup, would assist in building up Egypt's intelligence and security forces - in the obvious manner, by reinforcing Nasser's existing Germans with additional, "more capable", ones. For that, CIA head Allen Dulles turned to Reinhard Gehlen, one-time head of eastern front German military intelligence and by the early 1950s in charge of developing a new German foreign intelligence service. Gehlen hired the best man he knew for the job - former SS colonel Otto Skorzeny, who at the end of the war had organized the infamous ODESSA network to facilitate the escape of high-ranking Nazis to Latin America (mainly Peron's Argentina) and Egypt. With Skorzeny now on the job of assisting Nasser, Egypt became a safe haven for Nazi war criminals galore. The CIA officer in charge of the Egypt assistance program was Miles Copeland, soon a Nasser intimate. " I'm not denying the fact that both Egyptians and Israelis did everthing they could to expel the British from the Middle East, but so often in wartime, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" -- and even when wars are not raging, there are events like the US-Iran-Israel arms-for-hostages Iran-Contra affair that create strange bedfellows. And if you don't mind, I'm copying this all to Talk:Jew so others can weigh in. Thanks again, BCorr|Брайен 13:19, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

Bcorr: As I have responded on the "Jew" page: Bcorr: We are NOT discussing the CIA here. What they did as part of ESPIONAGE/COUNTERESPIONAGE is a different subject. Your question was about Sadat's pro-Nazi leanings, and I cited the sources. Whether the sources are pro or anti anything is also not the point. The FACT remains that Sadat was a strong admirer of Hitler, the Jews' arch-enemy. IZAK 23:32, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Bcorr: Diplomatic and and political dealings are one thing. All states and vested parties do it. But in the case of Sadat, his life's history proves that not only was he personally positive about Hitler, he also was determined to give the Nazi army under Rommel all the help it needed to enter Egypt. There was no "Israeli" policy to Nazi Germany, as there was no "Israel" until 1947. The MAJORITY of the Jewish population of Palestine was VERY pro-British, and clamored to enter its army to fight AGAINST the Nazis. Whatever minimal contacts there were with German officials was for the purpose of SAVING Jews from Hitler's gas-chambers, and keeping the doors of Palestine OPEN to Jewish immigration during the Holocaust. The Stern Gang acted to PROTEST Britain's closed-door policies, and NOT as a sign of any "liking" for Nazism, unlike Sadat and his cohorts who actually liked and emulated the Nazis. IZAK 23:32, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If the quotes are correct - though I don't put much confidence in their sources - then Sadat did negotiate with the Nazis, and appreciated their role in attacking other colonial powers. But that does not imply that he supported them, as BCorr pointed out, any more than the fact that early Israel had close relations with the USSR and got many of their weapons from Communist states means they were Stalinists. Mustafaa 17:24, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mustafa: Sadat did much more than "negotiate" with the Nazis, he liked them and coddled up to them. In contradistinction, remember, during World War Two Stalin was RIGHTLY admired by many Jews for many GOOD reasons: He fought Hitler to the death; Stalin's Red Army, which had over half a million Jewish men and officers in it, were the ones that conquered Berlin and had the pleasure of bringing about HITLER'S DEATH! and the end of the evil Third Reich; indeed, many of Israel's early founders were Socialists and Communists and were close with the USSR, but at the same time they were also ZIONISTS and DEMOCRATS and thus were very wary of Stalin, as he was of them. It was Stalin who thought he could take advantage of these politically vulnerable and ideologically kindred Jews at the founding of the State of Israel, as they needed and accepted his aid AGAINST the Arabs, but the Israelis were always fully commited to DEMOCRACY and opposed Stalin's totalitarianism; (P.S. Stalin's first wife was Jewish, and his brother-in-law, Lazar Kaganovich, an athiestic communist hardliner, was on the Politburo with him till the end. Some have even speculated that it was Lazar Kaganovich who was behind Stalin's death in 1953, when Stalin began to plan the deportation of the the USSR's Jews to Siberia. Silly Stalin!) IZAK 03:14, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Silly Stalin"--now there's a vivid phrase! I remember the last days of Stalin, and somehow I could never picture calling him "silly." Especially not to his face, :) Cecropia 03:41, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Dear Cecropia: Yeah, now, 50 years after his death, it's "official", Stalin can be called "silly" as we watch (formerly athiest) Putin shake hands with rabbis and give them awards, (former Soviet anti-Zionists) shaking hands with Israeli diplomats, and (previously communist polticians) opening up Russia to the arch-capitalist "oligarchs" some of whom are Jewish by birth...what a world... IZAK 04:02, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"The rise of the Baath parties in Syria and Iraq resulted in their large ancient communities fleeing as refugees." This is factually incorrect in two respects: practically the entire Iraqi Jewish community had fled before the rise of the Baath party, as pointed out earlier, and the Jews of Syria were actively prevented from leaving by the Baath Party until 1992. - Mustafaa 17:31, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mustafa: Playing word games is not an alternative to history. The rise of the Baath parties was a process that took many years. By the time they took over in Iraq many Jews had fled PRECISELY BECAUSE it was the moment they were dreading. Similarly in Syria, it was the actualization of the Jews's worst nightmares as whoever remained were made into prisoners of the state, and that is why so may had tried to flee earlier. It was the OPPOSITE of "spring is in the air" for a very long time for the Middle East's Jews! IZAK 03:14, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi IZAK, compliments on Image:R_Kamenets_&_Kotler.jpg. Am I right in saying that both rabbis still merit an article? Also my compliments for your askonus on Jew; I dropped out of it—even took it off my watchlist—as it got a bit messy. In your view, are there any articles that I ought to watch for infringements of NPOV re: Judaism? I removed a link to "Jewwatch" from the Anti-semitism article yesterday.
JFW | T@lk 08:38, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi JFW: Thanks. Yes, they still need articles. as for the "NPOV" I can't think of anything, but if I do, I will try to let you know. IZAK 20:30, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

There's an article on Reb Aharon, but IMHO Reb Yaakov deserves a shtikel. I've just returned his biography to the lender, otherwise I might have had a dab :-(
Did you hear that the Wikipedia "Jew" article now peaks at Google instead of Jewwatch?
JFW | T@lk 20:59, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Good job. BTW, you may want to add a few entries to the List of Jewish history topics. Shabbat shalom! --Humus sapiens|Talk 01:16, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Dear "Humus": Thank you, nice to know, I will look over the list...IZAK 20:26, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Shalom Havarin (is that spelled right?), I am a former Apostate (still pretty agnostic and ignorant in my outlook) of maternal Jewish ethnic heritage attempting to make Teshuvah back to orthodoxy, and I just wanted to appologize for rubbing you the wrong way with my comment on the Talk:Jews page. I just want you to know that I am certainly NOT into any kind of anti-Judaic displacement theology (heaven forbid) and retrieval is one of my primary concerns these days (for the sake of my loved ones). I just hope we can recover from our false start together. All the best. Zestauferov 12:26, 1 May 2004 (UTC) (p.s. what is your timezone?)

Hi, I just wanted to thank you for the discussions this week. Your style certainly could benefit from some emoticons :o) :-) :o( :-P :oP because it seems like you are always angry. Anyway I have learned something from you this week so I want to say thankyou. Shabbatz Shalom Zestauferov 08:02, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi Izak. I see you've run into the recent proliferation of articles on the historicity of Jesus, as well as all those pages that deal with early post-Jewish, proto-Christian, yes/not-Bnei Noach and Ger Tzedek phenomena. I appreciate Zestauferov has views on this, and terminology is generally an issue.
What to think of all these articles:

• Ben Stada
• Ben Pandera
• Yeshu
• Yeshu Ha Notzri (redirects to Yeshu)
• Nasoraean
• Nazarene Judaism
• Netzarim

Many of them have been edited by one anonymous user who lives at the IP range 203.240.170.??? (a university computer) and is IMHO pushing a POV that is not completely clear to me.
What are your views? I'd personally recommend a merge between all (or most) of these articles. Why is there so much interest in things that are really on the fringe of Jewish theology and practice? Couldn't there be more attention for things that really affect Judaism, such as the origin of hair used in sheitels :-)? JFW | T@lk 12:08, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Please see my recent posting at Talk:Jew#About an external link. -- Jmabel 23:21, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

IZAK, please be careful about Holocaust terminology. Death camp is a very specific term, distinguished from concentration camps. Danny 03:26, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Sorry I deleted that photo; is it public domain? --Merovingian ↕ T@Lk 04:28, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

What is the copyright status of the picture? --Merovingian ↕ T@Lk 04:34, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

Hi: All photos are public and well-known and have been circulating for fifty years. IZAK 04:34, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi again: the picture of "Dead Himmler" was taken by Allied soldiers in 1945, it has been in the public domain for a long time, it is a well-known photo to war historians and is often used, see for example: http://www.scrapbookpages.com/BergenBelsen/BergenBelsen06.html and http://www.thirdreich.boinaslava.net/imena/himmler.htm or see them also at: http://images.google.com/images?q=Dead%20Himmler&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

OK, you can re-upload the image. Sorry again. --Merovingian ↕ T@Lk 05:19, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that by restoring the criticism section of Elie Wiesel, I may have inadvertently endorsed the view that the Holocaust was somehow a myth. I just want to make it clear that this was ABSOLUTELY NOT MY INTENT. My intent was to simply restore what I saw as straw man rhetoric back to critics like Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein in their own words. As you can find out from the page history, THAT original section was contributed by Bogdangiusca. Since you strike me somewhat as a partisan editor I don't know and frankly don't care what you're planning to with this message, but for my own conscience I just wanted to get this of my chest. -- Dissident (Talk) 23:46, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

• Hi, thank you for your response. I will try to undertstand what it is you are trying to say. IZAK 08:03, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Could you please write in complete sentences? Thanks. --Jiang 06:26, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have tried to do this now. Thank you for your observation. IZAK 07:41, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

JFW: Who said anything about "religious fervor"?? We are only on the intellectual and logical plane here, and on that level it should be possible to convey the depth and sophistication of religion-based topics. Dawkins is a poor example, I'm sorry you chose to even mention him here, as he is a notorious athiest, he stares into space all day and only sees himself, what a pity! ...memes - shmemes... By the way, do you mean "captivating" or "capturing", as the word "captivating" means to enchant and allure, but to "capture" means to do what a "camera" does as it "captures an image" which is what I assume Wiki-people should be doing, running around the world and "capturing" "Wiki-pictures" even if in some instances it's impossible as the Jewish God is invisible and thus CANNOT ever be "captured" in image or in any sense of the word, which brings me back to the beginning, that allowances must be made for the way "people of faith" "view", or perceive things, and I am NOT refering to dancing at weddings and doing horas either. By the way, who said anything about a different "terminology", and since when is conveying Judaism limited by any language? On the contrary, Judaism teaches that "The Torah was given in 70 languages" - Nitna Torah beshivim leshonot, to teach people that it can be "filtered" via any language to all mankind. The language barriers are artificial and are created by humans who seek to create words like "memes" that are not natural but just constructs of their (intellectual) egos, whereas the Torah and Judaism have always striven to "Talk in the language of all humankind" - Dibra Torah Belashon Bnei Adam. So nothing is impossible, even on Wikipedia, and there is nothing to fear or be ashamed of when trying to "explain" Judaism or religion to secular intellectuals who have been brain-washed into thinking that religion is "primitive" and is beyond "scientific" sophistication or polished and accurate usage of the world's human languages, when the opposite is often-times the case. IZAK 04:41, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

IZAK, I am getting neurotic about your pedantry and longwindedness. Of course I know that Richard blooming Dawkins is an atheist - that's why I mumbled about meme being a tainted word!

You say that we should present the Torah case on Wikipedia. Nitna Torah beshivim lashon - I couldn't agree with you more. However, this becomes rapidly impossible if we do not take a certain distance from what we're writing about. Otherwise other wikipedians will slash our contributions as being POV. As User:Ed_Poor said (on user_talk:Mr-Natural-Health): any idea can be turned into article content as long as one adheres to basic NPOV rules. JFW | T@lk 12:26, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I removed some of the headings you added to first lady articles. According to Wikipedia:Manual_of_style#Headings, "Overuse of sub-headings should be avoided, as it can make the article look cluttered. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own sub-heading." IMO, they should be at least a couple paragraphs long. Just so you know... --Jiang 22:59, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Eli, you've done lots of good work putting the Jewish articles onder categories. But: the categories are hierarchical. Therefore, an article under "Jewish texts" falls indirectly under Judaism. An exception might have to be made for Talmud, which is much more, but Mesillat Yesharim does not need direct linking to Category:Judaism.

Mussar Movement or the Torah Im Derech Eretz movement were powered by Rabbis and by the Jewish Texts they taught, it was all one in essence: "Yisroel, Ve'oraisa, VeKudsha Brich Hu - Chad Hu"

IZAK, you do not need to quote me these sources (and neither do you need to translate them). This does not pertain to this discussion at all. The Mussar movement was not a rabbi. The article links to Yisroel Salanter, to Nosson Zvi Finkel, and to other people. THOSE PEOPLE belong in Category:Rabbis. Likewise, Torah im Derech Eretz is not identical to Rav Hirsch and his ideological descendants.
You appear to be misunderstanding the categorisation process, and when I ask you to comply to wikipedia policy, you start quoting the Zohar! I wish you'd remain to the point (see my above criticism). JFW | T@lk 10:42, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Hi, Listen, these "categorizations" only started two days ago. I was using only three categories: Judaism; Texts; and Rabbis. You did not tell me anything till this minute. And YOU seem to be getting overly excited! From what you write NOW I can see what YOU would like, which may not always be the thoughts of what Wiki or anyone else may want. To quoute another saying; "Shivim Panim Latorah" - "There are 70 faces to the Torah", and you and I are only two, so there may be at least 68 more ways of looking at this. In the meantime, do as you wish, I have no objections. And please, maybe thirty categories is "overkill" but three is only a "Chazaka" (now how would you translate that....a "guarantee" of something?) IZAK 10:53, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

IZAK, I apologise for my overheated reaction (London is sweltering), but you have done a lot of work indeed, and the reversal is taking a lot of time. Forgive my kaas; I should have been dan le-kaf zechus.
This has got nothing to do with shiv'im panim le-Torah. Wikipedia is not the Torah - Jewish articles are reflections of Torah, but are nowhere near the truth (see Reform/Conservative viewpoints in the more political articles like Jewish views of homosexuality).
Chazaka does not touch on this issue - it does not pertain in our Derech Eretz with gentiles (most wikipedians are gentiles, aren't they). I consider Wikipedia a Derech Eretz activity, and - like a true Hirschian - I try to infuse it with the spirit of Torah. A brief perusal of my Jewish contributions (e.g. Eliyahu Eliezer Dessler, my rewrite of yeshiva) will reveal that we share a lot of viewpoints. We differ in the way the Orthodox POV should be represented. JFW | T@lk 11:07, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

PS A good link on the category system is m:MediaWiki User's Guide: Using Categories

• Dear JFW: No problem at all really, we are all trying our best I suppose to be as intellectually honest as we can. As for representing Torah, I would say that whatever one does to convey "Torah-true" FACTS, in whatever way, can fit with Wiki's NPOV and remain true to itself as Torah. IZAK 03:46, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You might have seen my Category_talk:Jewish mysticism. This was obviously heading the wrong way, so I made some noise. The category stuff is coming out of my ears now (the medical articles need extensive categoristaion, which is going to take a lot of work).
Please take a look at Yechiel Michel Epstein and Baruch Epstein. I might be a yekke, but the bios of the Litvaks were lacking... JFW | T@lk 08:54, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• JFD:I have added my words of support to you in this case at Category talk:Jewish mysticism with some needed explanations to the "less than learned". IZAK 09:45, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I'm concerned about your use of the term "Tanakh" to reference characters and texts that are common to both the Hebrew and Christian Bibles. Why not refer to them as "Bible" texts? For example, Naomi is a BIBLE character, not just a Tanakh character. Most Christiams would have no idea what you mean when you refer to Tanakh. RickK 05:20, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Rick, I have moved the page from Naomi (Tanakh) to Naomi (Bible). IZAK 05:30, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks.  :) RickK 05:29, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

I was just wondering about this edit:[3] regarding removed Airports of Isreal. Burgundavia 10:30, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

• Oops, just realized my spelling mistake. Anyway, created Israel so it should now be good. Burgundavia 10:48, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

Hi IZAK, I've responded to your messages on the respective talk pages. If you intend to respond to my stuff on User_talk:Frikle, perhaps we should move this all to our respective talk pages instead of involving poor Frikle.
I must state that I highly appreciate your recent work on Wikipedia. You've been fighting some fantastic POV-battles that I've avoided because I'm too much of a softie for them. Similarly, I shunned the huge job of categorising Jewish articles because it was such a tall order (and likely to meet with resistance). Again, yeyasher kochacho on these efforts.
As I said on User_talk:Frikle, this is also my motivation for being somewhat of a Jewish deletitionist. Rather than writing a lot of Jewish articles, I favour a small but high-quality Jewish presence.
I'm dreaming about starting a good Wikiproject that covers Jewish articles. It seems Frikle and also User:Fintor would be valiant participants in such a project, but I'm awaiting your response. JFW | T@lk 10:39, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

IZAK, you are right that I might be overly cautious when it concerns Wikipedia articles on Judaism. However, disambiguating a page on exactly the same subject (as happended in Shema Yisrael) is not the way Wikipedia works. That is actually Wikinfo - a Wikipedia ofshoot where every POV gets its own page. If you (rightly) think that the Christian quote refers to their trinity, then the reader might be better served if you bring out the distinction in the article. No Christian will look for a page titled Shema Yisrael, because their bible is in Greek anyway, or in the vernacular.

Jewpedia is a Jewish wiki, but it has not started off properly in English (6 articles now, French almost 200). I think it's being run in France.

You didn't answer my question on the chances of starting a WikiProject on Judaism. JFW | T@lk 10:06, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi IZAK. Thanks for your encouragement. I just wanna say what I think about the recent debate between yourself JFW (who I hope would read this here, if not then forward it to his page). It seems there's two extremes that can be followed. If we, and every other user who knows something about Judaism get cracking and create heaps of material in a short amount of time, it would make Wikipedia unbalanced because there's just so much content when Judaism's involved and putting even 1% of it all would probably end up taking half of Wikipedia's articles in terms of disk space and I'm sure that's not anyone's goal. Also, there are some things that from a Jewish point of view simply would not be appropriate to put here, where anyone can read and alter.

But on the other side, what made me like Wikipedia in the 1st place was that it seems to be growing organically unlike most printed encyclopedia-type publications. Also, I think that if you want a good collection of human knowledge, it's best to suspend the usual, subjective standards of "who'd want to be reading this". Knowledge is knowledge even if noone wants to read it and I'm sure there are enough users who would be interested.

So I think the best middle ground is for us all to keep contributing and expanding. If the writers of Jewish articles keep quality a priority that in itself should check any kind of "over-expansion". But I don't think we need to cater to some general user as there might not be such a thing anyway as more people flock to Wikipedia to find out things even in their own area of expertise. As to POV problems, it's certainly more of an issue in all religion-based articles than in most other topics. But I don't think giving the different sides' point of view on a single page (separate pages if the view is long or complicated) is against the spirit of the Wikipedia.

Hope everyone keeps contributing, Frikle 11:10, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

With all due respect, there is a project of it: Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports, started by me, is an attempt to add airports to Wikipedia. I see no reason why Israel should be treated differently than any other country. The current "standard" is Country --> Transportation in Country --> Airports of Country. I really don't want to get into a conflict over this. Burgundavia 11:10, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

• In addition, I really question whether airports should be under geography. Burgundavia 11:14, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • I have added Airports of Isreal back under Airports. Size of the country is sort of meaningless, as we have categories for places of similar size. Yes, there is currently only one airport in the category, but more will be added in time. WikiProject Airport's current goal is one airport for every country in the world, and then we will work on adding more. However nothing is stopping you and anybody else from making up this deficit. In fact I encourage you to do so, as you seem both interested and knowledgable about Israel. Burgundavia 22:21, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks for kind words. It is so hard to judge intentions by just online actions and words. Burgundavia 06:44, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)