Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism. 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 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

I am looking to research information about Jews in North Omaha, Nebraska at the turn of the century. Working online I have not been able to find any information on synagogues in the area, although there are indications of at least one that was previously located there. I emailed the Jewish Federation of Omaha for information months ago and did not receive a response. The most information I have collected is to identify the location of Jewish cemeteries in the area, and to write a stub about one of them, the Golden Hill Jewish Cemetery. Any advice about where to look for information would be greatly appreciated. – Freechild (BoomCha) 04:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you researching for yourself or to improve a Wikipedia article? Perhaps you should try the reference desk for general enquiries. JFW | T@lk 06:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't clarify that. I am hoping to write articles about the individual synagogues in North Omaha, as well as the Jewish residents of the community from the late 1800s through the 1960s. By way of example, you can see other articles I've written about ethnic groups in Omaha here. Thanks. – Freechild (BoomCha) 06:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Judaism#Tanach_-_Hebrew_Bible. --Shuki 07:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I am going to redo the template and set up the categories to allow for assessment of quality and importance, similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history and WP:Israel. I hope nothing breaks -- Avi 14:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If anything goes wrong, contact me directly and I'll see if I can find what's wrong or, if you prefer, ruin everything completely. I'm probably better at the latter. :) John Carter 14:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm done. Now go forth and assess! -- Avi 16:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

As some of you might now, the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team is in the process of selecting articles for the next "release edition", which will include all the articles already selected and new nominees, to reach a total of around 3,000 articles. Many/most of the religion projects, including this one, seem to me at least to be underrepresented. I notice Moses hasn't been nominated for a release version yet, for instance. If you want, list below the articles which you believe should be considered for inclusion and I'll formally nominate those articles you and other projects think should be included. Generally, we would only be looking for articles "B" class or higher unless they are of extraordinary importance. In those cases, of course, the article can be of any quality. John Carter 14:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

People like Nevi'im, Rishonim, etc. are they part of WP:JEW, WP:JH, or both? -- Avi 17:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, they should get appropriate categories for both, but sometimes there are better, more specific categories. For example, Rishonim are in Category:Medieval rabbis, which is a subcategory of Category:Rabbis and Category:Jewish history. --Eliyak T·C 18:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking it might be a good idea to have a template with links to various religious leaders in Judaism. I'm making a start at {{Jewish leaders}}. Please help out, as I'm sure my choices are going to be a bit biased. --Eliyak T·C 19:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Great idea. It looks very nice. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 20:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty arbitrary. Some are poskim, others are community leaders. Where are the Maharam of Rothenberg, Yossel of Rosheim, Maharil Moelin, Yehezkel Landau and S.R. Hirsch? All have a substantial record in leadership. What are your inclusion criteria? JFW | T@lk 23:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't jump on Eliyak too quickly - it seems like the point was to create the template to generate discussion, and his choices were simply "off the top of his head." But echoing JFW, it seems like such a template would either be endless or wrought with arguments over who gets in.--DLand^TALK 23:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Did I say I'm biased? I did. :-) --Eliyak T·C 06:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

In terms of criteria, I was thinking along the lines of the "big names," who have wide recognition. The question of cut-off criteria comes up on a lot of these templates, but that shouldn't stop us from creating them, if they could be useful. I think that one possible criterion for inclusion could be that the person is known outside of his immediate sphere of influence. For example, many recognize the names Joel Teitelbaum or Solomon Shechter even if they do not ascribe to their respective philosophies. --Eliyak T·C 06:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Why should recognition with the general public be the measuring stick here? Why leave out Moshe Sherer just because not everyone immediately recognises his name? Or Chisdai Crescas? Or the Rashba? Or Ibn Gavirol? Or Don Yitzchak Abarbanel? JFW | T@lk 15:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I was giving one justification for inclusion. Another might be that the person was acknowledged as leader in an important movement or a large geographical community. --Eliyak T·C 17:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

JFW wrote, "What are your inclusion criteria?" I reply, Who cares? Eliyak doesn't own the template. This is Wikipedia, and you're free to add people who, in your view, belong in the template; likewise, you can delete people who don't pass your leadership test. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 18:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops, we missed one! The article on prophecy to which Israel had a greater claim then most with 55 named prophets and propheteses, has been become a part of WikiProject Charismatic Christianity. I started editing it, which is no mean task since it originally included oracles and some new age dribble, and all sorts information that bore only a very tenuous relationship to the subject of the article, and was heavily Chistianised with all of 3-4 sentences on Judaism, and only a single mention of Moses. The related Prophet article also needs to be looked at...a lot. I note that there is no entry in Judaism for prophecy or even nevua, and the only mention of prophecy, unlinked, is in the Rambam's 13 articles of faith! And yet the Torah, and all books of the TaNaKh with exception of Daniel were written with the gift of prophecy! How did that happen?--Mrg3105 11:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It will clutter the pages and is confusing. What are the criteria? Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were not "Jews" the way we talk of it today. Otherwise, does that make all their kids, including Esau and Yishmael "Jewish"? What about Jesus, he was Jewish right? This is a nightamre! How about the disputes among Jewish denominations? The Orthodox do not regard much of Reform Jews as "Jewish" and the Reform and Conservative view the Orthodox as not true Judaism either. This template was a big mistake and should be deleted. IZAK 11:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 29#Template:Jewish leaders. Thank you, IZAK 13:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

{{Jew list}} has been deleted, for those who aren't aware, which, I'm assuming is pretty much everyone, since nobody in WP:JEW participated in the discussion. The template was deleted without even the faintest glimmer of agreement that something should urgently be done to form a consensus for inclusion on the various lists of Jews. So, the downside of everyone's apathy is that these lists are once again open to becoming the playground of antisemites and other fans of listcruft. The upside is...oh yeah, there is no upside. Way to make yourself useful, WikiProject Judaism. Sheesh. Just because it's the Three Weeks is no reason for editors to bring stupidity into WP through wanton apathy. Disgusted in the extreme, Tomer^talk 07:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the lists are still there, just the template is gone, right?. What did the template say? Jon513 12:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The template was rendered irrelevant by its opponents. Discussion here. Tomer^talk 15:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What a shame. Seems like many of the more vocal editors involved with that debate were heavy contributors to Christianity Project articles. The scales do not seem to have been tipped in our favor. If we can build a base of editors willing to defend the template, perhaps it can be put up for the deletion review process, based on the fact that Wiki Project Judaism wasn't notified. (Were we?) I'd be glad to help. Are there any other takers? MegaMom 04:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Tomer^talk -- Thank you for using the word "antisemites." There are a lot around here, aren't there? I have been castigated for using that word on Wikipedia, as if that phenomenon did not exist around here.

I've argued long and hard to retain a set of criteria to restrict lists of converts to religions to actual converts, not to bogus contrivances. I had my account blocked for my efforts in that regard. While my account was blocked some of the same folks who contributed to getting me blocked, and keeping me blocked, initiated the deletion process for the Template WP:JEW. For those of you who don't know, this is what it used to say:

This page is a list of Jews. This list of Jews should be restricted to individuals identified as Jews by reliable sources, in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies. Any items not conforming to these policies may be removed immediately.

That tag hung on the List of notable converts to Judaism. It was deleted for one reason: The List of notable converts to Christianity did not want to abide by similarly restrictive criteria. The List of notable converts to Christianity had, and still does have, the overriding concern to put Bob Dylan on that list despite the fact that he is not a Christian, and despite the fact that there is not a scintilla of a source that he ever converted to Christianity. These are the facts. I am not allowed to edit that article. But my inability to edit the article does not alter the facts one iota. The best source the editors at that article have for conversion to Christianity for Bob Dylan is the opinion of a biographer. As far as the details of a conversion process for Bob Dylan are concerned they are entirely nonexistent. No date for conversion has been uncovered. No place of conversion is known. No witness to any such conversion process for Bob Dylan is known. But Bob Dylan is the reason the Template WP:JEW was deleted. That template was intolerable to the editors at List of notable converts to Christianity, who had one concern far and away above any other -- to keep Bob Dylan on that list of converts to Christianity. They even went so far as to renaming the list in oder to try to justify Bob Dylan's presence on that list. The renaming was utterly irrelevant to the other 200 names on that list, because the other 200 names on that list are either living people who are presently Christians or are deceased people who were Christian at time of death.

Yes, I certainly am in favor of resurrecting the above Template WP:JEW. I see no benefit to be gained from flabby parameters. I don't think the Jewish articles should have to adopt the meandering parameters apparently favored by the Christian articles. In fact I think the Christian articles and lists should be trying to abide by the higher standards exemplified by the template above that used to hang on the Jewish articles. As a first step I think the Template WP:JEW should be re-instituted. It represents the higher standards that similar groupings of articles should aspire to. The deleteing of it does nothing but open the door for tons of point of view pushing, and yes, antisemitism. Bus stop 13:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Just want to let you know you were warned. I guess on the Three Weeks a lot of you don't get online? If you want to make a case at WP:DRV for undeletion you should spell out precisely why none of you were around to vote keep on it. Incidentally I voted keep. -N 14:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

N -- I couldn't vote or otherwise weigh in with an opinion because I was blocked, blocked for reasons entirely connected to the deletion of this template, and in some cases by the same people getting me blocked. I have to say though, that if you want to notify people, or warn people, of a pending deletion of such a template, that they may want to weigh in on with an opinion, it is best to express that in some way that catches their attention, and calls their attention to why it matters. I find what you've posted by way of a notification to be a one-line cryptic notice that sounds more like officialese than a notice designed to catch people's attention. But thanks for posting it. No one else apparently took that step. It does constitute notification and it is unfortunate that it was overlooked by so many. Bus stop 14:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

N -- I like your wording in your reasoning for voting "Keep" for the template: You said: "We should maintain high standards for inclusion in lists." I wholeheartedly agree with that. Bus stop 14:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The objections to the template was the it was expressed in a box form instead of regular prose at the beginning of the list. You can just recreated it in that form and also, if you like, a <!--style comment not to add marginal and questionable Jew without talking about it first. There is no reason to even bring it to deletion review, as the template would not have the same problems as the previous one. Jon513 20:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Jon, if you took the time to read the tfd, you'd realize that the template was sabotaged into the form it had when it was put up for tfd. If you look at the original purpose of the template, compared to what it became, it's clear that the objections raised to the template are completely irrelevant wrt the original. Unfortunately, tfd is quite clearly all about deletion, not discussion. Tomer^talk 23:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see the discussion here -- this needs more input from editors who actually work in this area. Badagnani 16:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

There is what I perceive to be a somewhat troubling discussion taking place on the Jews for Jesus Talk page [1] that requires imput from editors with a Jewish perspective. It seems that an editor there is trying to develop an argument whereby a number of well known Jewish figures should no longer be called Jewish on Wikipedia (!) Sadly, his misguided arguments are garnering some support. Can a few more Jews weigh in on this? It is the last section on the page. MegaMom 01:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up for your project that I have removed the various Jewish occupation categories such as Category:Jewish writers and Category:Jewish actors from the subcategories of Category:People by nationality and occupation. The reason is that within the context of these categories the word "Jewish" is referring to the person's religion or ethnicity and not to their nationality. Jackie Mason, for example, is a Jewish comedian, and in this context the word "Jewish" refers to his religion and ethnicity. But his nationality is American, not Jewish. As another contrast example, Category:Israeli writers is a valid subcategory of Category:Writers by nationality since the word "Israeli" indicates they reside in or are significantly from the nation of Israel. However Category:Jewish writers includes people whose religion or ethnicity is Jewish, but whose nationality is something else.

Anyway, long story short, the subcategories of Category:Jews by occupation belong as subcategories of Category:People by religion and occupation but not as subcategories of Category:People by nationality and occupation. While it's true that in some contexts the word Jewish can refer to a person's nationality, that's not the case here.

Just giving the heads up to explain the changes and to help keep the categorization scheme consistent. Thanks, and please feel free to post or send me questions or comments. Dugwiki 16:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is it not the case here that Jewish refers to nationality? Many, if not the majority of these Jews are not in fact religious, and are only Jewish by descent. Please restore these categories, or explain why this situation is different from subcategories of Category:Arab people by occupation, Category:Native American people, Category:Eurasians by occupation, Category:Kurdish people, and Category:Romani people by occupation, many of which are in nationality categories. These categories are similar in the sense that one would not expect someone to be only of that nationality. --Eliyak T·C 03:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't comment on those categories because the Jewish categories are the ones I noticed first. Some or all of the other categories you mentioned might also have to be moved out of occupation by nationality. But I can't really comment on them specifically without looking at them individually.

As far as "Jewish by descent", that is categorization by ethnicity, not nationality. Ethnicity refers to national ancestry, while nationality refers to a person's legal national status, as in what national laws govern that individual. Israeli, for example, is a nationality because individuals can be legally bound by the laws of the nation state of Israel. But most of the people in these Jewish occupations categories were not governed by "the Jewish nation state" in any legal sense. Rather, they are citizens of other various nations. Jackie Mason, for example, is an American citizen, and his nationality is American. His ethnicity, and religion, would both be Jewish.

Hope that answers your question. Either way I'm not planning to restore the previous national categories. What I might do, though, is investigate whether there is or needs to be a scheme for "Occupations by ethnicity" categories under which things like "Jewish occupations" and "Native American occupations" might fall. That would make clearer the distinction between nationality and ethnicity. Dugwiki 14:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

To be more specific, I think what I might do is create a scheme, if it's not already there, under Category:People by ethnic or national origin to house people who are of Jewish ethnic origin. Dugwiki 14:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Either that of Category:People by ethnic or national descent. There appears to be a duplicate structure that will have to be merged at cfd. One way or another, though, I think these Jewish occupation categories are best placed as a subcategory of those somehow. Dugwiki 14:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up Ok, I've proposed a merger of the apparently overlapping Category:People by ethnic or national descent and Category:People by ethnic or national origin schemes at cfd. They seem to be virtually duplicate schemes with slightly different names. I'll have to now wait until the results of that cfd are enacted before I can proceed on introducing "People of Jewish descent by occupation" to the resulting merger. Along with that I'd also take a look at moving some of the other category schemes Eliyak mentioned above. But for now I have to hold off on additional changes until I know what the final name of the parent categories will be. Dugwiki 15:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Moving the discussion to a different project page Since this topic will probably result in moving around multiple ethnic occupational categories, I created a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Occupations by ethnic or national descent. While the above mentioned merger proposal works its way through the system, I'm looking for feedback at WP:Ethnic groups on titles for a new category scheme for "Occupations by ethnicity". This would house not only Jewish occupational categories but other similar categories like some of the ones Eliyak mentioned above.

I recommend putting any further replies on this particular occupation-by-ethnicity topic on the other project's talk page so that all comments can be kept in the same place. Obviously comments about the Jewish occupations categories will most likely apply to other categories under the Ethnic groups project, so best to keep that discussion on one talk page. Dugwiki 15:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, it wasn't clear to me that the categories by nationality are only in relation to citizenship. The categories Category:People by ethnicity and occupation and Category:People by occupation and ethnicity would seem to make sense in parallel to the nationality categories. --Eliyak T·C 07:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

An editor seems to think Prayer is biased. Everyone's opinion requested on Talk:Prayer, also whether a {{POV}} tag is a way to start a discussion. JFW | T@lk 20:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have recently created a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Articles where the various articles relevant to this project can be listed so that the members of the project can check on recent changes to them using the "recent changes" function. I have also created another page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Recognized content where the various articles which have received some form of recognition can be listed. I will be adding articles to both of these pages as time goes on. However, I am also doing similar work for several other projects, and am currently going effectively one category at a time per project in alteration. I can't myself guarantee that all the articles which have been included in the Articles page on the basis of being in the parent Category:Judaism really belong there, though, so I would welcome review from any interested parties regarding whether those articles in fact belong in the parent category, or within the scope of this project. Thanks for your attention. John Carter 15:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Please comment at Talk:Unclean animals#"Unclean" where I contend that the extensive use of the term "unclean" in the context of kashrut is inappropriate.--DLand<;;;;;;;sup>TALK 21:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have rewritten the article Yibbum and would appreciate someone to proof read it, as I tend to make some grammatical errors. Jon513 21:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Any reason why your primary source is the Rambam? I would make greater efforts to rephrase the biased and archaic tone of any integrated 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia content. This applies especially to the "critical" section.

Given that neither the Tamar nor the Ruth examples are consistent with halakha, more supportive evidence (e.g. from Midrashim) is needed that these were indeed cases of yibbum. JFW | T@lk 08:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I plan to soon expand it to add sources from the shulcahn arukh, the Ramban explanation of yehuda and tamar, and the artscroll intro to Ruth. The main reason I used the rambam because it can be easily found online. Jon513 19:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

which wikiproject should synagogues be classified under wikiproject judaism, wikiproject jewish history or both--Java7837 04:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

All synagogues fall under this WikiProject. If they are of historical interest, Jewish History should cover them also. JFW | T@lk 08:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Vote at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Moses so as too get Moses into a featured article --Java7837 22:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe you mean "please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Moses and consider based on the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria if it qualifies". Jon513 19:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we should first build the article up to Good Article status before the trial by fire that is FAC (seeing as Moses was unanimously shot down). In fact I think a top priority is to get the article Judaism relisted as a Good Article (it was delisted last month). I reviewed the article Islam for GA and it quickly attained FA status. It requires some work and I suggest we somehow coordinate the task. I think we should make Judaism a collaborative project and bring it back to GA snuff. Valley2city 01:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Kashrut was formerly a FA. Jon513 16:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There has recently been some discussion regarding which "stories" or portions of the Bible merit having their own articles. For the purposes of centralized discussion, please make any comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#What should have separate articles?. Thank you. John Carter 13:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to articles on Psalms. See for example Psalm 23 one of the largest Psalm article on a very popular psalm. A third of it is translations, a third is when it is said in various prayer of various groups and the last third is "in popular culture". the translations should be on wikisource, the prayer should be in articles about the prayer services, and the "in popular culture" is junk. Any meaningful content (serious scholarly review) should be in article about themes in psalms. Wikipedia is not the place for line by line commentary on bible (perhaps wikibooks is). The AFDs on the subject are includsive with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psalm 143 ending in delete and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psalm 103 ending in a strong keep but only a vague idea what should actually be in the article. Jon513 17:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

So noted. I personally think having "collective" articles on a number of psalms (like, for instance, the Psalms of Asaph) is probably the best way to go myself. But the best place to place that comment would probably be on the page linked to above. John Carter 17:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not prepared to write a good article (or set of articles) myself and telling people how an article should be written when they don't want to do it either doesn't work. It is easier for everyone to have articles with a bunch of translations and a large in popular culture section, even if it is ridiculous. I have also stop trying to delete article on albums of barely notable bands that don't contain any information besides a track listing because they just keep coming back and I don't care that much. Jon513 17:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Greetings from Wikiproject Mythology. Based on a talk page discussion, we decided to restore an article called Jewish mythology that had been redirected to Aggadah. I don't know if someone on this project redirected it, but I thought I should let you guys know what's going on.

I admit that I'm no expert on Judaism. However, based solely on what I could gather from the Aggadah article, the Aggadah doesn't seem correspond to the label "Jewish mythology". According to the mythology article, "myths" (in the broadest academic sense) are simply the sacred and traditional stories of any culture. Thus, "Jewish mythology" should presumably include Biblical stories.

As it stands, the Jewish mythology article isn't great. When it speaks of "Jewish mythology", it seems to mean "Jewish superstitions". I'm thinking of re-writing the article on the model of the Christian mythology and Islamic mythology articles, making it a survey of traditional Jewish stories in general, Biblical or otherwise.

However, again, I'm not a Judaism expert. I understand that traditional Jewish stories come not only from the Bible but also from many sources that are quite foreign to me. I may start working on the article soon, but help from people who know more about Judaism would be appreciated. --Phatius McBluff 02:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The project has held that the concept of "mythology" is hard to apply to Judaism's narratives. To call the Bible "mythology" is even somewhat offensive; to most Jews, these stories were historical events and certainly not myths made up by someone somewhere. If they are larger than life, it is because the protagonists (the Patriarchs, Moses) were spiritual heroes.

Aggada is the - initally orally - transmitted rabbinical commentary. Aggada is largely interpretation and exegesis but contains many narratives. Many of these stories are still regarded as factual historical occurrences, while others are perceived as metaphorical by commentators. Sources of Aggada are Talmud and Midrash.

I submit that the creation of a separate article on Jewish mythology would be duplication of material already covered extensively elsewhere. JFW | T@lk 10:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Please remember, as stated above, the definition of mythology. Mythology does not imply falsity, so there is really no reason to be offended by this. Even if 'most Jews' are offended by this classification (that's a little dubious, I imagine), Wikipedia is not censored for your sensibilities. This is why Christian mythology and Islamic mythology exist, despite protests of they're being offensive. It also appears, from the Aggadah page that the name for the text in Aramaic is actually the exact same as the Greek word mythos. There's no reason why a reader searching for information on Jewish mythology should not be directed towards an article that summarizes it and helps direct them to more detailed articles on the finer points of this topic. CaveatLector^Talk 22:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I am merely repeating arguments that have been advanced in the past. From your use of the word "censored" I take the cue that I should probably wait for others to offer a more rational rejoinder. But please demonstrate that the academic field of "Jewish mythology" exists. JFW | T@lk 21:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that Jewish mythology is an "academic field," but they are correct about the technical definition of "mythology." For instance, the term "creation myth" does NOT mean that creation didn't happen - it is exactly the same as saying "creation story." In other words, there is no reason for frum Jews (or anyone else who believes in a literal reading of the Bible) to be offended by the term mythology.--DLand^TALK 22:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The academic field of mythology, including Jewish myths, can be exemplified in the writings of Mircea Eliade, Joseph Campbell, and many/most of the people in the Category:Mythographers. Also, there was at least one very good book by Robert Graves and Raphael Patai entitled Jewish Myths, dealing with many of the stories found in Kabbalistic literature and/or given passing mention in Genesis. John Carter 22:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are a few more examples of "Jewish Mythology":

• Tree of Souls: The Mythology of Judaism by Howard Schwartz (Oxford University Press)
• Encyclopedia of Wisdom and Jewish Mythology by Rabbi David Rabeeya
• Encyclopedia Mythica: Judaic mythology

I think Mythology is pretty clear that myths are "stories that a particular culture believes to be true". Also, it says:

Significantly, none of the scholarly definitions of "myth" (see above) imply that myths are necessarily false. In a scholarly context, the word "myth" may mean "sacred story", "traditional story", or "story about gods", but it does not mean "false story". Therefore, scholars may speak of "religious mythology" without meaning to insult religion. (For instance, a scholar may call Christian and Muslim scriptures "myths" without meaning to insult Christianity and Islam.) However, this scholarly use of the word "myth" may cause confusion and offense, due to the popular use of "myth" to mean "falsehood".

With respect to the original message, I think Aggadah more closely corresponds to legends ("a narrative of human actions that are perceived both by teller and listeners to take place within human history and to possess certain qualities that give the tale verisimilitude") than it does to mythology ("stories that a particular culture believes to be true and that use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity"). In fact, two English-language [[collections of Aggadah are Legends of the Jews and The Book of Legends (a translation of a Hebrew compilation). — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Your distinction mean that the Iliad and the Odyssey would not be considered 'mythology' or 'myths', but 'legends'. How, exactly, are 'legends' not part of mythology? CaveatLector^Talk 02:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No, no, wait a minute, CaveatLector; I think Malik Shabazz is agreeing with us. We're trying to establish that Jewish mythology shouldn't have been redirected to Aggadah. He agrees: he's pointing out that, by the strictest definition of "myth" (a sacred story that takes place in a primordial age), the Aggadah is not myth but legend. And, no, actually some folklorists who adhere to the very strictest academic definitions of "myth", "legend", etc. would not categorize many Greek myths as "true" myths (because they're set in relatively recent times; they center on human heroes, not gods; etc.). We can quibble over whether "legends" should be included in the Jewish mythology article (I took the liberty of including some "legends" in the Christian mythology and Islamic mythology articles); however, I think we have Malik basically agreeing with us.

Malik Shabazz, I assume that you think Biblical stories of creation and origins (e.g., Eden, Tower of Babel) should be included in the Jewish mythology article, right? Such Biblical stories are "stories that a particular culture believes to be true and that use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity". --Phatius McBluff 04:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I really don't take sides in matters like this. Malik said something that was questionably correct, and I pointed it out. Also, I hadn't known that mythologists and folklorists had such disagreement over what to call 'myths'...I'll have to look into that. CaveatLector^Talk 16:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it isn't really a disagreement; it's more of a discipline thing. People in one academic discipline may use the word "theory" to mean any hypothesis; people in another academic discipline may use it to mean only a hypothesis that has been repeatedly supported by empirical evidence. But, yes, folklorists and what are best called "mythologists" (Joseph Campbell, Carl Jung, et al) do use the word "myth" differently. As far as I can tell, mythologists will call any traditional story (e.g., King Arthur) a "myth", while folklorists divide traditional stories as follows:

• myths - sacred stories concerning the distant past, particularly the creation of the world; generally focussed on the gods
• legends - stories about the (usually more recent) past, which generally include, or are based on, some historical events; generally focussed on human heroes
• folktales/fairytales (or Märchen, the German word for such tales) - stories whose tellers acknowledge them to be fictitious, and which lack any definite historical setting; often include animal characters

You can find this information on the Mythology article. --Phatius McBluff 17:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The last statement above is true. It should be noted however that even mythologists (or whatever the word is) acknowledge that some of the stories which are called "myths" contain facts within them, King Arthur, Charlemagne, and others specifically among them. In cases like these, they aren't necessarily referring to the entire "idea" as a myth, but simply the non-verifiable parts of the stories and/or later additions to them. Also, the two stories of the Hebrew Bible mentioned are widely noted and actually already have articles of their own. It would certainly be possible to include passing reference to them, but there would be no reason to place much content on them in a page regarding Jewish mythology because they already have their own pages. Some of the other myths that might qualify for their own articles or already have them, Lilith among them, would probably only be specifically mentioned in passing, if at all, as well. I would think that the Jewish mythology article itself would probably devote itself to being an overview of the current theories of the development of Jewish mythology, stories and or themes which appear in those stories, and the like. But it would be at best illogical to try to turn existing quality articles into sections of a single article. It might however contain "myths" which don't yet have their own articles, but even then probably only until and unless they receive separate articles. John Carter 18:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I fear that would make the page a lopsided holding pen of anecdotes and miscellany. I suggest that just as other cultures have mythology, there is a broad article to be written for the most sacred stories and mythology of Judaism culture. I've already begun the cleanup a few days ago and thus removed some of its "needs cleanup" flags instead gave it "fact verification" flags. I boldly deleted discussions of superstition, parables ^proverbs^ and remedies as a misdirected attempt to define mythology as false notions and ^proverbs^ and anecdotes. Goldenrowley 21:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope that does not sound "critical", I was called away...proverbs are wonderful they just aren't stories. Goldenrowley 22:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to start any trouble. I'm not an expert in these things, just somebody who has read the Bible and portions of the Talmud and other Aggadah. As I understand the terms "mythology" ("stories that a particular culture believes to be true and that use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity") and "legends" ("a narrative of human actions that are perceived both by teller and listeners to take place within human history and to possess certain qualities that give the tale verisimilitude"), I think that:

• I was probably too quick in what I wrote earlier.
• Some Biblical events, and some Aggadah, are best described as mythology. These might include the ten plagues and the story of the Four Sages who entered Paradise.
• Some Biblical events, and some Aggadah, are best described as legends. These might include the narrative of Jacob and his marriage to the daughters of Laban, and Akiva and his wife.

There may not be any bright lines. Many of the important figures in the Bible are the subjects of bothe "myths" and "legends", and the same is true of many of the later rabbis who figure in the Aggadah. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your comment above totally, Shabazz. Stories of Sages in Paradise would be mythic in that they are supernatural and about a relation with the sacred or divine, while stories of Jacob's marriage are more human and legendary. Goldenrowley 00:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that discussion might fruitfully be divided into three categories:

1. Narratives that traditional Judaism regards as myths, such as some of the stories of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba or the story of the Golem of Prague 2. Narratives involving a dispute within traditional Judaism, regarded as allegorical by some and literal by others (narratives that for example Maimonides' Guide for the Perplexed regard as allegorical) 3. Core beliefs of traditional Judaism that believers regard as true, such as the exodus from Egypt and the revelation at Mount Sinai.

An article on the first category would brook no controversy. For an article including the second and especially the third categories, I suggest very careful attention to WP:NPOV and WP:A, with use of "according to..." or similar language to indicate who regards these narratives as myths and who does not. --Shirahadasha 22:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There has been a push in the last week or so (largely by User:Java7837, User:Eliyak, and myself), to tag appropriate articles for this project, and rate them. (You can see our progress if you'd like). In many respects it is slow tedious work, which is why I was thinking of getting a bot to help with the tagging part (a bot obviously couldn't do the rating part). Unless someone knows of a reason why this is a bad idea, I was thinking of making a request at WP:BOT for a bot to tag all article in Category:Jewish law and rituals and all its subcategories (which include rabbis, synagogue, Hebrew Calendar, and others) for this wikiproject. Obviously we'd have to go through afterwards and rate all of the articles on the importance and article rating scale, but it would make at least part of our job easier. Are there any objections? --Bachrach44 13:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion if the front of the article is tagged with Template:Stub or some other stub template on its front page and is tagged with WikiProject Judaism in its talk page it should automatically be rated for stub class for wikiproject judaism--Java7837 20:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Also have it add articles to WikiProject Judaism if they use a jewish related stub and also rate for their class as stub--Java7837 20:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think my suggestions would greatly speed up the process--Java7837 20:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

One more suggestion for article tagged for WP Judaism in their talk pages if their respective article pages are not tagged with a stub template it should inherit the class from any other wikiprojects if there is a class dispute then it shall be not be rated for class--Java7837 20:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a semi-automated bot, User:Rabbot that is meant for the task of tagging talk pages with WP tags. If you can get me a list of articles that need tagging, I can program it. Valley2city 01:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I found a seemingly dormant thread on Template talk:Jewish holidays#New Israeli holidays as religious holidays (dead for 3 years, anyway) in which a decision was unilaterally made to split Jewish Holidays and Israeli Holidays from a previously united template in which the holidays were split by section on the same template. There have been multiple discussions in the past, one of which appears in this very same thread, regarding a compromise on the status of Israeli holidays. The decision in the past has been to have a single template on which Jewish Holdays would be categorized in a different section than Israeli holidays. Without any other input, and probably because nobody else commented, Yehoishophot Oliver split the template into two separate ones. I have thusfar not received a response from him on his [[talk page from a week ago, but I have noticed that his edits have skewed solidly Anti-Zionist so I feel a real POV is going into the split. I am admittedly a Conservative Jew, whose movement is Zionist and therefore considers the Israeli holidays to be on par with Jewish holidays. However it is impossible to weigh in on this and not have a POV. Since we have decided in the past to compromise, I would like to see people weigh in on this to decide the future of the templates, whether to unite, split into sections, or into seperate templates. I have kept it as Yehoishophot Oliver for the time being, though the results of past discussion on this topic is to have a single template with split sections. Valley2city 00:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody have an opinion on this? Please weigh in, no matter what your preference, as it is basically a one on one debate. Here are the two proposals:

• Single template split into sections (previous consensus): Template:Jewish and Israeli holidays

(shown on Jewish and Israeli holiday pages as listed below)

• Two separate templates (as per Yehoishophot Oliver's proposal) Template:Jewish holidays (shown on the Jewish religious holidays listed below)

Israeli holidays (shown on the five Israeli holidays listed below)

Valley2city 18:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC).

Can I join if i study Judaism and dig in Israel, but am not Jewish? IsraelXKV8R 02:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course! Anyone interested in contributing to articles about Judaism is welcome! Just add your name to the directory on the project page and join right in.Valley2city 02:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely! You don't have to be Jewish to join.* — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 02:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

* Reminds me of the old advertisements for Levy's rye bread, whose slogan was "You don't have to be Jewish to love Levy's real Jewish Rye." :-)

That would actually be a great ad campaign for WP:JEW. "You don't have to be Jewish to work on WikiProject Judaism". I like it better than what exists now for the QXZ ads as seen on Image:Qxz-ad44.gif Valley2city 17:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

* * Sweet thanx. I'm in.

can anyone explain to me why we have a member list at all? If you want to be involved in the project watch this page and get involved, why do we need "members"? Jon513 16:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think (1) having members join are at least one indication of activity, and project pages which don't have activity are often called "inactive" or, worse, deleted, (2) some votes require membership in a project, so it gives editors who work on these articles a WikiProject they can verifiably proof they are active with, and (3) it does give individuals an additional reason to "come back" to the page and/or content. Also, it might, on occasion, help an individual who is looking for help regarding a specific article relating to Judaism to find someone who would be useful. I don't know if it ever is used in that way, but it could be. Also, in a less important way, this particular list shows, in effect, how comparatively large this project is. I have no idea what if any good that objectively does, but it does give an indication of the amount of people committed to these articles, if nothing else. John Carter 16:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There has been a dispute going on between editors (mainly 2) regarding the content and article naming of

• List of Czech and Slovak Jews
• List of Czech, Bohemian, Moravian and Slovak Jews

If anyone from here feel like having a look at the situation it would be much appreciated. Pax:Vobiscum 09:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I just got done copyeditting an article with some very nuanced aspects of halakha in it. I decided that the nuances were completely outside the article's scope, so I removed them. But I felt that the inclusion of seeming psak on specific cases in halakha should be tagged as non-authoritative, so I created Template:Halakha. Just wanted to let everyone know it exists. --Eliyak T·C 06:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not comfortable with the line "Please ask a respected rabbi instead." as POV. Also this goes against Wikipedia policy of Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. I have, for now removed it from the article pending more discussion. Jon513 14:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't know about that policy. I guess we must simply be more careful in the wording of articles. --Eliyak T·C 14:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

A good NPOV article doesn't need such a template. JFW | T@lk 23:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged the template for speedy deletion. --Eliyak T·C 03:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

There are two acharonim categories Category:Later Acharonim and Category:Early Acharonim with the stated distintion of

"This category is for later Acharonim, meaning only rabbis who lived the majority of their lives after 1750; those who lived before 1750 are categorized under Category:Early Acharonim."

two questions: who made up the year 1750? There is no distinction with "early" and "later" Acharonim like there is between other periods in Jewish Law (a later rabbi cannot argue with a rabbi from an early period). Current rabbis are still "acharonim" no different than ones that lived 500 years ago. Also does Category:Later Acharonim apply to living rabbis? Dland seems to think it does not [2]. Jon513 14:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Goldwurm zatzal (The Early Acharonim, ArtScroll 1989) seems to place the cutoff at around 1700. The 18th century is remarkable for a number of transitions, particularly the Noda biYehuda and the Vilna Gaon (and probably the Shaagas Aryei and later Rabbi Akiva Eiger) and their impact on learning in terms of synthesis and breadth. As most of these flourished in the latter half of the 18th century, 1750 would be an equally reasonable cutoff.

I would find it difficult to delineate whether the era of the Later Acharonim persists until this day. Today's rabbis would not argue with even those from the previous generation, so in that sense this generation cannot be counted, but will in the future. JFW | T@lk 23:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jon513: The piece of information that you are missing here is that at some point a few years ago we had some pro-Conservative Judaism editors who insisted that their rabbis are also "achronim" thus a compromise was reached not to call any rabbis of the mdoern era as "achronim" to avoid conflict. IZAK 11:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I know, after reshomin it branched into orthodox conservative and reform - that made sense. That does not seem to be what is going on now. Jon513 12:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism would love to take you up on your very generous offer. If I give you Category:Judaism will the bot recursively do everything in that category too or do I need to enumerate each category? --Bachrach44 22:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Bachrach44 (et al)!

I don't allow the bot to run through sub-categories of a specific category. All too often, it follows subcategories right out of the original subject and ends up at Category:Surface features of Mars :)

The best place to start is to pull together a list of categories - WikiProject Alabama has a great example, though you don't need to break it down alphabetically. You can if you want - it makes it easier to read for humans - but the bot doesn't need it.

I'll also need to know the WikiProject banner to use.

The bot can also ignore articles that already have specific templates. This is useful if you have a sub-project (or super-project) where you don't want to add your banner when theirs is already there.

Finally, the bot can automatically add assessment ratings to articles if there are indications. For instance, if the article is in {{Synagogue-stub}} (or any other stub tag), it can automatically add the "class=stub" to the project banner.

Let me know a) the list you put together and b) the options above you would like to implement. I can then sic the bot on all of it :) Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Awesome - thanks in advance for your help. I guess we'll have to start a list of cats we want to tag. Hopefully we'll be done that process soon. --Bachrach44 17:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

What's the best way to deal with Category:Jewish Roman Catholics: should it be renamed into something like "Catholics of Jewish ancestry" or be put for removal? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd opt for renaming Category:Ethnically Jewish Roman Catholics or something similar. It could also be listed for deletion, but I think the Catholicism Project might be strong enough to vote to keep it in any event, and it might alienate a lot of them if it were to be proposed for deletion without their prior consent. Maybe you could express your concerns on their talk page and get some input from them before you do anything though. John Carter 14:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 29#Category:Jewish Roman Catholics. Thank you, IZAK 12:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Per the prior conversation, we're going to get a bot to tag article for this WikiProject. What we need now is a list of cats to run through. I've made a list by digging through Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Categories and getting everything that looked appropriate. After removing the duplicates I'm left with 621 categories, although that's probably too high because I was just cutting and pasting everything. Please take a look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism/Categories and make adjustments as you see fit. I've probably been over-inclusive, so if you see categories which may contain a lot of articles not really relevant to Judaism, please remove them from the list. --Bachrach44 17:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the list I've put together at User:Eliyak/Judaism categories may be a bit better (it's certainly longer ;-) ). --Eliyak T·C 03:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Cross-posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kabbalah

After de-listing 26 (number) from this WikiProject, I realized that de-listing similar articles such as 42 (number) might start a fight. My argument is that Judaism/Kabbalah is not the primary concern of these articles, but rather a trivial element within them. A statement such as "God's name Jehovah has a Gematria of 26" belongs more in an article about God's name, where such information can be centralized. Shalom ^Hello 02:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we get a collaboration going to write an article to refute Messianic Judaism and groups like Jews for Jesus. I find the Wikipedia articles on them disturbing and I feel we need an article of our own to put the Jewish point of view.

Tovojolo 13:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battle ground. The article Messianic Judaism does make it very clear that Jewish denominations do not consider messianice judaism jewish. There is also an article Judaism's view of Jesus. Jon513 15:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

We've uploaded nearly all of our encyclopedia topics, a list of which is available here. Most are under Judaism category "The Holocaust"--USHMMwestheim 04:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Has the museum given permission for us to use all the encyclopedia (even copy and pasting) or are only you (as an museum employee) allowed to for select article? Does this include pictures? Jon513 10:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The default way to interpret this is that they have licensed only the content they have uploaded to Wikipedia under the GFDL. That is not giving us permission as such - it's releasing the content under the same free license we do. So if it's not on here, there is no reason to assume it's been licensed. The OTRS ticket that these permissions were confirmed through also merely notes that USHMM will be editing - it gives no further reaching permissions. Phil Sandifer 12:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Only the content copy and pasted from this user name is available for public domain usage from the USHMM. We also plan on adding pictures (we have already uploaded a good many from our Buchenwald collections as a trial onto the Wikimedia Foundation's site under "The Holocaust" category) but, again, only those selected by the museum are free from copy violations--USHMMwestheim 15:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Avi 18:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up that Andrew Saul (ex-CEO of Cache and Brooks Bros.) has been nominated for featured article status here. Any input, comment and suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Please feel free to comment and/or improve the article. Thanks! Mrprada911 21:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

And what on Earth this blatant PR campaign might have to with Judaism I ask? M0RD00R 01:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Saul is probably Jewish, but that is not quite relevant for this WikiProject, which is about the religion rather than people who happen to be Jewish. JFW | T@lk 20:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Can someone pls assess Sandy Koufax? Tx.--Epeefleche 08:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Not unless you are more specific about what you want. We are not here to adjudicate on WP:NPOV or something. JFW | T@lk 20:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I just got a request to continue with the bot tagging? What options did you want me to run with? Meaning:

1. I assume from that request that the template to use is {{WikiProject Judaism}}
2. Are there any sub/super projects related to this one, and if so, are there any banners that, if present, would mean *not* adding yours?
3. Do you want me to automatically add a Stub, FA, or GA class, or will you want to review them yourselves?

Thanks! Please reply on the bot's talk page. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

1. I assume from that request that the template to use is {{WikiProject Judaism}}

correct

1. Are there any sub/super projects related to this one, and if so, are there any banners that, if present, would mean *not* adding yours?

no

Actually, there are {{WikiProject Kabbalah}}, {{WikiProject Jewish history}}, {{WikiProject Jewish culture}}. The banner should not be added, but probably should not be removed if present. --Eliyak T·C 20:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Do you want me to automatically add a Stub, FA, or GA class, or will you want to review them yourselves?

Thanks!

yes

--Java7837 22:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Eliyak, you removed Category:American Jews from the bot's page - should that be included or not when it's tagging talk pages? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Methinks both Qumran and Dead Sea Scrolls could use some supervision from this group. I am still working on the content for these pages - a little bit here and there - as my dissertation addresses both Qumran and the DSS. But I'd love some wikification, as well as some watchlist adds, just to keep an eye on those pages. You'll see what I mean. Thanx! IsraelXKV8R 06:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This should be brought to the attention of all concerned here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-09 Chabad. Thank you. IZAK 11:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Moses in hellenistic literature is up for deletion even though it is doesn't violate pov and quotes many important texts such as josephus flavius philo Eusebius (3 great historians) and quotes from Assumption of Moses a hellenistic text--Java7837 13:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how prevalent this is, but SatyrBot tagged a few talk pages with the WikiProject Judaism template, where the articles that have very little to do with Judaism:

• Talk:Martin Luther - Martin Luther was the founder of Protestantism.
• Talk:Chick Publications - Not a fan of the Jewish, but that doesn't mean he should be in WikiProject Judaism.

Looking at it now, I think it has to do with the membership of both in Category:Antisemitism. I'd ask that some WikiProject members who know more about Jewish culture than I do look through the Antisemitism category, and remove the template from articles whose subjects have little to do with Judaism other than hating Jewish people. Surely there are some anti-semites who should be under the scope of WikiProject Judaism, but they all shouldn't be - otherwise, both these articles would be under WikiProject Catholicism because they both have/had negative views of the Catholic Church. It might also be worth checking SatyrBot's contributions to see if there are any articles you think have a similar problem. Ral315 » 03:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

We plan on checking the articles added, i examined many of the articles added and noticed Book of Revelation but no other odd balls, we plan on rating the articles based off of importance and in doing so will remove articles from WikiProject Judaism that do not relate to the project--Java7837 13:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The bot has also been tagging Israeli political parties. Whilst there is some connection to Judaism, I don't believe most of them are in the scope of WikiProject Judaism (the exceptions being the religious parties Shas, UTJ and the NRP). Number 57 08:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It is important that we look at the articles added i found book of revelation added because it was part of category:Abrahamic prophecy also Ral315 noted Chick Publications (a fundamentalist christian publisher) was added and Martin Luther i looked at many of the articles by the bot and do not know of any further problems but i recommend we look which articles are part of Category:Antisemitism and see if the article can actually be worked on by the group for example several of the church fathers hated jews such as calling us the children of cain this doesn't mean we should add them to WP:JEW but if we are talking about say Adolph Hitler a religious catholic gone extremist or Haman an extremist then yes add it to WP:JEW--Java7837 13:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I am looking at the articles in Category:Antisemitism and found out Judas Iscariot, and Nation of Islam (very antisemitic group but fear of misunderstanding by people looking at its talkpage)

Now Judas Iscariot no doubt was name given to the character because the name literally means Judah and the Jews were blamed for the death of Jesus and calling him Iscariot no doubt was an attempt to show hatred of the sicarii a anti-roman group because they did not pay allegiance to rome as christian theology teaches to do--Java7837 13:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Also because of the fictional character of Judas Iscariot many jews have died yet it may confuse people into thinking as one muslim told me that Judas Iscariot was the last prophet of Judaism lol--Java7837 13:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I finished looking through the articles in Category:Antisemitism and did not see any other strange articles--Java7837 13:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I've been keeping the bot's logs on the bot's "Current project" talk page. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I know and thank you very much for doing this for wikiproject judaism it is greatly appreciated--129.115.102.13 15:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The bot added Hafrada, Qalqilyah, Jenin, and Abu Dis to your WikiProject. Are project members sure this is related to Judaism as a religion per the scope of the project as outlined on the main page? Tiamat 17:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It because we suggested that Category:Cities in Samaria be part of WikiProject Judaism --Java7837 21:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, all. I've now gotten three or four comments from various people (one or two above) regarding SatyrBot over-tagging. Would the project please review Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Categories and make doubly-sure that all the categories listed are at least 80% within the project's scope? I'd prefer not to get any angry messages :) Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is the bot tagging Israeli cities, villages, songs, settlements, newspapers and rivers among other things? --Shuki 21:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hamas is part of WP:J? I think someone gave satyrbot a too-broad list, and it's going overboard. Where is this "list" and who was responsible for it? -- Avi 12:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to comment on this. I noticed that some biography articles that I watch have been tagged as part of this project because the persons concerned are of Jewish descent. Should this be a suffient condition for inclusion? For example, Eric Hobsbawm is a committed Marxist and atheist who, while of Jewish descent, might be uncomfortable with being categorised under 'Judaism' on either religious or ethnic grounds (I haven't read his autobiography, so I can't say for sure). In my opinion, the attribution of religious affiliation (which, from the description, appears to be the primary purpose of this project) to a biography should be based on the verifiable personal identifcation of the article's subject. I recognise that the particularities of Jewish identity may complicate this, but Wikipedia should err on the side of caution for the sake of accuracy. – 01011000 15:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

When this WikiProject was first started, I explicitly stated that it should be purely about the Jewish "religion" and not about topics that happen to involve Jews. Hence, we elected to keep Israeli politics, antisemitism and such outside the scope of this WikiProject. Satyrbot needs to understand that I will block it if I find out further articles are improperly categorised under this WikiProject. JFW | T@lk 15:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoah, JFW. It's not SatyrBot that needs to be blocked. If you'll read above, you'll note that the WikiProject developed the list - the bot is merely working on what it was provided with. It's not making any decisions - that's for the project to do.

Since I've gotten so much feedback on this, I'm going to stop the bot's project until the project can re-review the list and assure me that it is reasonably sure the categories apply to the project. Please contact me when that's been done. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Can the bot go back and revert everything it's done? There has to be a way to do dry runs before letting those things loose. --Shuki 20:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

SatyrTN - apologies for my misunderstanding. Obviously, the categories list is much too inclusive and massively overreaches what this WikiProject was initially intended for.

I agree with Shuki that we should probably start all over. Can I prevail on Bachrach and Java to radically prune their list? JFW | T@lk 20:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The bot *could* undo it all - or any admin can, I believe. But that would mean undoing 243 categories and 4,501 banners, most of which would then have to be re-done after the pruning. I think that would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

While the project is pruning, could it please keep track of the categories that *don't* fit the criteria? I can then run the bot on those categories and remove the banner as necessary. That would be a much more efficient method. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually was making a list of categories that needed to be removed from the wikiproject and or moved to other projects

Category:Archangels (I removed all irrelevant articles from the project manually and moved some if possible to more appropiate projects)
Category:Classes of angel (I removed all irrelevant articles from the project manually and moved some if possible to more appropiate projects)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Java7837 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Non-traditional Kabbalah(I removed all irrelevant articles from the project and moved articles to more appropriate projects if possible)
Category:Kabbalah(I removed all irrelevant articles from the project and moved articles to more appropriate projects if possible)
Category:Kabbalists(actually these articles i added to wikiproject judaism because the articles in the category are rabbis who did works on other forms of jewish study than kabbalah such as ethics, philosophy, and commentaries on non-kabbalistic texts)

Category:Six-Day War Category:Religious Kibbutz Movement Category:Roman sites in Israel Category:Ancient Greek sites in Israel Category:Cities in Judea Category:Cities in Samaria Category:Ancient Israel and Judah Category:Battles involving the Canaanites Category:Judea and Samaria Area Category:Battles of the Maccabean revolt Category:Hasmoneans Category:Roman governors of Judaea

Category:Yiddish Category:Yiddish-language film directors Category:Yiddish-language occupations Category:Yiddish-language poets Category:Yiddish-language writers Category:Yiddish literature Category:Yiddish periodicals Category:Yiddish singers Category:Yiddish songs Category:Yiddish theatre Category:Yiddish theatre performers Category:Yiddish words and phrases <- this one i want to do manually
Category:Jewish comedy Category:Jewish culture Category:Jewish magazines Category:Jewish media Category:Jewish media in Canada Category:Jewish medical organizations Category:Jewish music Category:Judeo-Arabic languages Category:Jewish film and theatre Category:Jewish radio Category:Jewish newspapers Category:Judeo-Persian languages Category:Judeo-Romance languages Category:Jewish sports organizations Category:Ladino language Category:Linguists of Yiddish Category:Hasidic entertainers Category:Jewish clubs and societies

Category:Torah cities Category:Torah events Category:Torah monarchs Category:Torah people Category:Torah places Category:Essene texts Category:Dead Sea scrolls Category:Book of Enoch Category:Book of Daniel Category:Battles involving the Canaanites Category:Biblical women in ancient warfare Category:Deuterocanonical books Category:Geography of Hebrew Bible places Category:Hebrew Bible chapters Category:Hebrew Bible cities Category:Hebrew Bible cities and countries Category:Hebrew Bible countries Category:Hebrew Bible events Category:Hebrew Bible geography Category:Hebrew Bible manuscripts Category:Hebrew Bible mountains Category:Hebrew Bible nations Category:Hebrew Bible people Category:Hebrew Bible places Category:Hebrew Bible quotations Category:Hebrew Bible rivers Category:Hebrew Bible topics Category:Hebrew Bible valleys Category:Hebrew Bible verses Category:Samaritan culture and history Category:Samaritan texts Category:Judges of ancient Israel Category:Kings of ancient Israel Category:Kings of ancient Judah Category:Kings of Edom Category:Tanakh stubs Category:Testament of Solomon Category:Non-rabbinic Jewish texts Category:Old Testament Apocrypha Category:Old Testament Apocrypha people Category:Old Testament Apocrypha places

Category:Victims of the Inquisition Category:Works of Josephus Category:Herodian dynasty Category:Images of the Holocaust Category:Jewish Argentine history Category:Jewish Austrian history Category:Jewish Autonomous Oblast Category:Jewish Babylonian history Category:Jewish Dutch history Category:Ancient Jewish Egyptian history Category:Ancient Jewish Greek history Category:Ancient Jewish Persian history Category:Ancient Jewish Roman history Category:Dreyfus affair Category:Jewish English history Category:Holocaust museums Category:Jewish Messiah claimants Category:Jewish museums Category:Blood libel Category:Rothschild family Category:Jewish philanthropists Category:Jewish Ukrainian history Category:Jewish United States Supreme Court justices Category:Jewish Polish history Category:Jewish Portuguese history Category:Jewish Romanian history Category:Jewish-Roman wars Category:Jewish royalty Category:Jewish Russian and Soviet history Category:Jewish resistance during the Holocaust Category:Jewish South African history Category:Jewish Spanish history Category:Nazi anti-Semitic propaganda films Category:American Jews Category:Argentine Jewish organizations Category:Pogrom victims

Category:Antisemitic canards Category:Antisemitic forgeries Category:Antisemitic publications Category:Antisemitism Category:Anti-Judaism Category:Anti-Zionism

Thank you, Java. Could you action these moves ASAP so SatyrBOT can then carry on adding banners. Could removal of categories from the list lead to the bot removing the banners? JFW | T@lk 09:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not exactly sure what you are saying the categories i listed should have WP:JEW replaced with the correponsding project that i suggested except for the categories for wikiproject religion and wikiproject kabbalah (some relate to judaism other than kabbalah for example kabbalistic sages often wrote works on ethics, philosophy, and/or commentaries on non-kabbalistic texts also the main article kabbalah should obviously be part of the project) i need to do those manually as some do relate to judaism.--69.153.67.219 16:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Could Project Judaism add the article on William Schniedewind to WP Judaism? He is an endowed, named chair at major university teaching Hebrew Bible. I could use a few more sets of eyes to help maintain the page from a user who regularly vandalizes tha page b/c of a RL dispute. Thanx. IsraelXKV8R 01:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point - he is a person, not a religious topic. JFW | T@lk 06:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed don't see the point--129.115.38.13 13:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw that it had been added to Norman Golb's Page, another prof of Jewish Studies. I thought we were adding BLPs to the Proj. I have others if we are. Frank Moore Cross at Harvard, etc. IsraelXKV8R 13:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If the subject's notability is to a serious degree related to Judaism, I think it would make sense. In this case, as much of his work does directly relate to Judaism, including its history, etc., this project would probably include some of the people who would know the most about the subject. Whether that given article would be a major priority is another matter entirely, of course. Also, the members of this project might well be among those most qualified to comment on any questionable content in the article. The project might only function in a "support" role for the article, as opposed to actively developing it, but that support would be useful. Also, of course, if anyone member of the project does add content related to his work to the encyclopedia, it would be useful to know that the article already existed to be added to. John Carter 13:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone here have thoughts on whether Yuri Andropov should be labeled a Jew? Haukur 11:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems like it. I take issue with his "nationality" being marked "Jew" as well. It is a religion or maximally an ethnicity, not a nationality. JFW | T@lk 14:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, that's what I thought. I'll revert again, then. Haukur 15:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

A healthy and prosperous new year, and a gmar tov to everyone. JFW | T@lk 21:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed that User:IZAK's last contribution was over a month ago? Has he left Wikipedia or has he taken an unannounced wikibreak? I also noticed that User:Shirahadasha's last edit was June 27. What's going on here?--DLand^TALK 18:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Send them an email. JFW | T@lk 20:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It's time for the next generation to take over. --רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 23:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Vehemently disagree. IZAK and Shira both had skills that are NOT matched by the present cohort of editors. Of particular value I found Shira's readiness to take on Francis Duffy in his roughshod ride through Tanach articles.

I would be quite happy sending either of them an email on behalf of the WikiProject. Please sign below if you agree. JFW | T@lk 21:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Controversial as he could be, Izak put more work into this project than almost everyone else combined. Shir was a valuable asset as well, and was a welcome voice of reason in many instances. It would be a shame to lose either of them. Daniel^C/_T+ 21:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I got an email from IZAK (on an unrelated issue). He is traveling with little opportunity for internet access. I'm sure he'll be back shortly. Anyone heard from Shirahadasha? JFW | T@lk 14:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why, but over the three weeks period I notice that a lot of us scaled back our contributions. Maybe the general malaise of summer weather? I've definitely scaled back my edits over the summer which is counterintuitive as I was on vacation last month with little to do. Valley2city 02:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi all, ever heard of the word/s "travel," "vacation," "business" or "real life" and some people do not realize that in the United States and the Northern Hemisphere it's Summer and thus many people are away for all sorts of reasons (travel or family stuff) or have different jobs starting from June, through July and August, and even up to September (when the Yom Tov season requires our attention) -- anyhow, thanks for missing me!!! IZAK 11:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi and shanah tova to all, also back. "Real life" also called. I'll probably have to edit a little less frequently than I did before. Thanks for the warm compliments. --Shirahadasha 01:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

For a good while, User:Rktect has been making significant modifications to various biblical articles — for example, compare his/her changes to Stations list here. S/he has been blocked four times, twice in the last three months, after long insertions of original research. Please compare the current version of Elim (Bible) with the way it was before Rktect began editing it in July. I'd appreciate it if some of you in this wikiproject would watch a bunch of these articles, lest this OR be restored. Nyttend 23:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Is Appetizing for real? I've never heard of this term. --Eliyak T·C 03:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Send to AFD. No evidence, and a dicdef anyway. JFW | T@lk 12:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

as somebody who lives in a jewish neighborhood i can testify that it is true we call all lox and fish sandwich stores appetizing here, it may be a false term but the mases do use it.--יודל 12:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

So it's a dicdef. JFW | T@lk 14:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The result of the AFD was "Keep and clean-up --Haemo 18:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)" [3]. -- The article has not been cleaned up, or edited in any way, since 20 September 2007. If people aren't going to clean this up (and add sources), IMHO another AFD would be in order down the line, and the decision might not go for "Keep" next time. -- 201.19.77.39 15:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey y'all, there's a bit of a conflict at Magog (Bible) as to whether it should be merged into the main article Gog and Magog. It's intended to deal with the figure from Genesis, whereas Gog and Magog deals with the whole schmeer comprehensively. The way I see it, there's just not enough information there to justify it being seperate; virtually all of what's there is dealt with in a superior form at the main article. I'd appreciate some input!--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The jewish writer and rabbi Chajim Bloch (perhaps you can spell Chajim differently) is missing in the english WP, contrary to the German, see de:Chajim_Bloch. The German National Library (Frankfurt) holds 28 books written by and about him, and his books about the Golem and Hersh Ostropoler were sold as piracy-prints (correct word?) in Berlin in the 80s. Plehn 10:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Is he notable in this area? Some people may be notable for a German encyclopedia and not an English one. JFW | T@lk 10:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hebrew language at WP:GAR; could lose GA status. --Ling.Nut 08:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the youngest age that one can graduate from the Yeshiva and gain the rabbinical ordination in orthodox Judaism? --Ghostexorcist 10:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no formal graduation from yeshiva. Rabbinical ordination is probably valid from the age of 13 (don't ask me for a source), but nowadays is rarely awarded to anyone younger than 20. JFW | T@lk 10:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see and join in at: talk:Baal teshuva#Should some of this article be split into Orthodox Jewish outreach? -- Avi 15:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Would it be an idea to set up MiszaBot II to auto-archive sections once they haven't been added to for say a month, or six weeks? Jheald 09:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Would any of you be able to provide some input into this question? Thanks -- Arvind 13:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

68.195.69.225 (talk · contribs) seems to believe that every Jewish holiday must have the word "ritual" in it, perferably in the introduction. I saw no value to his changes and reverted them. Certainly the sentence "Purim is a Jewish holiday" contains more information than "Purim is a Jewish ritual". Jon513 19:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Who makes decision what is a jewish topic or not?

Why Gog and Magog is a Wiki jewish for example?

Gog and magog mentioned in Revelation ( christians) Quran (islam) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.12.132 (talk) 05:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

and Ezekiel 38-39. The WikiProject Judaism banner on a talk page doesn't really mean anything and it is nothing that anyone should get work up about. It does not give the wikiproject any greater say in the article, or prevent other wikiproject from also putting their banners there. Frankly I think the whole idea of wikiproject banners is stupid and doesn't serve any point. Some claim that it helps direct new users to the wikiproject. As a wikiproject is just a common place to talk about issues relating to many articles, don't really see why we need to direct people here any more than we need to direct them to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion. Jon513 18:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not just new users who benefit from wikibanners -- it's good for anyone who comes to a page, and wants to know where they might go to get a second opinion on it. Plus they're useful in the system, to make it more possible to track which pages of interest to a project have been changed recently. Jheald 12:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The article Social justice currently has nothing on social justice in the Jewish tradition. I do not consider myself competent to edit on this topic myself. Thank you. -- 201.19.77.39 09:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Shirahadasha:

I'm concerned about the arrangement of the Reform Judaism articles, mostly because it would make it hard for me to place material (yes cited material) in the right place. Much of the material in "Reform Judaism", IMHO really belongs in Progressive Judaism. I'd even go so far as to say that Reform Judaism should be merged with Progressive Judiasm and that Reform Judaism be turned into a redirect to Progressive Judaism. Depending on the amount of material specific to each country a sub-article (Progressive Judiasm in XXX) might be merited.

The problem is that "Reform" is just one of the terms used to describe the Jewish religious response to the Haskalah. Outside the US, communities call themselves liberal and progressive as well as reform. Jointly they have chosen the name "World Union of Progressive Judiasm" to refer to themselves. Individually, the choice of "Reform" over other synonyms has little meaning - it isn't possible to make assumptions about a particular stance based on choice of name.

Discussion about the above two paragraphs probably shouldn't be carried out on user pages. Please feel free to move the above paragraph to the appropriate page and leave a note on my user page where to look for the discussion. Yours, Egfrank 08:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I believe "Reform Judaism" is the term used in a large number of Judaism articles. I would suggest bringing it up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism rather than attempting to deal with it individually here. I don't know if these movements are sufficiently similar that they can all be presented as having a single outlook in general or if the matter would be issue-by-issue. Best, --Shirahadasha 14:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm (User:egfrank) more concerned about the arrangement of materials among the articles than the name used in articles. However, the choice of name also bears discussing. I've added some more details explaining why I feel that the "main" article should be Progressive Judaism and that the articles Liberal Judaism and Reform Judaism should either be simple redirects to that article or disambiguation pages.

Common name - in the USA Reform Judaism is the term in most common usage and perhaps its heavy usage suggests a largely USA or Canadian based editorship?. The advantage of using the term "progressive Judaism" is that it is internationally neutral. It may also be less confusing for international readers. In some countries, for example, the UK, terms like "liberal" and "reform" refer to particular associations of congregations (Liberal Judaism and the Movement for Reform Judaism respectively). Despite organizational differences congregations associated with both organizations are members of the WUPJ and train their rabbis at common institutions. In other countries the terms reform,liberal,and progressive are used interchangably. Even in the USA and Canada where "reform judaism" is the more common term, the terms "liberal" and "progressive" Judaism are considered synonyms (see http://urj.org/worship/letuslearn/rj/).

Common institutions. There are several organizations that liberal/reform/progressive congregations and their members tend to belong to. For example, Arzenu - the international umbrella organization for progressive religious Zionist organizations and World Union for Progressive Judaism (WUPJ), the international organization for progressive/liberal/reform/reconstructionist congregations and ParDes, an association for Jewish day schools.

Common intellectual roots. Although they may stress different thinkers, the movements have their intellectual roots in the 19th century German Reform movement (cf. articles on Abraham Geiger, Samuel Holdheim, Zacharias Frankel among others). A common set of core beliefs is evidenced by the WUPJ mission statement (see http://wupj.org/About/About.asp). It would be hard to discuss their differences apart from this common intellectual background. Egfrank 16:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Common rabbinical training programs. Rabbis for progressive congregations around the world train in common institutions: Leo Baeck College (UK), the Abraham Geiger College (Germany), and the Hebrew Union College (Israel, USA). Students from all three schools spend their first year studying together on the Jerusalem campus of Hebrew Union College. Egfrank 04:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I just putting my 2 cents in, in some cases reformism is not Judaism and shouldn't be mentioned in some cases. --Shuliavrumi 17:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Just the sort of comment that encourages Ahavas Chinam, isn't it? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that was not a very helpful. JFW | T@lk 10:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Object. Worldwide, by far the most commonly used name for the movement that has inherited the principles of C19 German Reform is "Reform Judaism".

Furthermore, by *far* the largest number of those followers are in the USA and identify themselves and the movement to which they belong as Reform. WUPJ started out in London at a time when there was rather more suspicion between between the UK Liberals and UK Reform than there is now. I doubt very much that there are many members of Liberal synagogues in the UK who would object to be associated with the Reform movement worldwide. (They might or might not be so comfortable with UK Reform). Jheald 15:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I also think the Liberal Judaism article was better as it was, before the edit you're insisting on. Jheald 17:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to consider this issue. Whatever its historic origins, the World Union for Progressive Judaism (WUPJ) is now recognized as the international (42 countries) umbrella organization of those congregations that grew out of C19 German Reform. Those organizations have chosen to collectively call themselves "progressive". It is their choice and I think we should respect it.

As for the UK issue - the problem in the UK isn't a question of "who wants to be associated with whom" - liberal and reform congregations have been using the same rabbinical seminary for years. Rather "Liberal" and "Reform" in the UK now identify particular organizations. The potential for confusion would be more like confusing Nefesh B'Nefesh with the Israeli government's klitah program - both serve the same purpose (absortion) but have different organizational structures (amuta vs. government). Egfrank 19:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Not entirely true. There are distinct differences in outlook between the UK Liberal and UK Reform movements, and people do tend to strongly associate themselves with one rather than the other. UK Liberal is affirmatively progressive. UK Reform covers a broader range, including some schuls that are anything but progressive. It's appropriate for the two pages to explore the two different outlooks. The two movements are not identikit clones of each other, and it's not just simply a question of affiliative organisation. Reducing the pages to just being about the organisational structures is doing a disservice to Wikipedia. Jheald 20:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It was not at all my intent to "reduce pages to being about organizational structures" - I suggest though that we continue this discussion on the Liberal Judaism talk page. The issue of whether Liberal Judaism is a movement or organization is a good one. I agree that there are some strong feelings and that "Reform" in the UK is sometimes anything but, including some that are strongly anti-egalitarian. Interestingly, the two organizations also seem to differ in self perception - the Liberal Judaism website describes itself as a movement whereas the Movement for Reform Judaism ironically describes itself as an umbrella organization. Go figure...

As for the discussion here, your points about reform/liberal only seem to make the point stronger that the preferred term should be "progressive". In the UK particularly there are some strong feelings associated with the words "liberal" and "reform". I don't know the history of the WUPJ's mission statement (though I'm sure I could get it - the HQ is just down the block - finding a published version though may be another matter - sigh) but I suspect the decision to use "progressive" rather than "reform" or "liberal" may have been related to just such an issue. Why then do you object to the use of "progressive" to characterize them both? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egfrank (talk • contribs) 21:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi! As I understand it, Egfrank is also suggesting replacing Category:Reform Judaism by Category:Progressive Judaism. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. I don't believe that would be advisable. Nor is it necessary. With appropriate redirects it is always possible to use multiple terms.

Categories exist in part to help people find things. Therefore it is important that category titles use terms of reference that are natural and spontaneous to the reader. The fact remains that the liberal/reform/progressive movement has three names and the name that someone will search for spontaneously will depend on their country of origin and possibly the name of the umbrella organization to which their synagogue belongs.

In articles, the choice of name is less problematic. While people may not spontaneously search on the term "progressive", they will usually recognize it as a synonym. In that context, to maintain NPOV, I think we should use "progressive" when discussing matters that apply to the movement as a whole. When discussing matters that relate specifically to a region where reform (or liberal) is the preferred term, either "progressive" or the region's preferred term is acceptable. When discussing historic movements, such as the German Reform Movement of the 1800's, the term Reform is not only appropriate, but required. Egfrank 19:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is with the current set-up. I think the pages we have at the moment on Liberal, Reform and Progressive work well, are well matched to their subject matter, and match people's expectations of those terms. What is the problem you think you're trying to fix? Jheald 20:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well to start with, where would you write up in detail the commonalities I've listed above? Egfrank 23:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we do a pretty good job, as things are at the moment, under Reform Judaism. That article IMO covers most of the bases, does a very useful job of untangling C19 German Reform, present-day American Reform, UK Reform etc; and in the process covers pretty well most of the commonalities.

I know that the word Progressive is particularly used in Israel; but in most of the world, especially led by the States, I think Reform would be the most instinctive word to describe the worldwide alternative to the Orthodox.

I'm curious about the States though, and maybe somebody from the U.S. can help. My impression is that the word used is Reform. Aren't there overtones about the word Progressive that some might feel less comfortable with? Jheald 01:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Putting the material into the article on Reform Judaism won't work:

• The article begins by saying that Reform Judaism refers to American Reform Judaism (See line before the TOC). Hence it is not about the world movement.
• The article does not address the fact that there is a core movement that has many different names, but rather choses to focus on the two movements that prefer the name "Reform Judaism". Israel is only covered because its adherents are often called "reformim". (The movement itself prefers the term "ha tenua ha mitkademet ha Israeli" - the progressive Israel movement).
• Both in structure and content, the article emphasizes differences at the expense of commonality. The movements in the US, UK, and Israel are presented as separate entities with no connections other than historical. There are significant funding and intellectual exchanges that are completely ignored. The only attempt to compare and contrast is titled "Transnational Differences in the Reform Movement" and as its title suggests it only discusses differences
• To its credit the article does distinguish between the modern movement and its historical roots. However, the coverage of the modern movement is skeletal at best. Theses are just some of the critiques I have:
  • Reform/Liberal/Progressive approach to text is reduced to Plaut. There is much to be discussed there: the influence of reader-response criticism, the increasing value placed on midrash, are just part of what needs to be added. Where are the citations? The summaries of major thinkers? The review of feminist critique?
  • The discussion of Reform/Liberal/Progressive Halakhah is skeletal and lacks history and depth. Halakha in the reform/liberal/progressive movement is a complex issue and deserves far more than a few paragraphs. Neither is it a modern invention. Moshe Zemer is mentioned but one of the most prolific responsa writers, Solomon B Freehof, is ignored.
  • The rise of pluralism as a core concept is completely ignored. Considering that the concept would most likely be incomprehensible to 19C reformers, it deserves significant explaining.
  • The changing understanding of universalism and particularity on both pragmatic and philosophical levels isn't mentioned even though this has played a key role in the rise of tradition in later years.
  • Much of the article is dominated by a presentation of 19C German and American reform (which IMHO belongs in a separate article). This is particularly problematic in any presentation of the progressive/liberal/reform movement because one of its core principles is openness to developing intellectual thought. Modern philosophy has progressed greatly beyond the 19C universalists and liberal/progressive/reform Judaism has moved along with it.
• The article is over 40K and should already be broken down into several articles. It will only make matters worse to add more material.

As for your question to American Reform Jews - you've been talking to one. I grew up in the USA and lived there until I was thirty. The dean of the New York school of HUC buried both my grandparents and was a family friend. As a child our shelves were filled with books published by the HUC-JIR printing presses, sent regularly to my grandfather who served on the board. As an adult I spent several years teaching Hebrew school in the states. I have no problem with the term "progressive" even though I most naturally use the term "reform". I have deliberately left myself out of the discussion up to this point because it isn't relevant.

The only fact that is relevant is that all the congregations that you insist are so divided that they will take exception to being associated with one another have somehow seen enough common ground to join a common set of communal organizations, train their rabbis and communal leaders in the same institutions, and have chosen to call their umbrella organization "Progressive". It is a decision that I think we should respect.

Comment. Clearly the UK Liberals and UK Reform don't have a problem being associated with each other. But they do also represent different perspectives, which go deeper than just nuts-and-bolts organisation. So yes, they both are part of the wider Progressive or Reform movement worldwide, but their articles should also represent and value why they see themselves as distinctive too. Jheald 08:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't an article titled "Progressive Judaism in the UK" serve that purpose? One could compare and constrast the two halves of UK Judaism more effectively in a single article than in two separate articles. Egfrank 10:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

As for it explaining the movement to the orthodox. That is a reason for a redirect - not for obscuring the presence of a world progressive consensus under an article dedicated to the American movement.

Do you have another suggestion? Egfrank 06:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see the centralized discussion about this at Talk:Baal teshuva#Should some of this article be split into Orthodox Jewish outreach? and add your views.

Until fairly recently, there was only one Baal teshuva article that was not well-defined about what its content matter should be, i.e. the conflict between defining the Halachik notion and whatever relates to teshuva and the status of baal teshuva as applied to every Jew, vs. how that label is applied to only a certain class of secular/assimilated Jews who become more religious. In order to clarify and clear up the long-standing confusion of content and purpose of the article it was shortened, and part of it were placed first into Orthodox Jewish outreach and now a new Baal teshuva movement article has been added into which material was placed dealing with the modern-day movement based on the frequent usage of that term was created focusing in the grassroots movement of Jews returning to Judaism. Another previous article helps to further clarify the over-lapping subject matter: Repentance in Judaism (which should logically hold all descriptions and explanations of teshuva and Baal teshuva) and the newer Orthodox Jewish outreach focuses exclusively on the efforts of Orthodox rabbis and organizations. A discussion is underway at Talk:Baal teshuva#Should some of this article be split into Orthodox Jewish outreach?, but more input would be appreciated on these key set of articles. Thank you and Good Moed! IZAK 18:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

To set the record straight: There was and is no discussion about putting anything into anything. there was never ever one dissenting user who has expressed a issue that Jewish outreach shouldn't have its own article, and there was never ever a discussion that the proper fields dealing with outreach must be in a separate article. As it stand right now the only discussion is how to name the collective phenomena of Jews returning to Jewish orthodox practice, should we title them as a movement which most users have already declared that it is more POV then the other option. Ahead went as user on his own boldness against this consensus and created the article movement. This is now the discussion.--יודל 18:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Good English again! Point number one, so many subjects have been dealt with in our debate so far that it's becoming pretty inclusive of lots of things and point number two is it's not about "we" it is about what is objectively out there and can be supported by reliable sources. IZAK 08:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The article B'nai Mitzvah does not clearly define the meaning of the term "B'nai Mitzvah". While I believe that it is implied in the text of the article, I'm not positive that my guess is right. Let's add a clear definition of the term for those who need it. Thanks. -- 201.19.77.39 15:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"B'nai Mitzvah" is not the best title, and is an attempt to combine bar mitzvah and bat mitzvah into a single term. "Bnai mitzvah" itself is not a commonly used term. "Bar mitzvah" and "bat mitzvah" are both defined in the intro. --Eliyak T·C 18:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that you and others have been working on this article -- Thanks! -- 201.19.77.39 12:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi! There is a proposal in Reform Judaism to remove the section on criticism of Reform Judaism, now relabeled relationship with other movements. I am bringing the matter to the attention of the WikiProject because I believe WP:NPOV requires all notable points of view and although it's normal for articles on a religious denomination to be largely edited by members of that denomination, nonetheless WP:NPOV has to be complied with. Best, --Shirahadasha 13:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

A clarification. Under discussion was the best way to handle the criticism section in that article and others. No one was disputing the need to address disagreements among streams of Judaism, nor even the importance of those disputes to either current events or the history of Judaism. However, these disputes are of a highly sensitive nature and evoke strong feelings on all sides. They should be handled with great care.

With all due respect, you might want to reconsider your words. Do you really mean "all notable points of view"? If so, what are you going to say when someone decides to add a criticism section to Judaism and claims that its OK to discuss the Protocols of Zion - it is certainly notable, though highly prejudicial. I think we need a policy here that isn't going to backfire on us. Egfrank 16:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

But indeed someone has. See the Criticism of Judaism, Anti-Judaism, and Anti-Zionism articles. The fact that they are separate articles and not sections of the Judaism and Zionism articles is due to their size, not policy. The principle quote in the criticism section of the Reform Judaism article is from Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, a famous historical figure in the debate and an appropriate reliable source. I believe the quote summarizes an honest difference of opinon in an appropriately scholarly fashion and encyclopedic tone. Comparing Hirsch's criticism of Reform Judaism to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is, in all candor, not well-taken. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I was not comparing your rewrite of the section to the protocols of Zion. I apologize if you took it that way. I was reacting to the assertion that notability alone was the only criteria for inclusion. As I'm sure you know from study of talmud, its very easy to run into problems when one looks at a single principle in isolation. Much of talmudic study involves the analysis of hiluks that refine and condition the interpretation of seeming general principles. And in the canon of wikipedia there are also multiple policies in tension. WP:NOTABILITY, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV are just three examples.

As for your rewrite, I think you did a pretty good job, but there is still a problem. Samson Hirsch is indeed famous and historical, but he is also responding to 19th century German reformers, not to the modern progressive movement in the USA, UK, or any where else. Do we have any way of knowing that he would feel the same way about modern progressive Judaism? I'm sure the case could be made (or not), but it would require significantly more research than is possible in a simple paragraph. The German reform movement is he criticizing included everything from those who reduced Judaism to a philosophical system and rejected circumcision to those who simply wanted more meaning symbols and language in worship. Hirsch specifically excludes differences in "divine service", so he may in fact have a different feelings about particular reform sub-movements or even modern Judaism.

I think you misunderstand what Hirsch intended here. The quote reflects a famous distinction, between matters that are controlled by Halakha and matters that are not. Not all aspects of the "divine service" involve Halakha. Hirsch was willing to consider bending on matters that didn't, as long as what he considered to be the obligations of Halakha themselves were acknowledged and maintained. There is a disagreement between contemporary Modern Orthodox Judaism and Haredi Judaism on whether Hirsch's approach represents a general philosophy applicable today, as Modern Orthodoxy generally holds, or whether it represented only an emergency response to the 19th century German situation not applicable to communities capable of maintaining every custom, as Hareidi Judaism generally holds. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I also feel that we still need to address the concerns I raised about how we are dealing with intermovement criticism. Namely, that placing criticisms on each page instead of in an article discussing intermovement criticisms makes it hard to place criticisms in context. Criticisms should either be placed next to the topic being discussed or in an article dedicated to that purpose. I seriously question whether we can do this issue justice by having general per-movement criticism sections.

In this respect theAnti-Zionism, Anti-Judaism, and Criticism of Judaism articles are good models to follow. I do not know if they came about organically or because of policy. However, I doubt that length was the only reason these were not sub-sections of Judaism. Normally, when that is the case there would be a section labeled "Criticism of Judaism" with a header saying "main article:..." but there isn't. I rather think these are separated out into their own article because it allows them to be dealt with in a more balanced fashion. Balance requires space. Consolidating opinions into a common location also makes it easier to compare, constrast, identify themes, place beliefs in context, and so on. Egfrank 21:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the section and labeled it Reform Judaism#Orthodox criticism. --Shirahadasha 14:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been suggested to me that I try to build consensus on this matter before I go about making changes. Anyway, it's been rubbing me the wrong way that Wikipedia, which is supposed to contain scholarly articles, has many articles which use "Hashem" when directly quoting sources where an actual name of God is used. I think this in particular makes the articles inaccessible to non-Jews, who might not understand Orthodox interpretations of the 3rd Commandment.

I think we need some standard for what name of God should be used in what types of articles. My personal view is that direct quotations from the TaNaKH should use the relevant name (usually YHWH), quotations from prayer should use "Adonai" since that's what would be said in the actual prayer, and quotations of common expressions (e.g. ";baruch Hashem", "kiddush Hashem") should continue to use "Hashem". And in any case, the first use of any given Hebrew name of God in an article should be linked so a non-Jewish user has a prayer (no pun intended) of sorting them all out.

Anyway, the short of this all is that I'd really like to make Judaism-related articles more accessible to non-Jews, and I think having a scholarly standard for uses of names of God is one thing that could help. BeIsKr 00:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree when a Hebrew name of God is used it would be helpful to add links to an article explaining the usage, such as Names of God in Judaism. As to which Hebrew term to use, this issue originally arose in the context of the Birkat HaMazon article. One concern is that the purpose of the encyclopedia is to communicate what Jewish practice is in articles specifically on Jewish practice. One can explain the practice more clearly, but if one is going to refer to God in Hebrew at all in an article on traditional Jewish practice, why not use the Hebrew term that practicing traditional Jews use? I could see an argument to use English and not transliterated Hebrew at all, but I'm not sure why one Hebrew term would be clearer to a non-Hebrew speaker than another. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I would add that for a direct quote of someone Hashem [God] should be used. Jon513 19:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with BeIsKr that Hashem with no qualifiers or links is a bad idea. In the English language, God is the accepted term for a monotheistic omnipotent and omnipresent deity. In that sense, it is a perfectly acceptable term that every reader will understand. As per Jon513, the use of Hashem should be limited to direct quotes (with a link to Names of God in Judaism if necessary) or as part of clichés (Im Yirtzeh Hashem). JFW | T@lk 20:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I have frequently seen "Yahweh" used to signify "the God of the Jews" in Bible articles. I think this is just silly, especially since any transliteration vocalization of YHWH would be either OR or POV. YHWH is not so great either, since, as JFW points out, this also leaves many readers scratching their heads. I think the best option is to use either "God," "the Lord" or occasionally "the God of the Jews" with a wiki-link to Tetragrammaton, unless the name is relevant to the context, such as in Biblical criticism articles/sections. (Tetragrammaton is currently a redirect to Yahweh on an ostensibly temporary basis.) --Eliyak T·C 22:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the use of YHWH, I think there are certain places where etymology of names is discussed where there's no good alternative to using it. E.g., in the Hebrew names article, I changed "devotion to Hashem" to "devotion to YHWH", because it was a paragraph discussing names ending in "-yah". Or in the 1 Maccabees article, it's hard to discuss the possible etymology of "Maccabee" from the acronym MKBY without saying what the Y stands for. BeIsKr 22:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

So far it seems three options have been proposed: Using "HaShem", using direct names, using English. I can understand the justification for the third option. Could you please provide a justification for the second? That is, why use language in the Birkat Hamazon article that the kind of people who say Birkat HaMazon wouldn't say? Isn't accuracy and authenticity a desirable trait? In an article describing native customs that uses phraseology in native language, what's the justification for imposing a usage which is not only non-native but one which native speakers would regard as incorrect? The very idea that Jewish usage would be considered inappropriate for an article on Judaism beggars my imagination. Please enlighten me. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, the changes I made to the Birkat Hamazon article were to change "HaShem" to "Adonai", which is what someone who says Birkat HaMazon would say in the course of actually saying Birkat HaMazon. Am I mistaken? Translating "Adonai" as "HaShem" in an otherwise English rendering doesn't make much sense to me. BeIsKr 09:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"Hashem" should not be used on Wikipedia (excluding cases like Kiddush Hashem where it is intrinsic to the idea.) Over the years it has been "God" which is perfectly legitimate. My own policy in this regard in articles relating to Jews and Judaism, is that when the word "God" is used, I create an internal link to the Names of God in Judaism. Thus "God" in a Judaism article does not link to [[God]] alone but to Names of God in Judaism by using [[Names of God in Judaism|God]]. This should be of help to any person not familiar with Judaism's notions about God to help them get a better perspective, and it does not "limit" God as far as Judaism is concerned. Neither "Hashem" nor "Jehova/Yaweh" nor "YHWH" nor "Adonai" nor "Tetragrammaton" should not be used in articles (as these only add to the confusion, and they are basically not suitable for an encyclopedia like Wikipidia that is striving to sound neutral and not like another version of the Catholic Encyclopedia!) Thus I essentially agree with JFW and with User:Shirahadasha. IZAK 06:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The only issue I'd have with that is that it could potentially be useful from a scholarly point of view to distinguish bewteen when a tetragrammaton-derived name is used and when an "El"-derived name is used. I tend to only think of only the latter as being translatable as "God", though I acknowledge that's just a personal preference and others may differ. Then again, we should probably have a standard for how to translate "Baruch... melech haolam". BeIsKr 09:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"Blessed are you, God, our God and King of the Universe..." There is no pressing need to distinguish between YKVK and E'l-based named in most articles. JFW | T@lk 10:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Some good points have been made here. But God is the accepted term for a monotheistic omnipotent and omnipresent deity certainly conflicts with Allah. Summed up, God usually refers to the bible only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shuki (talk • contribs) 19:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

In what way are Allah and God dissynonymous? The article says the opposite, and I have met many Muslims who use God. JFW | T@lk 10:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about specifically Judaism-related articles here, so Judaism-specific terms are under discussion, and Allah is not such a term. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe it's appropriate to interpose the perspectives and usages of academic Bible scholars whenever a Bible verse gets quoted in a prayer. If a Bible verse was quoted in a Shakespeare play, we wouldn't change the text of the play on the grounds that Shakespeare's language isn't a sufficiently scholarly rendition of the Bible and substituting our own text for Shakespeare's represents better Bible scholarship. We'd recognize that we are primarily studying Shakespeare, not the Bible, and the Bible comes into play only through a lens of Shakespeare's usages. Same here. Articles on contemporary Jewish topics such as prayers are not primarily articles on the Bible. the Bible comes into play only through a lens of subsequent usage. The views of secular Biblical scholars are often relevant, but the primary subject, and usage, is not theirs. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be a good idea for someone to do a quick review of scholarly books on bible, prayer, machshevet yisrael (Jewish philosophy) etc to determine the standard usage? I would imagine it varies greatly and probably depends on the choice of a name for God used in the source text. I know articles in biblical scholarship either use God or the exact name used in the text being studied. This is essential to discourse since a dominant theory in biblical criticism understands the different choices for the name of God to reflect different editoral voices. Midrash also sometimes plays on the particular choice in the name of God in biblical text. Commentators on Medieval piyuttim would also need to pay close attention to the choice of God's name used in the text because it is often part of the word play.

As for ShiraHadasha's point - shouldn't we use the name of traditional religious Jews? Whilst Jews have always been fond of circumlocations for God's name, the favored term has changed over time and varies by philosophical tradition. For example, Ein Sof is common in kabbalistic literature. HaMakom is used in Midrashic and Talmudic text. HaShem I think came into common use post talmudic period (anyone know when?).

I'm in the process of moving and won't have time to get to the library until the next week or two, but if we can wait a bit to decide this issue, I would be glad to dig up some citations and sources, if that would be helpful. Egfrank 16:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Two comments. First, I don't understand why a claim a word is post-talmudic could be an objection to its use in an article on an aspect of contemporary Judaism. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Of the discussion so far, there have been various objections to different Hebrew words, but no objection so far to use of the English word God. Does anyone have such an objection? It would certainly make sense to use English in an English encyclopedia. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear in my point about HaShem being post-talmudic. I only meant to say that the claim "this is the term religious Jews use" depends on the time, place, philosophy, and (in the present day) movement.

I think using the generic English word God is a great idea, so long the term actually used by the source text itself may be used in articles that describe the interpretive tradition of that source text. Egfrank 19:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

David Adam Lewis (talk · contribs) recent made substantial changes to both Red heifer (diff) and Yom Kippur (diff). Jon513 14:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This user has repeatedly made wholesale changes to articles -- generally replacing existing content with content copied from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia. This has resulted in the wholesale erasure of existing material reflecting different sources and points of view. Because the user has added substantial amounts of useful material to these articles I've attempted to work with and this user and to stress the importance of participation in the WP:Consensus process and to discuss any proposed large-scale deletions of existing material with other editors, but so far without success. --Shirahadasha 21:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted this user's edits of Yom Kippur. and will revert the edits to Red Heifer. This user needs to work with other editors before deleting existing sourced material. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In response to a note on User talk:David Adam Lewis, the user appears to be claiming that religious sources are not reliable sources for religious subjects on the grounds and only academic sources are reliable. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That is just Francis Duffy editing under a new username. JFW | T@lk 00:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I never heard of Duffy before, but you're absolutely right. Compare Mazzoth (by "Lewis") and Massah (by "Duffy"). — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Besides being an unusual name, the Mazzoth article merely repeats content which is in (or should be in) the Passover article. is ther any reason why it should not be deleted? --Redaktor 16:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I redirected it to Matzo.--DLand^TALK 17:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The original article was used to discribe Passover, not Matzot. Of course it's not known by such a name -- the hebrew chag hamazot never became known as mazzoth. But perhaps it's not a bad guess for what contemporary people might call it if all one had to go on was the Bible, Peake's Commentary, and the Jewish Encyclopedia. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

David Adam Lewis (talk · contribs) has made some more edits. It is hard to them all out as he tends to rewrite entire articles. I certainly object to the using to saying "According to the Holiness Code and the Deuteronomic Code" instead of "According to the Torah". It may not be a clear POV violation but it definitly violates Raul's Razor (#13). Jon513 09:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Jon513 - the Holiness Code found in Leviticus and the Deuteronomic Code found in Deuteronomy refer to specific portions of the Torah so saying "according to the Torah" is not the same thing. Also scholars have identified differences in tone and focus between the two codes so sometimes it is important to clarify that one or both have affirmed a tradition. I don't have specific examples, but I suspect even our ancient rabbis were tacitly aware of the differences. They differ with the modern biblical scholars only in the way they handled them. Traditionally the tendency has been to synthesize the text via midrash, talmudic debate, or halakah. Biblical scholars are often more interested in the differences themselves than the synthesis. Egfrank 20:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Followup: both User:Shirahadasha and I (User:Egfrank) have placed comments on User:David Adam Lewis's expressing concern over his methodology. I have expressed concern about over-reliance on sole secondary sources. User:Shirahadasha has expressed concern about his halakhic reasoning. Egfrank 21:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi - anybody care to start an article on Arthur Kurzweil? -- geneologist, scholar of Judaism, writer. Thanks. -- 201.19.77.39 14:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

How about you? Best, --Shirahadasha 01:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see my recent sourced insertion at this article that was brusquely reverted. I can't be bothered with an edit war with someone who'll happily be rude. If anyone wishes to take this up, they're welcome. Given that the article (like most round here) is full of entirely unsourced material, the addition of material sourced from a Rabbi's blog, backed up with some primary source material doesn't seem outrageous to me, but I'm not prepared to argue the toss over this one. --Dweller 10:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are really poor sources for anything (WP:RS), unless the blogger is independently notable. I would not support the link you've inserted. JFW | T@lk 11:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I was rather hoping someone would help find a RS for this suggestion. However, given that the blog is supported by unimpeachable primary material, the concept could be included in a simple read and compare manner, without the use of the blog or any ORish claim. --Dweller 11:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You didn't get my point. Apart from this iconoclastic rabbi with his blog, has any other source drawn parallels between Life of Brian and a quote from the Talmud? You're stretching the meaning of WP:UNDUE as well. JFW | T@lk 20:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to know that too. I've heard so many mentions of the similarity in day to day conversation that I'd be surprised if there's no mention in RS. As a second-best, the similarity is so self-evident from a glance at the primary source, it makes commentary unnecessary. --Dweller 22:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

John Cleese a Talmud scholar? Interesting people you have day-to-day conversation with - people who know both Life of Brian and Talmud! JFW | T@lk 06:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Lol. Are you kidding? LOB is very popular with Jewish people, who generally find it very easy to laugh at themselves. --Dweller 07:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You missed my point. Those Jewish people who like LOB, are they actually knowledgeable in Talmud? I doubt it. And to get back to my original question: has anyone apart from this blogging rabbi made the connection LOB vs statement in Talmud and documented this in a reliable source that is not a blog? Just pointing out clever parallels in a blog is not the same as identifying a trend. I can point to various interesting parallels between the Talmud and popular culture, but that doesn't make them notable from the perspective of a general purpose encyclopedia. JFW | T@lk 09:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

On your first point, see Modern Orthodox. On your second, I agree (I have done consistently), I'm looking for a RS and would be surprised if there were none... see my first response to you in this thread. --Dweller 11:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Waiting patiently for a RS (i.e. not a blog). JFW | T@lk 13:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

How about Rabbi Jeremy Rosen (British rabbi, Modern Orthodox), writing in the webzine somethingjewish.co.uk on the topic "Alexander the great?" ([4]) --Dweller 13:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that an RS either. Who the heck is Jeremy Rosen? I think JFW is asking for a source written by a notable person. --Ghostexorcist 18:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

As it happens, I know who he is (he founded the Yakar synagogue/community in London, amongst other things) but actually it's irrelevant and I think you misunderstand RS - it's the journal that published him that's the issue. It's not a self-published blog, which understandably was criticised as not reliable. It's a web magazine that's published his article. --Dweller 19:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Dweller - I just took a look at the Jeremy Rosen blog - perhaps you may wish to take a closer look yourself. Based on the wording he is making a homelitic point that both Alexander the Great and the rabbis of the talmud understood the importance of teasing apart the benefits of technology from its more questionable values. I can't see anywhere that he is asserting that the Talmud was the inspiration for any part of the life of brian. -- User:egfrank —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree. All he's doing is mentioning a parallel between the two. (Incidentally, it's not a blog) --Dweller 14:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello: Is there any article or information that explains what an "Isra'iliyat Salaf" is so that Category:Isra'iliyat Salaf makes sense to those who have no idea what it means and can be "in on the secret", and why the articles that are in it are there? Thank you. IZAK 06:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see Isra'iliyat and Salaf. --Shuki 06:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but why is there no explanation, and no direction to search individaul words? Who knows if they mean the same thing in combination? For example, if one were to look up Nationalism and then Socialism could one ever dream that one result could be Nazism (meaning "National Socialism")? Same thing here, you have to be an expert Arabic linguist and an impartial Islamic scholar to know if the term "Isra'iliyat Salaf" comes out right and not as a distorted form of a combination of two separate words. I hope you see what I mean. IZAK 07:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Why did Yidisheryid (talk · contribs) first include Messianic Judaism into Jewish outreach [5] with the self-justification: "added 4th group of jews who claim that they are jews and do outreach as their main mision as a jewish caouse." (If I claim that I am a millionare, does that make me into one? Saying something does not make it so), and then delete it? He did the same at {{JewishOutreach}}, adding Messianic Judaism [6] and then deleting it. What does this mean? It would be totally outrageous to claim that by converting a Jew to Christianity that it's a type of formal "Jewish outreach" in any way shape size or form. IZAK 07:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that he realized that he made a mistake. Jon513 09:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. The jury is out... IZAK 10:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It should be made clear that this discussion was raised by a user more then 24 hours after this edit was reverted. Disrupting wikipedia requires sometimes more then 10 days blockage.--יודל 13:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Pointing out that another person is potentially disrupting Wikipedia, as, for example, by erroneously calling Messianic Judaism a form of Jewish outreach, does not constitute disruption in and of itself. Your edit clearly, and with good reason, I daresay, is cause for the raising of eyebrows. The rationale you used for removing Messianic Judaism, in fact, has nothing to do with reality (in fact many Christians do regard Messianic Judaism as "genuine" Judaism, "purer than rabbinic Judaism", also Messianic "Judaism" does not engage in outreach, its largest bodies of followers engage in subterfuge and deception--something a great many of their detractors, a great Christians included, have condemned) nor is it relevant to the subject of Jewish outreach, since whether or not Christians consider Messianic Jews to be following Judaism has nothing to do with whether or not it should be included in "Jewish outreach". If you insist on "more then [sic] 10 days blockage", I'll be happy to oblige, if you really want to be blocked that long. Otherwise, I recommend hard cheeses. Tomer^talk 15:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted my edit in less then 15 minutes with the exect same wording, then all of you to use this against me is showing who is really disrupting wikiupedia. and i do not believe a blockage after arbitration or a blockage for 24 hours from an admin does compare. I ask you all to consider that just like reform call themselves Jews i thought the Mesianics call themselves Jews, i was mistaken and i was very open about it to use my mistake long after i corrected myself, to prove some point is disrupting wikipedia by all means. and if ten days does not do the magic we can use longer terms, i was blocked for 24 hours and right away felt that i was wrong i was proud to see my disruption in a matter of minutes and i do not believe i should have been blocked more then 2 hours.--יודל 15:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Were you blocked at all for this incident?
2. In most cases, the Reform are Jews, regardless of their complete disdain of being bound by halakha.
3. The vast majority of those who associate themselves with "Messianic Judaism" are not, by their own admission, Jews.
4. You were right to remove the link, just as you were wrong to put it there in the first place... where the problem comes in, however, is in two areas, and this is what led to what you erroneously imagined gave you grounds to raise a charge of disruption:
   1. Your stated rationales, both for inclusion, and then for removal were irrelevant and incorrect.
   2. More significantly, you have a record of disruption in precisely this area of interest and in this manner of editing.
5. Nothing about IZAK's raising the question about these edits constitutes disruption...all he did was to raise awareness that your old editing habits have not been fully remedied.
6. If you are seriously forwarding the ludicrous notion that IZAK should be sanctioned with "more then [sic] 10 days [sic] blockage", I submit to you that you clearly do not understand why you have been blocked previously, and that it's not unlikely that you will find yourself in that condition again.
7. The word "then" is a temporal adverb. In almost every case where you use it, the word you're looking for is "than". Please purchase and make use of a better English dictionary.

Thank you, Tomer^talk 21:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Not yet, but that does not say that i should not take notice when this effort is happening.
2. I agree and thats why it took me 15 minutes to get this point that although allot of Reform aren't Jews we still consider them Jews becaouse as you say they are indeed mostly Jews.
3. Yes indeed and that was intially my mistake i thought that Messianics are indeed mostly Jews, and i cam to recognize that 15 minutes learning can change life long perceptions.
4. I will not address the Disruption charge since i do not want to attack nobody, my case is made very clear, and never will i or did i want somebody blocked.
   1. I believe they are and were indeed very relevant and correct.
   2. My Blockage was due to disrupting wikipedia, i don't believe, i should have been blocked 24 hours since i identified my mistake within 2 hours, it was 3 users decisions out of a whole bunch who commented there, so it was far as a consensus reached decision, i learnt my lesson, and if somebody finds where i was guilty again of this i will b3e the first one to block myself.
5. Not been fully remedied is a matter of opinion other users have expressed to Izak that i have indeed learned and changed my old bad habit look at the second comment that was not from me.
6. i do fully understand why i was blocked and at that same token i fully understand why others were blocked for 10 days.
7. I will purchase whatever you like. Thanks for the kind comment--יודל 22:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)