Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 25

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 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

This (long) discussion here might interest some on this wp.

The issue that may be of interest is whether it is proper to engage in mass deletions from lists, as here, of Jews. Where the people for the moment at least have no refs. Or, whether the person should check first to see if it is likely RS-supportable. And even then, rather than delete, moved to a talk page or tag.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• To clarify, the discussion above is about people who are notable in fields NOT RELATED to their Jewishness that list/categorize them as "Jews", it is not about those who are famous first and foremost in the field of Judaism or for their status as notable Jews such as being rabbis, Torah scholars or Jewish religious/Biblical figures etc. For example, there is no need to "prove" the obvious, with redundant citations, that Rabbi Akiva, Rashi or Maimonides or Joseph Karo were Jews! IZAK (talk) 06:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• Yep -- good point. People such as Sandy Koufax, Woody Allen, Albert Einstein, Golda Meir, that sort of thing.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me that User:Noleander is violating WP:OWN regarding Criticism of Judaism, besides for various other WP policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, etc. Of course, I may be wrong, so I would like to invite the parties interested in Judaism and Judaism related topics to review the past few days and months history of the article and comment/correct/enhance the article as they see fit. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Since policy is clear it is the project's discretion on whether or not an article belongs in its scope and whether or not the banner should be placed on the article's talk page, I propose taht we at this wikiproject pull our banner from this article as part of a protest and work hard at making sure articles under our banner dont need to link to this article, make it an orphan. Basically a wikiproject version of an embargo and sanctions. Should the AfD fail.... go further and let Noleander and others edit to their content on that article and let them fill it up with the problems that we've fought against. After a month or two then we can go back and AfD it again and show just how bad a POV-pushing coatrack the article is and the AfD will be easier.Camelbinky (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Once again, discussions of user behavior belong elsewhere. Inviting parties interested in Judaism and Judaism related topics to comment on a user who wants to add criticism of Judaism is akin to inviting the Red Sox to comment on the Yankees. Please take this discussion to a more neutral venue. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Huh? I dont think I invited anyone to comment on any user. Im proposing we strip the article of the Judaism banner and refuse to help the article, since when we do we are constantly accused of hurting the article because all we do is remove the information we believe is wrong and accused of not adding anything. Let those who are "adding" information to keep doing so and not interfer with them then in a month or two show Wikipedia what happened. I believe this is a quite valid forum for this proposal. Policy is clear it is the wikiproject's discretion on whether or not a banner is on a particular article, not the discretion of an editor working on the article. If consensus here shows it shouldnt be part of this wikiproject then that is the final word on it. Again this is the proper forum for the discussion.Camelbinky (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I was responding to Avi regarding his reference to Noleander specifically. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry! I really apologize. I thought I had said something wrong and wanted to clarify what I was doing.Camelbinky (talk) 23:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect; this is the place where experts on Judaism congregate. To return your analogy, to ask for comments somewhere else would be akin to asking about Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle on a bulletin board dedicated to snowboarding. -- Avi (talk) 03:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If there were some issue of Jewish expertise involved I might agree with you, but a behavioral issue doesn't require any specialized knowledge the way a content issue would. It doesn't take a Judaism expert to weigh in on issues of OWN, SYNTH, NPOV, etc, which is why issues of their repeated violation by a user are generally not discussed at WikiProjects. Equazcion ^(talk) 10:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

To properly identify what is being synthesized/postulated versus what is supported from the texts and sources, expertise is necessary, or at the very least helpful. This is especially true when identifying mistaken application of criticisms of various practices to that of the entire religion. Someone not familiar with the religion, its various branches, and its traditions is more likely to conflate the issue and mistakenly allow misapplied sections. -- Avi (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think deleting the article is the best course of action. There is an AfD underway now. Bus stop (talk) 10:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the foundational error in Criticism of Judaism is that it presents biased assumptions as facts. Certainly there are criticisms of Judaism, of the American Constitution, of incandescent light bulbs, etc, but listing the criticisms outside a larger discussion of these topics becomes a meaningless, and a very negative, compilation. Additionally, in the Criticism of Judaism article, there is absolutely nothing to show that the criticisms are held by an unbiased sample of a population, nor is there any indication of what population it is that holds that particular view. For all the reader knows, the samples of opinion might have been taken from supporters of David Icke. To be valid, the opinion has to be shown as taken from an unbiased sample of the population; because, if the criticism is taken from a biased sample, the criticism itself is biased. 173.52.182.160 (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I again, this time BEGGING, that this wikiproject pull all support and its banner from this article. The only thing being accomplished in attempting to "fight" those who are running a POV-pushing fork on their own ground is that it mitigates their work slightly and allows it to not be aired. Allow those who really want to make the article their way have their way. Then it can be AfD'd easier once the light of Wikipedia can be shown on how they write the article. Any attempt to make it over using a new name, fight them on certain points, and continually argue with them about content and what is appropriate is not helping the article become what we can accept. Let them have their way and see what happens.Camelbinky (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

A wikiproject really shouldn't be thought of as a group to be called to action in the event of some perceived misdeed. This is Wikiproject Judaism, not some some sort of political action league. If individuals want to stop editing an article they don't like, fine; some sort of off-wiki boycott might perhaps be an accepted form of civil disobedience. But the project itself isn't your platform. It belongs to Wikipedia, not any particular group. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a long discussion on Talk:Menachem_Mendel_Schneerson#.22Failing_scholarship.22 about whether a certain paragraph was rightfully removed or should be restored. There are two camps in this discussion, and in my (subjective, as I am in the other camp) opinion, one of the camps is not countering the arguments of the other camp but only stubbornly hammering on the same point again and again. Your input would be appreciated. Debresser (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Debresser is understating things, to put it mildly. Reading is believing to appreciate what's really going on at Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson#"Failing scholarship" for the full context, where I note that it boggles the mind that clear-cut statements and sources, in full compliance with WP:V; WP:RS; WP:NPOV by academically reputable scholar/s as cited by User Jayjg and others, should be so censored, removed, manipulated, attacked and torn to shreds by the obvious pro-Chabad editors when all they have to do is just let a statement stand in the correct spirit and style of "Scholar X has stated 1,2,3," and "Scholar Y has stated 4,5,6," and they do not have to agree with the approved Chabad party line, which can and should also be stated as "The official Chabad movement maintains and believes 7,8,9 and [either] denies or agrees with scholar/s X or Y" -- that is the way Wikipedia articles are written and not to violate WP:NOTCENSORED. This is a pattern of Wikipedia:Edit warring that involves not just struggles over content but reveals a more deep-seated pattern of negative controlling behavior that violates WP:OWN that relies on wearing down opponents and not really seeking to arrive at WP:CONSENSUS. Following Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement, the ArbCom has warned: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Proposed decision#Proposed remedies: (1) "Editors reminded: With respect to topics related to the Chabad movement, all editors are reminded to edit these articles, and to collaborate with other editors, in full compliance with all applicable Wikipedia policies, including those mentioned in this decision." -- So on what basis are the pro-Chabad editors fighting the scholar/s that Jayjg is citing? (2) "Editors encouraged: Editors on Chabad articles are encouraged to use talkpage discussion and, if that fails, other available content-dispute resolution techniques, in connection with any remaining content disputes. This includes, among other things, disagreements concerning the weight to be given to Chabad views versus other Jewish points of view in Judaism articles, concerning whether articles about Chabad-related topics or persons should be deleted, and concerning inclusion of links." -- but as can be seen, pro-Chabad editors wish to cut out unflattering information from their POV and only insert what they like. (3) "Future proceedings: It is hoped that good-faith efforts as described above will be sufficient to address disputes on the Chabad-related articles. However, if user-conduct problems worsen, then a request to reopen this case may be filed. Editors are requested to allow at least 60 days from the date of this decision before filing any such request, to give renewed efforts at collaboration in light of this decision a reasonable chance to succeed." -- Well, it's definitely NOT "succeeding" as is evidence above. The present situation indicates that the same pattern of obstructionist editing is the benchmark for pro-Chabad editors. They continue in the same ways of the past. User:Zsero who did not even participate in the ArbCom case that included him, blithely returns to wage the same kind of struggles and censoring that he is famous for, see User:Zsero’s pro-Chabad POV editing and diffs. So how is this different to before? It is not! 60 days have long past since the close of the ArbCom case on 13 February 2010, and still and all the pro-Chabad editors are in full WP:OWN swing yet again. Indeed the behavior of the pro-Chabad editors is worsening and definitely not improving, not just here but wherever they set foot in Chabad-related articles they deem important to their movement, and therefore it is not too early to approach the ArbCom to re-open this case as per the ArbCom's closing statement: "However, if user-conduct problems worsen, then a request to reopen this case may be filed." Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Instead of using this WikiProject as a forum for the airing of long-standing grievances, please try dispute resolution or bring the matter back to ArbCom. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I conmpletely agree. The above was a copy and paste from that talk page discussion. Not to mention that it was rather off-point there as well. Debresser (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Debresser: This matter is very to the point and is very troubling in light of the very recent ArbCom case regarding the Chabad editors. Consider my two posts, that you demean as "cut and pastes", to be official warnings and notifications in light of what the ArbCom has stated above. Thanks for your attention. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Malik: Thanks for your observations. Before resorting to the more serious steps that I am well aware of, I wanted to bring the matter to the attention of the Judaic editors here first in the hope of not turning this into a more serious case. IZAK (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion Review: Category Jews vs Category: Jewish people Please see the serious Deletion Review discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 3#Category:Jewish people regarding the arbitrary and illogical replacement of Category:Jews by Category:Jewish people and its implications that came about without serious input from almost all Judaic editors (it was close to Passover, the usual time when big problems arise and when it's hardest to respond to them properly.) Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The result of the CFD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 10#Category:Jewish people, which followed the above Deletion Review, was to revert the name of the category to Category:Jews. Davshul (talk) 08:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

As a result of the WP:DRV as noted above #Deletion Review: Category Jews vs Category: Jewish people, please see the final CFD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 10#Category:Jewish people. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The result of the above CFD was to revert the name of the category to Category: Jews. Davshul (talk) 08:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi all. Please see Talk:Divine providence (Judaism). Thanks. Fintor (talk) 13:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Semitic in effect if not in intent --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 10:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Hebrew years. Chesdovi (talk) 09:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi all, we've started a discussion regarding Template:Jewish and Israeli holidays on its talk page here regarding the recent addition of the section "Secular United States holidays with Jewish links". Should it exist and, if so, what should it be named? (I'm personally looking at something that reflects any days that occur outside the State of Israel in the Diaspora). Please post any thoughts you may have about this topic there. Valley2city^‽ 22:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Debresser and I are currently having a dispute at Niddah. Debresser has moved/deleted material I added about Conservative opinions from the body of the "practical law" section and moved what he kept to the "Niddah in the Conservative Movement" section. His position is that Orthodoxy is "normative Judaism", which is what the article is about, less sections specifically designated otherwise. My position is that it is a rather extreme violation of WP:NPOV to privilege Orthodox views as "normative Judaism", and that the only reasonable and feasible way to present content neutrally (about Jewish law or anything else) is to state where there is dispute among authorities in the appropriate places, with appropriate identification. Savant1984 (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is a challenge here. I've opened a discussion on this topic at Talk:Niddah#non-orthodox_opinions_and_practice. Joe407 (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, meet you guys there. But I have not removed material (excepts for an unrelated book review, so to speak), just moved it all neatly into the appropriate section. Debresser (talk) 23:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

We (Debresser) and I really seemed rather deadlocked over at Talk:Niddah about what's actually the quite broad issue described above. Just saying.  :) Savant1984 (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

(Copied from the discussion page) I don't know whether Orthodox Judaism is the default in articles on Judaism here. I suspect it isn't. But in an article about a practice which is normative among Orthodox Jews, and definitely not normative among Conservative Jews, it seems fairly obvious that the Orthodox view should be presented as the default, with the Conservative view mentioned in a section of its own. To do otherwise would be giving undue weight to the Conservative view. Again, any observance of niddah whatsoever is extremely fringe among Conservative Jews. To present the Conservative view here on equal par with the Orthodox view, when Orthodox Jews universally hold the observance of niddah to be an absolute requirement, would be inappropriate. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Continued there. Savant1984 (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion this subject warrants broader discussion than an article talk page. Perhaps somebody is willing to open a new section about it here and draw the necessary attention to it. Debresser (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems that Debresser is advocating that orthodox jewish practice, culture, tradition, halacha is to be considered the standard and all other options (conservative, reform, reconstructionist, etc) are to be considered secondary. He would like to accord this status to orthodox judaism due to its long-standing nature relative to more modern forms of jewish practice. This is a challenging question on two levels. One, how can this mesh with WP:NPOV? And two, where do we draw the lines? Who gets included as "traditional" and who is "young upstart"? Where do we classify Karites? Hassidim? Post-European Brisk halachasists? Neo-carlebachian? Thoughts? Joe407 (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

While I really appreciate your constructive attitude, Joe407, it seems to me that you're still assuming Orthodox POV in te way you frame the question "because of its long-standing nature relative to modern forms of Jewish practice." The Orthodox-Conservative split wasn't about "forms of Jewish practice", but about whether academic-historical-critical study of the Tradition was heretical (the Orthodox POV) or praiseworthy (the Conservative POV). The difference in perspective given by these different approaches to the Tradition, in addition to the polarisation of the communities, gradually created general trends toward leniency by Conservative authorities and stringency by Orthodox ones, but there have always been Conservative authorities agreeing with the general Orthodox consensus on almost all issues, and a few brave Orthodox authorities who will concede the plausibility of certain opinions advanced by Conservative authorities. The issue is, in short, very complex. The pertinent point being here that to imply in an article that Orthodoxy is just "premodern, traditional Judaism, continued" is a violation of NPOV. Savant1984 (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say that while your viewpoint is legitimate here, to say the Orthodoxy is NOT just "premodern, traditional Judaism, continued" is also POV.

Just as a simple point, why does the appearence of Reform in Germany and Conservative in the United States, suddenly make traditional Rabbis in Baghdad (R. Yosef) and Yemen (R. Kapach) into Orthodox rabbis?

One other thing. In my editing of Wikipedia, I have taken statements from Maimonides and the Shulchan Aruch (commentaries included) as cites for Orthodox practice. Could I take them as cites for Conservative practice? (Perhaps you will say yes; I am interested.)

The basic difference, in any case, is in belief as to the origin of the Torah and Talmud, as explained (without getting into minutae) in the intorduction to Maidonides' Mishneh Torah, which Orthodoxy still agrees with, but almost all Conservative Rabbis do not.Mzk1 (talk) 16:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, certainly -- the Orthodox POV, that Orthodoxy = premodern traditional Judaism, continued -- needs to be included. It just can't be an organising principle of Wikipedia. Wikipedia needs to be neutral among such POVs. Traditionalists outside of the US and Germany became "Orthodox" essentially by the anti-JTS "Orthodox" groups convincing traditionalists in other countries that the JTS-Conservatives were, indeed, heretics. But this was a gradual process -- remember that Chief Rabbi Hertz was JTS ordained, and that JTS was actively attempting to gain legitimacy with the Chief Rabbinate of Israel through the eighties.

Certainly the Mishneh Torah and the Shulchan Aruch are sources for normative Conservative practice.

The account of the origin of the Pentateuch and the Mishna given in the intro to the MT are not accepted as historically accurate by any Conservative authority I'm aware of, simply because, as history, it contradicts the available evidence. Nevertheless, remember, Mzk1, that the "Orthodox" rabbis rejected the JTses as heretical well before academic criticism of Pentateuch was ever taught, so while that is a major ideological litmus test now, it wasn't then. Even Reform rabbis and institutions refused to acknowledge higher criticism of Pentateuch for decades. Again, though, the relevant thing for Wikipedia: NPOV on these matters. Savant1984 (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to make a small point that there were plenty of normal Orthodox Rabbis ordained at JTS in the earlier days. Also, there was in fact a dispute about about JTS among the Orthodox for a while. There are still a few Conservative Rabbis who believe in Torah MiSinai - from the Orthodox point of view, they are simply Orthodox rabbis, no matter what they call themselves. The "red line" is not methodology - after all, there are plenty of Orthodox Jews using "scientific" methodologies here in Israel as an academice excercise - but belief. What I am saying is, that while before the line was fuzzy (a lot of people use "heresy" rather loosely), right now it is rather clear. I would say that the theological difference between Orthodoxy and Conservative Judaism is greater than that between, say, Catholics and Lutherans. But I tend to more-or-less agree with you regarding NPOV, not as far as you take it, but for the most part. I also think Lisa makes a good point; if we mix up Orthodox and Conservative viewpoints without labling, this will mislead many people.Mzk1 (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree entirely with your characterisation of the politics of denominational labels, but it's good to know that I'm Orthodox, I guess. :) Re Lisa's point: I never introduced or proposed introducing positions held by some Conservative authorities but no Orthodox ones (at least, on the record) without clearly noting that they were Conservative. My point is merely that they should not be relegated to a separate section, while "Practical Law" and similar unqualified sections be Orthodox. Savant1984 (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I was referring to the small number of Conservative rabbis who believe that the Torah was dictated to Moses (and possibly the last few verses to Joshua), as well as the Oral Law. I had the impression that you believed otherwise. But do you think I could get you (beg you) to comment on the section below on Homosexuality, as it touches on what we've discussed. Also, if you could give me a year before which I could consider a rabbi's opinion as being "traditional", and therefore generally applicable, I would appreciate it.Mzk1 (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I want to note that I've reported this dispute at the neutrality noticeboard, as well as at the Wikiproject:Religion board. Savant1984 (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have fully protected this for 24 hours to prevent further edit warring. I encourage anyone familiar with the subject to shift/begin/kickstart discussion there to acheive some consensus before the protection lifts. Good luck. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The protection was in relation with another issue in that article. Perhaps somebody remembers, didn't we say that Encyclopedia of Judaism is not a reliable source? Debresser (talk) 09:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

As I understand WP:RS, Encyclopedia of Judaism is a reliable source. 173.52.182.160 (talk) 20:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 28#Categories:American Jews/Jewish people by fooian descent. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI, {{Judaism portal}} has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 05:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It is nominated because it isn't in use, and is replaced by {{Portal|Judaism}}, which renders the same thing. See?

Judaism portal

Debresser (talk) 09:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Now replaced by {{portal|Judaism}}. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Since no-one said - when I asked - that I could not ask a question about a specific article here, and since we have at least one Conservative Seminary student contributing, I wanted to ask this question here.

I wish to clean up at least the Orthodox part of part of the Homosexual section of Forbidden relationships in Judaism to say something like: Orthodox Judaism, following the Talmud, absolutely prohibits...

Now it is insane to me to claim that Leviticus itself does not say the above, but since there are denominations who make this claim, I have to reckon with this. Can I least claim that the Talmud clearly says this, without someone claiming otherwise?

I also have another idea. Since it appears from here that all denominations claim to descend from traditional Judaism (or is that just Rabbinic Judaism?), then could I put a lead paragraph stating: Traditional Judaism absolutely prohibits..., citing the Talmud or Mishneh Torah or Shulchan Aruch, then under Orthodox view state that Orthodox Judaism follows the traditional viewpoint?

Obviously, I am mainly interested here in those who subscribe to denominations other than Orthodoxy (or none at all).Mzk1 (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. The Reform section, while perhaps correctly reflecting the Reform viewpoint, is not backed up by its reference. I am not sure what to do about this.Mzk1 (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is the question focused on Talmud? It is forbidden in Leviticus 18.21-3 in terms that could hardly be more clear. Is something extra really needed? 173.52.182.160 (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

See the Reform section there. We have to allow for it.Mzk1 (talk) 07:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Allow for what? Reform Jews recognize the authority of the Tanakh, but not of the Talmud. 173.52.182.160 (talk) 11:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

What does "recognising authority" mean, if you just don't live by it? Debresser (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Debresser, this is not a discussion group. If you want to vent on that subject, you might be able to find a suitable e-forum list on Yahoo Groups. 173.52.182.160 (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to understand a statement about one of the essential characteristics of Reform Judaism, if you don't mind. Feel free to visit said Yahoo groups any time. Debresser (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Which essential characteristic of Reform Judaism are you having difficulty understanding?

Rather than ask here, why not search for the answer to your questions from sources that are considered reliable, such as the Union for Reform Judaism [1]? That will give you information from a source that is WP:V. (I notice that they even offer an "Ask the Rabbi" section, if you have a particular issue you want to discuss....not that I think Chabads would ever communicate with Reform rabbis.) 173.52.182.160 (talk) 11:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• NOTE: Hi User 173.52.182.160 (talk · contribs) please take this as a serious request. Please read Wikipedia:Why create an account? !!! You are obviously very wise and know a lot, but quite honestly you hurt your own credibility by refusing to create a simple WP:USERNAME. After all you are on Wikipedia and Wikipedians invariably dismiss the seriousness of comments of users (i.e. editors) who stubbornly refuse to take on a user name to be called by, they just think it is very suspicious or that something is not right, so why breed mistrust when you want to be taken very seriously. To get motivated please read Wikipedia:Username policy: "You may wish to create an account if you do not already have one. Creating an account provides a number of benefits; in particular, your contributions are attributed to your username...Your username comes with a "user page", whose title is of the form "User:Yourname", and a "user talk page" entitled "User talk:Yourname" that people will use to contact you" that will help people stay in touch with you. You are NOT required to divulge anything about yourself on a user page, just put one or tow tiny items on it, just look at what others' have done with theirs. In any case Wikipedia's technology can trace the origins of comments regardless if one uses a user name or not, so you gain nothing by remaining a number, and conversely you gain a lot by becoming an identifiable Wikipedian that others can refer to. In addition any votes you may cast at AfDs are usually not as strong when using your numbered anonymous ID (sometimes some closing admins disallow or dismiss them) when you could just easily be using a regular user name. Hopefully you are not a WP:SOCK as that would really make it tough for you. So do yourself and all of us at WP:JUDAISM a big favor and get yourself a proper user name so that we can refer and respond to you "by name"! Thanks a lot for all your help and cooperation. Keep up your great commentaries and contributions. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 07:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

When I noticed that Portal:Judaism/Weekly Torah portion hadn't been updated this week for the second time in a row, I checked and noticed that Dauster (talk · contribs) - who usually does that update - hasn't edited at all for the last couple of weeks.

I have left a note on his talk page and sent him an email too. I will let you all know if I find out anything. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 19:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: He's back. Turns out he was on a vacation & didn't leave a note on his talk page. Kol tov! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 12:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I have recently found a rather lengthy discussion on this topic in a reference work, while reviewing sources for a little-known group of early Jewish Christians called Ebionites. The term does seem notable in a Judaic context, considering it also seems to have been used in some sort of specific way to describe the Qumran Covenanters, and I was wondering whether the members of this project knew of any article where the majority of the material related to this subject might be placed. Individuals are also, of course, free to comment on any of the other threads on that page, regarding the historicity and historical sources for the group in general. In any event, the relevant discussion can be found at Talk:Ebionites#"The poor" in Judaism. Thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The administrator helping me on my talk page suggested I seek comments from others on this topic.

my article is being trashed by 3 users with no knowledge or interest in the Holocaust. First they tried to delete it entirely and were outvoted five to three. Now they have repeatedly gutted it place, undoing a longer, accurate and well footnoted article and putting an inaccurate two paragraph thing in its place.

I originally posted an article on a tragic, but non-controversial topic in Holocaust studies: the New York Times policy during the period of the Second World War to minimize reports of the Holocaust. I relied on two resources: the New York Time’s apology in 2001, and the work of Dr. Laurel Leff.

The issue is not controversial among knowledgable people because the Times itself acknowledged its guilt fully and publicly in its 150th anniversary issue on November 14, 2001, 56 years after the end of the war. Under the title, “Turning Away from the Holocaust”, retired executive editor Max Frankel wrote that the Times knew the accuracy of the reports on Hitler’s persecution of the Jews and the Final Solution, but that from the beginning to the end, chose never to make it a lead story, or the exclusive topic of an editorial. “… to this day the failure .. to fasten upon Hitler's mad atrocities stirs the conscience of succeeding generations of reporters and editors.”

In listing the details of the Time’s policy to ‘bury’ the Holocaust, Frankel cited one outside resource: “No article about the Jews' plight ever qualified as The Times's leading story of the day, or as a major event of a week or year. The ordinary reader of its pages could hardly be blamed for failing to comprehend the enormity of the Nazis' crime. Laurel Leff...has been the most diligent independent student of The Times's Holocaust coverage and deftly summarized her findings last year in The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics.”

Three people who originally tried to delete the entire article and are now ruining it have never made any contributions to an article on the holocaust or world war II, and are not really interested. they came over from the new york times page, where they try to prevent criticism of the Times. when they were voted down re deleting the New York Times and the Holocaust in its entirely, they have proceeded to gut it in place. i don't have any allies on this page. The administrator helping me on my talk page suggested I go to a wikiproject page to say i would welcome comments from others.Cimicifugia (talk) 03:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)cimicifugia

Personal attacks aside, I would invite any experienced editor to view the earlier version of this article and judge it for what it was, a complete mess. It was simply a long, rambling partisan rant that relied almost entirely on the opinion of one man and stating that opinion as fact. Worse, it was simply poorly written. Extremely bad articles tend not to stay that way for long on Wikipedia, like it or not.

Also, you really seem to have some ownership issues. You repeatedly refer to it as "your" article and imply that you have more of a right to edit the article because you created it and because you edit other articles on the subject of the Holocaust. I urge you to read WP:OWN to see why this is not the case. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Too bad you ended your edit (above) with a personal attack on a user who is editing in good faith. Anyone who wants to see the disputed version of the article can read it here[2]. Personally I think it needs additional sources for balance, but it is much better that the current stub that has replaced it. 173.52.182.160 (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That previous version had perhaps a little too many examples. Something in between that version and the present one would be optimal, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Debresser, I think you are quite right about that. But there are some editors involved who seem rather hostile to the subject, who first proded it, and when that failed reduced it to a stub. That makes constructive editing rather difficult. 173.52.182.160 (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Open a discussion on the article's talk page, draw attention from here, and get consensus for a version that should be something in between that previous version and the present one. Add information step by step, and see if it is challenged. And if it is, force them to discuss it, and apply consensus. I am not really interested in the subject, nor am I available, but surely a few editors from here will be willing to lend their opinions for let's say a period of a week. Debresser (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comments, and a vote, by interested editors will be welcome. 173.52.182.160 (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: The above IP editor has been blocked for sockpuppetry (as expected). --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Dan Nichols has been nominated for deletion. Input needed. Kiddo27 (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• You must mean the Nick Nichols article because the Dan Nichols article was already deleted in 2007 altho someone has re-created it. What's going on? IZAK (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, this is a notice for this WikiProject in regards to a current category for discussion. All the subcategories of Category:American Jews by national origin are currently nominated to be renamed. Your comments are welcome, and the discussion can be found here. Thank you. — ξ^xplicit 06:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi fellow Judaism project editors. I am fairly new to wiki and need some advice on dealing with hostile editors. Have any of you had experience with these three - their behavior is a form of Holocaust denial and i am finding being forced by wiki rules to seek consensus with them impossible and abusive. What is the most effective way to present my problem to get them banned from the article entirely? I wrote up the description below. should i post this on the an/i page? is that the right place to go? Thanks for advice and help.

We are having severe problems at the New York Times and the Holocaust article. The topic is a small but for Americans, significant, part of the history of the Holocaust. Like history of the Holocaust in general it is well documented, incontrovertible and not controversial among decent people. It is very well known in the field of Holocaust studies, but unknown by the general public. The information in the article is based on references from the New York Time’s 100th anniversary apology and especially their full-page, 150th anniversary apology for purposefully burying news of the Holocaust on its inside pages (see [3]; the founding director of the U.S. Holocaust Museum; the founding director of Harvard’s Shorenstein Center of Journalism; the founding director of the Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies; the top academic who has written in detail on the subject, Laurel Leff and other academics. The Time’s itself called its policy to not report adequately on the Holocaust ‘tragic’ and “the century’s bitterest journalistic failure”, that it had significant impact on the failure of the U.S. to rescue Jews from Hitler, and said generations of journalists have learned from it not to underreport genocide.

Unfortunately, this topic has attracted the attention of three malicious editors who are very experienced in all the procedures of Wikipedia: bali ulimate, Phgustaf and loonymonkey. They claim the topic is an original POV by the wiki editor who first introduced it; that it is ‘trivial’; that it is fringe; that the Times apology is ‘just one man’s opinion’; that we can’t use quotes from the founding director of the U.S. Holocaust Museum; the founding director of Harvard’s Shorenstein Center of Journalism; the founding director of the Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies because they all come from one source (the script for a History Chanel program written by the Newseum called “The Holocaust: the Untold Story”, available in its entirely on the web here [4]); that the New York Times ‘may have dropped the ball a little’ but that the topic is worth no more than a couple of sentences on the New York Times page.

These same wikipedians previously blocked a paragraph on the subject on the New York Times page, where the topic is currently reduced to a few sentences buried in the section ‘criticism of the Times’ next to a paragraph on a minor editor who plagiarized. In short, wiki is being manipulated by these three hostile wikipedians to recreate in a microcosm the burying of information on the Holocaust.

When the original version of this article was posted it needed more work. Instead of collaborating to improve it, these three hostile wikipedians first tried to have the topic deleted entirely. As part of that discussion they suggested at most it should be a stub. When they were voted down on deletion they proceeded to delete the entire article anyway and substitute a polemical and inaccurate stub, which is what appears on wiki now. They have been belligerent, name calling and working together to drive constructive editors off the page and to impose complete control. They have not once replied to constructive attempts to reach consensus. Repeatedly calling for balance, they have not once produced a reference to provide such ‘balance.’ (There are no opposing references they can produce. There is complete consensus on the basic facts of this topic, just as there is consensus that the Holocaust happened.) They have now changed their tactic to a proposal to merge the article back into the New York Times page, which is a transparent ploy to delete it by another name. The page is frozen and there is no possibility of working on an improved version as long as these three wikipedians are playing the role of spoiler.

I am fairly new to wiki. I am frankly having trouble following the gazillion rules, each with subsets and complex definitions. Baliultimate and his cohorts are very well versed and use wiki rules like insults and weapons to hurl at their opponents. There is something very abusive to me and other sincere editors in the way the wiki consensus process is playing out on this page. It is not fair to us to be asked to collaborate with what are functionally Holocaust deniers. They are denying the validity and facts of this small chapter of Holocaust history, not working sincerely to produce a good article. I respectfully request they be permanently banned from editing this article.Cimicifugia (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)cimicifugia

According to modern scholars, the Book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC. I would argue that this is a relevant information to put in the introduction of the article, but another user thinks otherwise. The "third opinion" agreed with my position, but the other user still opposes to this settlement.

Those who would be so kind to give their informed opinion are invited at Talk:Book of Daniel#Date of composition in introduction. Thanks --TakenakaN (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to bring attention to the article on Hemant Karkare, which is currently sufferring from a massive edit war, possibly by sock puppets (see my post here for the list) led by an anti-Israel editor named User:TwoHorned (He tried to POV-push in the India-Israel relations article before). The focus of the "edit-war" is over WP:FRINGE Conspiracy Theories concerning his death and the 2008 Mumbai attacks (in which a Chabad Lubavich center in Mumbai was destroyed by Pakistani Muslims). The edit-warriors keep inserting many bogus claims made by extremists, one of them is that Israeli-government has been fomenting religious riots in India (see this section of their version). Perhaps some input and contribution from the regular users of this portal would prove constructive in this area. Thanks.117.194.197.61 (talk) 23:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Jewish_issue . Thanks Gnevin (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering if someone fluent in Hebrew might be able to take a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#Hebrew_inscription

--Ghostexorcist (talk) 04:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a Hebrew speaker, and I've deciphered more than 95% of the text, and I gave (ibid.) the exact translation. HOOTmag (talk) 07:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

In the article Jewish Music, user CoolliTtleguy has changed "Zemirot" to "Zemiros" and "Shabbat" to "Shabbos". I wonder if we have a policy about this. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew), which provides a little guidance. Personally, I've always followed the spirit of WP:ENGVAR, especially WP:RETAIN: don't make changes if the article is already using one style or the other. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Malik Shabazz, but in addition think that by default articles should follow modern Hebrew pronunciation, unless directly related to subjects where the Ashkenazi pronunciation is obviously relevant. Debresser (talk) 11:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This is addressed at WP:HE. -shirulashem^(talk) 21:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. See specifically this section. Debresser (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Should every single biography of a Jew be part of Wikiproject Judaism? For example Sharon Osbourne or Sarah Michelle Gellar? Or is the project more for articles directly connected to Judaism? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

IMHO the latter. Debresser (talk) 11:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Debresser. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, every bio of a Jew should be part of Wikiproject Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 04:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Not every bio of a Jew should, necessarily, be part of WPJudaism. This is an old debate. Should every bio of a Christian person be part of WPChristianity? No. -shirulashem^(talk) 20:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Why shouldn't "every bio of a Christian person be part of WPChristianity?" Bus stop (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Because the simple fact of a persons belief or ethnicity doesn't mean anything he does is related to that. I wonder how this isn't obvious. Debresser (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Debresser — a person isn't a sum of unrelated parts. It is possible that a person could be a bundle of contradictions but we should leave that to the reader to decide. You are talking about "beliefs," but approximately fifty-percent of Jews are nonobservant. It seems unlikely that a nonobservant Jew is going to be espousing "beliefs." And what you are saying sounds like the end result could be that the (approximately) 50% of Jews who are nonobservant would, by dint of their nonobservance, be ruled out of possible inclusion in the WikiProject Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 03:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair question. I guess my argument was similar to WP:OTHERCRAP. Let me try again. I think that inclusion in WP:Judaism should be similar to inclusion in the categories related to Judaism. I fully agree with WP:BLPCAT where it states, "Categories regarding religious beliefs ... should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief ... in question; and the subject's beliefs ... are relevant to his notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." Albeit that's applicable to categorization, I think it should apply here too. -shirulashem^(talk) 21:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Said guideline basically renders this debate moot. Debresser (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Debresser — the "said guideline" refers to "beliefs." What of nonobservant Jews? Are only observant Jews eligible for inclusion in "Wikiproject Judaism?" Consider the following: if a nonobservant Jew states explicitly that he is Jewish, wouldn't he or she be eligible for inclusion in "Wikiproject Judaism?" The only part of that "guideline" applicable to the question raised by Jayjg is the stipulation that the "subject's beliefs" be a part of their notability. Also, as Shirulashem points out, those are guidelines for placement in "Categories." It is not clear that those guidelines apply to "projects" such as the WikiProject Judaism. I think if an individual has an article on them and if they are Jewish, they should be included in the "Wikiproject Judaism." Bus stop (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but there is a similar guideline for ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. For the obvious reason I mentioned above. Debresser (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you please link to that so I can see it in its context? Where are you finding the "similar guideline for ethnicity, sexual orientation" that you are referring to? Bus stop (talk) 03:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It is parallel to the guideline for categorisation in Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. Debresser (talk) 05:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not about placement in categories. The question concerns the placement into Wikiproject Judaism. If someone is a Jew, and they have an article on Wikipedia, then I think an argument can be made that they should be included in Wikiproject Judaism. My reasoning would be that the person is the embodiment of Judaism. If they are a nonobservant Jews, as 50% of all Jewish people are, approximately, then obviously they cannot be noted for their "beliefs." Nevertheless, they are Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 06:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

An atheist is not "the embodiment of Judaism". Can you explain the relationship between Andy Bloch and Judaism? Please be explicit. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I misspoke. It wouldn't be correct to say that a person who claims to be an atheist is the embodiment of Judaism. But, if the person is a Jew, then it is axiomatic that he embodies Judaism. I don't know whether Andy Bloch is or is not Jewish. The question is whether he is Jewish or not. But if we determine that he is Jewish, it would not matter if he were additionally an atheist. If he is Jewish I think he should be included in the WikiProject Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the argument in favor or against inclusion in a WikiProject should be even more stringent than for inclusion in a category, so I find that guideline very relevant in outlining the intent of Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It isn't the guideline relevant to this issue (it is the guideline relevant to placement in categories), so you are expressing your opinion. Bus stop (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that such is my interpretation of the intent of a related guideline, yes. Debresser (talk) 06:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

An example: Woody Allen seems fine in this WikiProject as his work touches on Jewish identity. He's not included just because he's Jewish.WikiProject Atheism has claimed him too and it seems his statements of agnosticism or atheism have been white-washed out of the article, but hey, that's another issue. Fences&Windows 11:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Should every BIO of a Jew be part of Wikiproject Judaism? Strong NO. No to Jesus, No to Sandy Koufax. Chesdovi (talk) 11:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I wonder about Sandy Koufax. In an earlier generation, his refusal to pitch on Yom Kippur was considered quite notable.Mzk1 (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That is true, concerning Sandy Koufax. Except that notable or not should not matter. All that should matter is that he is Jewish. The role that Jewishness plays in his life is not for us to evaluate. Why would we decide in advance that all nonobservant Jews are ineligible for inclusion in WikiProject Judaism? That is in essence what we are doing if we accept, as some are suggesting above, that a person has to be notable for their Jewishness in order to be considered for inclusion in WikiProject Judaism. Can you give me an example of a nonobservant Jew who is notable for their Jewishness? While a nonobservant Jew may not be notable for their Jewishness, they are every bit as Jewish as an observant Jew. Judaism is a religion that has always posited that failure to be religiously observant does not in any way detract from one's status as a Jew. The distinction that some editors above are articulating is not only meaningless, it is also misleading. Bus stop (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

We do not add observant Jews either. Only Jews who are directly involved with Judaism as a religion, e.g. rabbis. Paul Reichmann also does not belong. Chesdovi (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion should have nothing to do with being involved with the religion. For Wikipedia purposes we want to know if the person is Jewish. If Sandy Koufax did not pitch on Yom Kipper — he was involved with the religion. If he simply affirmed that he was Jewish, he would be involved with the religion. Were people not involved with the religion they would probably not identify themselves as Jews. For Wikipedia purposes a statement from an individual to the effect that he or she is Jewish should suffice. The hurdles you are suggesting, in the form of rabbinical ordination for instance — are arbitrary. For a nonobservant Jew — simply saying one is Jewish should satisfy Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion in WikiProject Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated the article Blood libel for deletion as it have evolved into a coatrack, pointing to accusations against non-Jews without sources to verfy that the term blood libel was used. See, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood libel. I opt to delete the page so that Blood libel against Jews can be moved into its place. Steinberger (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The article on Psalms states that "most of the psalms are believed to have been intended for singing (some even include instrumentation and the names of tunes to sing to)." In the King James version of the Bible I haven't been able to recognize any notes about instruments and tunes, only notes that attribute authorship and dedicate psalms to various musicians, etc. I assume these details are preserved in Jewish texts. Can anyone clarify or perhaps give some examples? I posted this on the discussion for the article on Psalms but it looks to be infrequently updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.223.16 (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I was just looking at the article King David and it seems to me that certain articles need to have parallel versions. If I wanted to have an article that described Dovid Hamelech with all the Jewish sources, it would probably not work in the general article as the Christians and Muslims wouldn't think it appropriate. And all those pictures of statues of Dovid Hamelech are just obscene. This is a general problem and I'm just using this article as an example because I wanted to edit it. I'm afraid of making any sort of change, because in the past it was impossible to make parallel articles, but perhaps it would work if we could come to some sort of consensus. It would be so much more useful for frum people if we could look at an article and not have to see all the idiocy that creeps into the general articles.

For example, we could have all of Tanach from a Jewish point of view and link to articles that describe the medrashim etc. I would even think that it would be appropriate to have an Orthodox or sometimes even Charedi point of view, because otherwise you would constantly be fighting with people who have all sorts of things to say about medrashim and other parts of the mesorah. Ezra Wax (talk) 04:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I note that this was done with the Netinim, where there are three articles. I also think Biblical Wedding should have a hatnote, stating that it is the critical point of view and referring to Jewish Views of Marriage.Mzk1 (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think your idea is excellent, Ezra. We already have articles like Passover and Passover (Christian holiday). I would also like to see separate articles for the views of Bible critics. As it is now, articles on Biblical topics like Abraham or The Exodus set out the topic according to Jewish sources, then the topic according to Christian sources, and then the complete undercutting of the topic according to "critical scholarship". Yoninah (talk) 12:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Being that it looks like there might be agreement here that parallel articles are a good idea, where would be a good place to broach the subject where all interested parties could weigh in? Ezra Wax (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

What you're proposing is clearly a POVFORK and is undesirable. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 05:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with this comment. "Articles on Biblical topics like Abraham or The Exodus set out the topic according to Jewish sources, then the topic according to Christian sources, and then the complete undercutting of the topic according to "critical scholarship"." Yes, it's called a neutral point of view. You can't only describe a topic according to its adherents or advocates. To deliberately take the argument to extremes, are we to allow everyone—paedophiles, terrorists, white supremacists included—to write about their beliefs in articles without the "complete undercutting of the topic according to "critical scholarship"," or should only articles about the Jewish religion have this special privilege? Is religion to be the only topic immune from critical analysis on Wikipedia?

We have separate articles on the Jewish and Christian Passovers because they are not the same topic, and Passover is already too long to incorporate Christian observance of it (although it should at least be described in a summary section, not relegated to a mere "See also"). Those articles don't describe the observances from a 'Jewish POV' or a 'Christian POV' respectively, or at least they really shouldn't. Fences&Windows 11:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The comment above would be good, if this is what is happening. But, for example, the article on Daniel is entirely Christinan, including the quotes from Jewish sources. (See my comment there.) "Biblical wedding" is entirely historical-critical. Also, the texts are not always the same. Some Christian versions of Samuel have many extra chapters. There continual arguments against that the historical-critical ("scholarly") view is more notable.Mzk1 (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Without addressing the POVFORK issue, I would point out that a Jewish article or section, would, presumably, include a range of Jewish viewpoints, including secularist, Reform and Conservative that accept historical-critical viewpoints to varying degrees. I still think that is a valuable addition, as the debates within the Jewish world are often different in tenor, in key issues, and even in source texts (as mentioned above) than those in the non-Jewish world. I do not know whether those need seperate articles, or a section is enough. See what I have tried to do with this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Moses . I have added Jewish sources and POV's, from Orthodox to Reform, to secularist but "pro Jewish". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardianman (talk • contribs) 13:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, editors are trying to make it sound like the "Ritual Decalogue" is somehow equivalent to the Ten Commandments. Please comment on Talk:Ten Commandments. JFW | T@lk 22:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Could still use a few more voices here, particularly those who know more about the academic background of the RD. JFW | T@lk 12:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Website (holocaustresearchproject.org/ar/sobibor/sobiborrememberme.html) is blocked for 2 years now. I wrote the article about Alexander Pechersky of Sobibor fame and am rewriting the main Sobibor article now, and this banned website has some interesting (referenced) information.

This is the reason for the block of this website explained on: [Wikipedia internal link - Spam Blacklist]:

1) 'Associated with the death camps nonsense'. Interesting use of the word 'nonsense'. Maybe its time to re-evaluate the racist, revisionist who wrote such a terrible reason for banning a holocaust information website.

2) 'the site is not reliable.' Each page on the website has references at the bottom, and from the information I've read, it is accurate, well written and doesnt conflict with other reliable sources.

I just write articles, and am not familiar with the internal workings of Wikipedia. Would someone help me re-evaluate this situation and perhaps remove the person who describes the Holocaust as 'nonsense' from Wikipedia? Thanks in advance. Meishern (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You should read, in order, [5]. [6] and [7]. You can request that it be removed from the blacklist, but as Talk:Spam blacklist/Recurring requests says, you'll have to have a very good reason. Dougweller (talk) 07:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that by "death camps nonsense" the editor who wrote that was referring to the intellectual property dispute that was going on between the owners of deathcamps.org and death-camps.org. From what I can tell from a cursory glance at the relevant discussion pages, someone was going through a number of articles removing links to one site and replacing them with links to the other. As far as I can tell, the upshot is that death-camps.org is gone from the internet as a trademark violation and has been replaced with holocaustresearchproject.org and all three domains were blacklisted to stop the edit war.

Sigh. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

One of the articles on my watchlist was the victim of the edit-warring, so I was somewhat relieved when both sites were blacklisted. You can still use them as sources, you just can't link to them. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Too funny. Holocaust sites edit-warring and some kid doing a research paper now cant get quick access to interesting pages with compiled and referenced info from multiple sources. I wont misuse my time on this any longer since some of you know the situation better than I do. I just hope Yad Vashem wont start an edit war with the Holocaust Archives.... Cheers! Meishern (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see my proposal here and comment/vote. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hebrew Bible is currenly rated as an article of high importance, while articles such as Rabbi are of top importance. I think it is quite obvious that the Bible is more important than the role of a Rabbi, so I think Hebrew Bible should be rated as an article of top importance. Tomer T (talk) 10:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Since this is now the time, please review and add or in any way improve The Nine Days article. Please find more sources as well. Thanks a lot. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 05:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The MOS for Wikipedia itself states that the messiah is capitalized because of divinity. Since Judaism emphatically rejects this belief, it would seem that in the Jewish articles or Jewish sections of articles "the messiah" should not be capitalized. Messiah without the acticle should, I would think, since it is a proper name. Any thoughts on this? (I know this should go in our MOS section, but I figured it would get lost there.)Mzk1 (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Whether or not it be capitalized must depend on context. According to the Bible, Cyrus the great was a messiah - and however benificent, he was not divine! Slrubenstein | Talk 11:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

However, if you look at the MOS I think they are actually conveying this. After The Messiah they list The Virgin and it is clear from context that they do not mean that Virgin should always be capitalized, hence, Messiah does nto always have to be capitalized 9according to the current MOS) Slrubenstein | Talk 13:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, that was my point. I have always felt this way, but I was was kind of surprised to see it here, given common usage. Also, I don't like to "rock the boat" when there is no important issue at hand.

So, final point - does anyone object to a wholesale change of this nature? Note that it still needs to be capitalized when used as a name : Messiah will...., as opposed to: The messiah will.... Mzk1 (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I need some help with understanding what I have done wrong by adding the section Anthropotheism to Sefer_ha-Temunah. I deleted it, but you could still see it in the history [8] After I first put it in I got an angry email from a friend, who said that I do not understand that Anthropotheism is used in Christian Kabbalah, but is it? He is so upset with me, that he does not even want to explain to me what he meant. I used this source: [9]. I do understand that there's no such thing as Christian Kabbalah, yet there are many books about Kabbalah that were written by Christians for the Christians, and a Wikipedia article about it: Christian Kabbalah. I would not like to use any thesis from Christian Kabbalah in Sefer_ha-Temunah. So once again my question is, if the section I have added and later deleted could be considered coming from so called Christian Kabbalah. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking over the articles relating to the Temple in Jerusalem, there is lots of confusion, some stemming from opposing secular and religious scholarly outlooks, but more so from various editors making major contributions over the course of a decade and creating and running parallel articles about what should be one topic. This is the situation at the moment:

1. Temple in Jerusalem is the over-all article. So far so good, but it does not connect with so many other articles about its own subject matter, essentially the First and Second Temples. There should really be more about its name and place in Judaism over the millennia as the Beit Hamikdash - "House of Holiness" that was built for, functioned for, existed for, was destroyed for, and prayed for by the Jewish people.
2. The First Temple article is at Solomon's Temple which reads like a Christian exposition and not like the holiest Jewish house of worship and sanctity that it was, while the Second Temple article is at Second Temple of Jerusalem. This is inconsistent. In addition, there is also a separate and parallel article for the Second Temple at Herod's Temple since Herod's Temple was an extension of the Second Temple.
3. When trying to place the destruction of the First and Second Temples, which according to Judaism occurred on Tisha B'Av, with the general dates for their destruction in Jewish history conventionally given as 586 BCE and 70 CE, when one tries to look for the times relating to the destruction of the First Temple, there is no linkage to the subject matter of the Jewish version such as the build up from The Three Weeks and The Nine Days but rather the Solomon's Temple/First Temple article links to Siege of Jerusalem (597 BC) which cites "Babylonian chronicles" (published by Donald Wiseman in 1956) making no mention of the accepted Jewish chronology and observances relating to the same time-frame. In fact it uses the Jewish-sounding months in the non-Jewish Babylonian time-frame. (The names were originally from Babylonia, but not the actual concepts and months themselves which were of Mosaic origin in the Torah itself). With more articles like this from non-Torah sources each with their own POV of course.
4. The only "normally named" Temple is the Third Temple, which does not even exist! While the First Temple and Second Temple have still not earned the honor of a clear-cut and clearly identifiable name and articles for themselves.

This is a big job. But to start, please see how the article about the First Temple/Solomon's Temple can be improved by inserting into it more Jewishly relevant material about it's destruction that incorporates the timely themes of Seventeenth of Tammuz; The Three Weeks; The Nine Days; Tisha B'Av. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the First Temple is better known as Solomon's Temple in English. That explains the name and why First Temple redirects to it. Debresser (talk) 07:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

But not according to Judaism to which it belongs. It's about the Jewish First Temple not about how or what it's called according to an English or non-Jewish or secular POV. That's precisely my point. In Judaism, both temples are referred to as the Beit Hamikdash (or Bais Hamikdosh) collectively and more specifically as the Bayis Rishon -- "First Temple" (Bayis meaning "house" or "temple" of course) and Bayis Sheni -- Second Temple and the articles should reflect those facts and not what's "English" or what's imposed on it artificially. First Temple and Second Temple are also perfectly well-understood terms in English hence Second Temple of Jerusalem that should really suffice with Second Temple (Judaism) and nothing's wrong with First Temple (Judaism) or with Third Temple (Judaism) (for the Third Temple article). IZAK (talk) 07:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

In favor of changing to consistent names according to Judaism:

1. First Temple (Judaism) for all topics relating to this article.
2. Second Temple (Judaism) for all topics relating to this article.
3. Third Temple (Judaism) for all topics relating to this article.

That would make sense and be consistent. IZAK (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Why do we need to disambig here? Why not just First Temple? I also am leaning towards keeping Solomon's Temple. (It's common name in Hebrew does not dictate its common name in English...?) Chesdovi (talk) 09:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Chesdovi: Well I agree that "First Temple" is good, but to avoid any confusion, and to create clarity too, First Temple (Judaism) makes it 100% clear what the subject is. This is not about a mere "disambig" either -- it's about consistent naming. And it's not just about the outward names and labels "Solomon's Temple" versus "First Temple" alone because there are many connecting topics here that bolster the usage of "First Temple" over "Solomon's Temple". Let's look at Google. While there seems to be near parity between 334,000 hits for Solomons Temple (bolstered by the fact that many sites are using Wikipedia's article!) there are 294,000 hits for First Temple making them almost equal on this scale. Now, if you look at the subject in its proper context, not just as a "Solomonic production" but as the core and symbol of an entire era, then the name of "First Temple" is bolstered and backed up by the fact that the predominant term used is by far "First Temple" over anything else: 151,000 hits for First Temple Era (with only 2 hits for Solomon's Temple era I kid thee not!) and while there are 23,100 hits for First Temple period there are just 4 hits for Solomon's Temple period!; there are an astounding 442,000 hits for Destruction of the First Temple and more such as 44,800 hits for Destruction of the First Temple in Jerusalem, (while in comparison there are only 36,700 hits for Destruction of Solomon's Temple); and there are 144,000 hits for Building of the First Temple while there are 179,000 hits for Building King Solomon's Temple many that dwell on secular perspectives such as the Masons and whatnot and nothing to do with Judaism. Bottom line, these few example show that while on a few occasions there is parity, especially when talking about the structure itself, but when the focus is on the broader symbolic. religious and historical role then First Temple is the leading term not just in Judaism but has a broader acceptance. IZAK (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not about Hebrew names, or we'd be speaking about First House and Second House, it's about applying the names that Jews use, which are more logical since they use them much more, to the generality, to avoid confusion, as the proposal said. It's as good an idea as the one to pick neutral names for disputed geographical regions. --ACogloc 11:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

In favor:

• IZAK (talk) 08:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
• I grew up speaking English and don't ever remember hearing the first Temple called Solomon's Templae - I am sure I heard the phrase or read it, I just do not remember. My memory, and what I am used to today, is people just calling it "The Temple" if people are speaking generally, or "the First Temple" when in the context of a larger discussion of the Second Temple. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
• Agree. "Solomon's Temple" is probably more used in academia, but it is certainly Bayis Rishon and Bayis Sheini for believing Jews. Let's make a redirect for Solomon's Temple to First Temple (Judaism). Yoninah (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
• Agree, almost. Since there are those who, unlike myself, deny that it was built by Solomon, it does not make sense to call it Solomon's Temple. I am unsure about "Third Temple". I guess that would be all right, if the first paragraph points out that it is more of a concept than a number. Depending how you count, one could say there were several "second temples"; one may still yet be built. I am also unsure about putting Judaism in parentheses - it makes it sound like this article is only for Jewish viewpoints. Perhaps Holy Temple in Jerusalem (First). (I would prefer Original, Rebuilt, and Future, but I doubt anyone would go along with that.)Mzk1 (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Hi Mzk: Firstly there already is one over-all article for all the temples at Temple in Jerusalem that should really serve as a kind of summation page as does the Judaism article for example. Secondly, the Solomon's Temple article as it stands now is a confusing hodge-podge of conflicting data that obscures what the subject in fact is. It mixes terminology and comes of sounding like a dialogue rather than something encyclopedic and definitive. Thirdly, the point of having "Judaism" in parenthesis would be to deal with the vast amounts of Jewish information first about this Jewish temple central to both ancient and later Judaism. Finally, there can be other articles such as Christian views of the Temples in Jerusalem or Islamic views of the Temples in Jerusalem if need be since those religions do deal with that subject, but Wikipedia should not be trying to compact mountains of conflicting information into one or two articles causing confusion. IZAK (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
    • If that's the plan, I have no problem with it.Mzk1 (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• One question: Even if one accepts the Greek Chronology, does the year 586, as opposed, say, to 590, have any historical meaning, or is it entirely based on Christian interpretations of Daniel?Mzk1 (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The dating I mention here is not final, there are debates and differences even among Jewish Torah scholars. But the "586 BCE" and the "70 CE" dates are the ones in popular use, while not being the final word and not claiming to be. IZAK (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
    • 586 BCE is a scholarly date based not on Christian interpretation but analysis of extra-Biblical records such as those of the Babylonians. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
      • What I mean is 586 versus, say, 590. The date seems too specific to have any meaning; the Roman calender was certainly messed up for many years. Does anyone have a source explaining who and how this very specific date came about? I would love to be proven wrong.Mzk1 (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• Agree As there were no other major Judeo-Christian religions for the entirety of the first temple and 98% of the second temple, it makes sense to follow the Jewish tradition in naming the article. -- Avi (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• Agree to rename to First Temple. Adding (Judaism) looks tacky and is quite frankly unnecesary. I also suggest merging Herods Temple and Second Temple. Chesdovi (talk) 16:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• I agree that Solomon's Temple should be moved to First Temple and Second Temple of Jerusalem should be moved to Second Temple. I think Herod's Temple is too long to be merged into Second Temple and should stay where it is (although its lede should mention the Second Temple). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Hi Malik: Herod's Temple is just another name for a time period in the Second Temple. Like Solomon's Temple its name implies that it is somehow of, for and by "Herod" when basically what Herod did, and received great acclaim from the Jewish sages of his time (even though he was of questionable Jewish background himself) was to improve, beautify and build up the Second Temple. In modern terminology he gave the Second Temple a huge face-lift and massive upgrade. After all the Second Temple was authorized and even financed by Persia's Cyrus the Great who allowed the prophet Ezra to return to the Land of Israel (Judea) and rebuild it. Yet the common name for the Second Temple is neither Ezra's Temple nor Herod's Temple, although a very small number of sources do refer to the Second Temple and its start as "Ezra's Temple" (1,890 Google hits for Ezra's Temple). Therefore, a way should be found to subsume "Herod's" Temple (as a sub-heading) to the Second Temple (the main article for this this topic) as a clear-cut sub-section and sub-topic, such as Second Temple and Herod or Herod and the rebuilding of the Second Temple to which the Herod's Temple articles should be redirected. IZAK (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Hi IZAK. I respectfully disagree. Herod rebuilt the Second Temple and greatly expanded the Temple Mount, he didn't just refurbish the existing Temple. The new structure is frequently referred to in English as Herod's Temple to distinguish it from the Second Temple that had existed since the time of Ezra. In my opinion, Herod's Temple is long enough that merging it into Second Temple would unbalance that article. But my view seems to be a minority opinion here. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Malik: Let me clarify myself. I agree with you that the material in the Herod's Temple article is too great to fit into one Second Temple article and I am not suggesting that such an attempt should be made. But I disagree with you that Herod's Temple is divorced from the reality and notion of the Second Temple. The problem here is that while in classical Judaism and its sources Herod is given credit and praise for his refurbishment and expansion of the Second Temple, the more secular and Christian sources tend to talk in terms of Herod's Temple because he was so close to the Roman era on the eve of the birth of Jesus and is described by Josephus' historical records. So this needs to be treated carefully. The first paragraph in his article at Herod the Great already tries to bridge the names of "Herod's Temple" with "Second Temple": "He is also known for his colossal building projects in Jerusalem and other parts of the ancient world, including the rebuilding of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, sometimes referred to as Herod's Temple." In any case in classical Judaism throughout the last two millennia the Second Temple is called just that, the "Bayit Sheni" almost without exception, and this is after all the Jewish Second Temple. IZAK (talk) 06:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Agree to rename it to First Temple. As a Jew, I have never used the name of Solomon's Temple, it's just a popular name for Indiana Jones movies, as is coke for the respective brands. You can never speak of the two Temples at the same time, it has to be clarified which it is. --ACogloc 11:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• Provisionally agree I certainly agree that First Temple is not more used in scholarly literature. However, before the switch is made, is there an place where you could check with active Christians who edit? These are pages children in Christian schools use, to write reports and stuff. We don't want to cause unnecessary resentments and I am not certain how pious Christians will react to the change, because the Temple of Solomon is certainly how this building has been discussed in English Lo these many centuries. Ever since Tyndale.AMuseo (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Disagree:

• We should have only one article about each of the templates, and that can only be a general article, not a "Jewish" or "Christian" article. Therefore we can not use a stricly "Jewish" name as "The First Temple" instead of the better know "Solomon's Temple". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs) [10]
  • "Templates" or "Temples"? What are you talking about? The First and Second Temples were only Jewish temples, were they not? Christians did not worship there. They did not even exist! And Certainly not Muslims! The Babylonians and Romans, who were pagan people and had all manner of deities and beliefs now long forgotten, and who destroyed both temples should then have their views about the temples put in in parity with the Jewish views to interpret what the Temples were, which would be absurd. Like having the Nazis give a long treatise about the correctness of The Holocaust and the Auschwitz (you do agree that the destruction of the two temples and the butchery and exile of the Jewish people by the Babylonians and then by the Romans was proportionally and quantitatively on a par with the Nazis or perhaps even worse don't you? If not, check the historical facts.) Likewise, no one in their right minds says that the Vatican (center and holiest place in Catholicism) and the Kaaba (center and holiest place in Islam) "must" have the views of Judaism crammed into their articles and no doubt many Jewish scholars have lots to say about both the Vatican and the Kaaba. So first things first and everything in its right place, and while all views do have their place SOMEWHERE, the starting point for any subject must be what it primarily was and is in its original context and in this case the First and Second Temples were of and for and by the Jewish people as part of their Judaism mandated by their observance of the Torah and its 613 Mitzvot (almost a third dealing with the sacrificial offerings in the temple/s and other observances in them over a span of 800+ years that they stood). Christians and Muslims and other faiths do not claim that the Jewish Temples were "theirs" or "holy" on the contrary, Christianity asserts that Jesus was "the last sacrificial offering" and that there is no further need for a "Temple" of any kind and that the Pope rules as his "vicar of Christ" from the Vatican in the heart of Rome in Italy, while Islam has it first and second holy places in Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia. Only Jews and Judaism fervently cling to the original and ongoing beliefs and religious precepts that there was a First and Second Temple and pray for a Third with the coming of the true Jewish messiah. IZAK (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Against voting:

• I do not think it is proper to start voting about things right away. Wikipedia is for discussion and consensus, and relies on those rather than on voting. This is a Wikipedia guideline! Debresser (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Calm down, take it easy. We are not "polling" because this is obviously very much a discussion that has only begun that also allows for a summation of editors' views. As the song says, "We've only just begun"! These are necessary steps in building and adhering to WP:CONSENSUS before anything is done with such major topics and articles. ("Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making" from WP:CONSENSUS in a nutshell.) IZAK (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

A new article which is clearly promoting a website and a pov, but I think might redirect somewhere more appropriate? It seems to relate to the topic here Seven Feasts of Israel. My inclination is to take both to AfD but I'd like other input. Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the article with the screaming caps in the title has already been speedied. Seven Feasts of Israel is a giant POV push that looks like it should go, too. Anyone want to get to it before I do? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seven Feasts of Israel. -- Avi (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I see this done from time to time, usually by IPs, never that I can recall with an explanation. Can anyone explain this please? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide an example? -shirulashem^(talk) 16:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to [11]. Dougweller (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't be sure, but it might have to do with the desire to use "Hebrew Bible" instead of "Old Testament". Perhaps these editors are over-zealous, and don't realize that the problems with the term "Old Testament" don't apply to "Book of Genesis", since Jews and non-Jews alike refer to it as such. -shirulashem^(talk) 16:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. Perhaps there should be some guidance as to when to use "Hebrew Bible" and when not to use it. Dougweller (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. Thank you for volunteering to write up the proposal. :) -shirulashem^(talk) 17:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, I'm not Jewish? We have a new editor, or perhaps the same IP with an account, doing it some more [12], [13]. Dougweller (talk) 12:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's likely that IPs and new editors will actually read these kinds of guidelines or essays, much less comply with them. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely, but it would something we could then ask them to read. And it would help editors like me know what is what. Dougweller (talk) 07:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I see now someone has changed it from Book of Genesis to Torah. That is how a traditional Jew would be more likely to say it "Torah says" rather than "The Book of Genesis says" but is I suppose not appropriate for a wiki article on a topic of interest to a wider audience than mainly Jews. Ricardianman (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

<-------------

In my view, Christians want to underline the distinction between the laws of the New Testament and prefer to call the five books of Moses (Torah, Pentateuch) the Hebrew bible to distance themselves from it. The reasons are the incompatibility between Christianity and the laws within the Old Testament (circumcision, worship of graven images, pork, sabbath laws, etc.) which Christians ignore. Christians also prefer to refer to Jews who lived before the destruction of the Second Temple as Hebrews to make them more palatable. No Christian wants to picture Jesus as a circumcised, bearded rabbi who would be more at ease in a Synagogue than at a Church. Thus its more convenient to forget and not follow the laws the Hebrews followed same as laws of Assyrians and Hittites. Meishern (talk) 03:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see this as a Christian vs Jewish thing, especially as the changes appear to have been made by Jewish editors. Please don't start up a religious war here. Dougweller (talk) 07:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not touching that article with a 20 foot pole. Just gave my view supported by some scholars. Other scholars disagree. Same as editors on Wikipedia. Some are comfortable with Old Testament and others are comfortable with Hebrew Bible. I offered my analysis since a question was asked. My ancestors haven't started a religious war in thousands of years, and I don't plan to break with that tradition. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 08:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"Old Testament" is a confessional (religious, specifically Christian) term - there's a New Testament and an Old one. Hebrew bible is a scholarly term, invented and used by biblical scholars, but I think very rarely by devotional (Christian) writers. The idea is (a) to get away from the theological implications of talking about old and new testaments, and (b) to distinguish it from the Greek bible (the Septuagint). Why Doug's editor wants to replace Book of Genesis with Hebrew Bible I have no idea - doubtless he's a typical Wikipedia editor, ie, dead ignorant and proud of it.PiCo (talk) 07:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to just mention that there is a common misconception that names such as Genesis are Christian in origin. In fact, they often are simply translations of the traditional Rabbinic names, named after the first TOPIC in the book, rather than the current practice of naming after the first significant word. Leviticus is admittedly a bit off; the traditional name is Torat Kohanim, a kohen being a priest rather than a Levite. Lamentations is correct; the traditional name is Kinot. The others seem pretty on target, except for splitting up Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and Ezra (which includes Nehemiah; the Talmud even discusses why he did not get his own book).Mzk1 (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion the word "Hebrew Bible" regardless of its possible use by scholars sounds unscholarly and unencyclopedic and most of all- insulting. I am Jewish and my Tanakh is not just the "Hebrew version of a Bible", do we call the Koran the "Islamic Bible"? It is the Tanakh. It isnt the "Old Testament" and the word bible has a connotation so wrapped up with Christianity that despite what "bible" may generically mean you can not remove it from that wrapping. Let's change articles to call "Passover" (Pesach) the "Hebrew Easter" or "Hebrew Solstice" while we are at it.Camelbinky (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again. There's been some edit warring at this article about whether the lead should say that MJ is a Christian religious movement or a movement that combines elements of Christianity and Judaism. It's basically a question of one (maybe two) editor against everyone else. An RFC has been filed. The one editor claims to have sources, which, frankly, I don't have time to verify. Further input requested. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

On another topic. There used to be an article on Boaz and Jachin It was redirected to Solomon's Temple where it is not a small sectin. This needs to be a separate article. These columns are not so very significant to Jews, but they became a bid deal among the Freemasons (who themselves are not a big deal today, but they were in the 18th and 19th centuries, and , therefore the history of them is important. And the columns are often a big deal in architectural history of the nineteenth century.AMuseo (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Provide sources and material for such an article then. The pre-redirected version does seem too compelling. Chesdovi (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't there a Yachin and Boaz in the Second Temple(s) also?Mzk1 (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes.AMuseo (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Boaz and Jachin are interesting, because while they get a long and detailed treatment in Kings, they are not the focus of very much attention in later Jewish sources. Although a number of synagogues have paired columns explicitly labeled Boaz and Jachin - I mean Boaz and Jachin are carved in stone in Hebrew on stone columns. They get more attention from Christian, masonic and occult sources. I know. Masonic and occult. But the Masons were a very big deal in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Occult sources exist and , therefore, Wikipedia needs to treat objectively objects like Boaz and Jachin that these occult texts treat as magical. And, most significantly to my mind, they figure largely in Christian art and architecture. The old article that you linked is paltry indeed. If you restore it, I'll put up a far better one.AMuseo (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and am trying to understand how Wikipedia works, without disrupting anything or stepping on any one’s toes. My revisions on several pages have been removed and I am confused by these edits because I was not trying to self promote with my additions. Rather, I was adding a link to the Jewish Publication Society (JPS), the oldest Jewish publishing company in the United States and the authoritative English translation of the Jewish Bible. JPS has created a product called the Tagged Tanakh, which contains an online version of its most recent Bible translation.

You removed my links to the Tagged Tanakh, but Mechon Mamre, Bible Gateway, and the University of Michigan all have links in similar formats on Wikiperida pages related to the Bible. Please explain to me why these organizations are allowed to post and I am not. Additionally, I find it a little bothersome that Christian versions of the Bible (ie Bible Gateway and University of Michigan) are adding links to Jewish Wikipedia pages such as Torah and the Book of Genesis. Please advise me on the next step that I should take. Thank you, and I Look forward to hearing from you soon. Rrstern25 (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

In response to #Building and destroying the Beit Hamikdash above, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#All talk pages, and more, were notified about the discussions and proposed moves where you may want to add your views to the ongoing discussion. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 05:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This article, Racism in Israel, seems quite one sided to me. Perhaps it could use another perspective. 96.227.210.71 (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

There is discussion of a proposed merge of the Yibna and Yavne pages going on at Talk:Yavne#Merge. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 07:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: The following involves three related articles, please comment at all three:

1. Talk:Solomon's Temple/Archive 2#RfC:Proper Name for this Article
2. Talk:Second Temple of Jerusalem#RfC:Proper Name for this Article
3. Talk:Third Temple#RfC:Proper Name for this Article

The recent move of the articles below has engendered concern on WP:ANI if the consensus reached was representative of the wider wikipedia project. Therefore, three RfCs have been opened to fully discuss the proper names of the articles, so consensus can be reached. Please visit and opine at the sections listed below.

1. Talk:First_Temple#RfC:Proper_Name_for_this_Article
2. Talk:Second_Temple#RfC:Proper_Name_for_this_Article
3. Talk:Third_Temple#RfC:Proper_Name_for_this_Article

Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Avi, good consensus-seeking, but three separate RfCs may not be a good idea, if inconsistency is thereby introduced. Say the consensus is to call them the First, Herod's and Third, respectively? Bad outcome. --Dweller (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Each article has its own issues, and if we call them First, Herod, and Future, so be it. Redirects will solve that issue the way it does now (type in "Solomon's temple" 8-) ). -- Avi (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreedly that would be unfortunate, but as Avi said: "so be it". Debresser (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments would be appreciated at an RfC about the best title for the Christ myth theory. See the discussion here. The article is about the theory that Jesus of Nazareth did not, or probably did not, exist as an historical being. Should it be moved from Christ myth theory to, for example, Jesus myth theory? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

This RfC, concerning whether Helen Thomas's comments as to where Jews should go, and whether it should be reflected in the lede of her article, may be of interest to some at this project.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Synagogues in switzerland. East of Borschov 10:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a new article about the very first reform Temple ever. Hamburg Temple. The german article is good, but my english is so bad. :( please help a bit. Thanks!!! :) --Pacogo7 23:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Conradi (talk • contribs)

There are a lot of articles like "Amshinov (Hasidic dynasty)" where "(Hasidic dynasty)" is part of the title even though it isn't needed for disambiguation purposes. I can't see a good reason to do this but I have a feeling if I start moving these articles en masse it will lead to conflict--so any opinions?Prezbo (talk) 02:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Renaming Breslov (Hasidic dynasty) will get my vote (it isn't, and never was, a dynasty). As for the others, I don't know when the blanket decision was taken to name all of them xxx (Hasidic dynasty), but it was a long time ago (before my time!). If they are to be renamed,

• it would have to be on a one-by-one basis, because some of them do raise disambiguation issues.
• Also, each such change must be matched with the corresponding change in {{Hasidic dynasties}} which is transcluded to each of the pages.
• In addition, articles which transclude {{Infobox rebbe}} must be checked to ensure that the links have not been broken.

In any event, before moving articles en masse, interested parties (such as the creators of the articles) should be notified.--Redaktor (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Please contribute to the discussion here. Thanks. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 12:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The montage File:12 Famous Persian Jews .png had a copyright violation among the images. As it was in use at fa and he wikipedias, I opted for removing the problematic image from the montage, leaving an empty space (this way, it isn't a copyright violation, and the articles are not left without an image). It is also useful for Persian Jews here, whose main image had been deleted and not replaced. However, the point is that the montage now lacks an image, and shouldn't stay that way. If someone here knows about some important persian jew with an available free image to complete the montage, the help would be appreciated MBelgrano (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

There may be too many biblical figures, but Ezra and Nehemiah should be acceptable. -- Avi (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

There are many articles that come into the general category of Judaism that quote statements of rabbinic authorities, or reports of things they have done that have made the news, and so on, but there is no article on that personage accompanying them. My question is: What makes a rabbi notable? If his doing something that made it to many news reports or that was widely discussed in secondary sources makes him notable, then not only should he be quoted in the relevant article, but he should qualify for a biographical article. Conversely, if he does not qualify for a biographical article, then why should his opinion or actions be considered notable enough to be quoted in another article? For example, here Rabbi Avraham Shammah is quoted in reference to his ruling on kol isha, but there are almost no ghits for him. If this issue has been resolved somewhere, please direct me to that discussion. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Notability to deserve a stand-alone article and reliability to be used as a reference for an article about something else are completely different things. Notable people may not be reliable, and reliable books may not be notable (if "it's a book about the history of Israel" is everything that might be said about a certain book, it wouldn't deserve an article, which wouldn't mean that it can't be used as a reference by either us or other later books) MBelgrano (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

So do you mean that even if the above rabbi (or one of similar lack of fame) is not notable and an article on him would be speedily demolished by afd, his opinion may still be mentioned as notable in another article? Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

They are unrelated process, so yes, the chance exists. MBelgrano (talk) 21:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds right. Joe407 (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Hi, I noticed an article which needs your attention - Judaism and violence. I think this article is one sided trying to portray Judaism as a violent religion, which is clearly not the prevailing scholarly view. Balancing information should be added regarding Judaism's key principles of love of peace and the pursuit of peace. Extremists using Judaism to justify violence are only a tiny minority, and are far from the widespread interpretation of Judaism. I began adding some such material, but your help would be greatly appreciated. Marokwitz (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no subject "Judaism and violence" in sources. This is one more example of an artificially created area for investigation. It cobbles together sources covering smaller areas relating to a supposedly existing larger topic. But that larger topic has a phantom existence in already existing sources. Wikipedia is breaking new ground by establishing "Judaism and violence" as a topic. This is contrary to Wikipedia's purpose. That is an article that needs deletion. Nowhere in sources can be found the topic "Judaism and violence." This article is no different than the Criticism of Judaism article in this regard. No editor has any idea what the parameters are of such articles. Such articles are a receptacle for anything an editor deems related to a novel topic that they have created. Wikipedia guidelines say: If no reliable third-party sources can be found on an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. Bus stop (talk) 14:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The BBC documentary indicated that Jason Donovan is a halachicly Jewish. Should I add a Jewish category? Chesdovi (talk) 13:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you link to the BBC documentary? Bus stop (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The doc has already been mentioned and linked in the article, but not this fact. Chesdovi (talk) 13:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Is that the BBC TV series Who Do You Think You Are? If so, is there a link a video of it? Bus stop (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

only 19 days left to view! Chesdovi (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting this message: "Currently BBC iPlayer TV programmes are available to play in the UK only, but all BBC iPlayer Radio programmes are available to you." Bus stop (talk) 01:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Abraham Pinter proposed for deletion. Chesdovi (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a PROD, added by an anonymous editor. If you contest the PROD, just remove the notice. I think the article claims notability, and I have certainly seen this chap appear in the national media. JFW | T@lk 05:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This isn't part of the project and needs some attention. It's been suggested at Talk:Israelites that it be merged with Israelites. Whatever, it does need work. Dougweller (talk) 12:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This article seems mainly original research. I've reverted some added by an IP today, but I'd rather someone who might have heard of this weed out the rest. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, has anyone got any secondary sources for the use of the lion as the biblical emblem of the tribe and later the Kingdom of Judah, as well as the symbol of the capital city of Jerusalem, and its emblazoning on both the flag and coat of arms of the city. I could use primary but secondary sources would be a great help. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I get lots of stuff using Google Books search.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

D'oh - I never thought of spelling it that way. Yeah, that's a start. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Lion#Cultural depictions section could also benefit from this research, especially since the article is apparently undergoing Featured Article review. So could the article Cultural depictions of lions.

Off topic, I think it is unfortunate that the Biblical tribes chose, as a symbol, an animal that kills its fellow's cubs when it takes over a pride, strong-arms other predators' hard-earned food from them, and systematically tries to kill other animals like the cheetah just because they're a nuisance. See Lion#Reproduction and life cycle and Lion#Interspecific predatory relationships. The spotted hyena, which is as intelligent as a dolphin and hunts its prey by sheer persistence, is much more awesome. (I love the name "Tsavoa" and wish Jewish mothers would give that name to their daughters.) So is the graceful and endearingly monogamous jackal. And of course there's my namesake, a beautiful little creature that would not hesitate to defend itself against any animal, no matter how large. The last one is also the name of the prophetess who saved the Torah, for God's sake! Lovely mascots all. Sadly, my university has also chosen the lion as a symbol, so I'm stuck with it for awhile. --La comadreja _{formerly AFriedman} RESEARCH (talk) 04:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget the lazy male while the lionesses do all the chores (i.e. hunting) "Dahlink, is dinner ready now?? (chuckle) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

aaand [this is where it starts to get complicated, as the author of this book posits the lion was mostly a negative symbol. All good for a detailed subpage but how to summarise in a huge and very full cultural depictions section of the main lion page?? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Wishing everyone a happy New Year and a blessed Day of Atonement. Eating the fruit of knowledge dipped in honey was delicious! Without sin, there can be no atonement.  :)

Also, thought you might enjoy this book. --JacobFrank ^{purification through transgression} 04:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Please take a moment to review the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Jewish religious censoring by user that has arisen as a result of the insistence of a user or two to describe Rabbi Elazar Shach as a Smurf, from here Talk:Elazar Shach#Archived off-topic chat (latterly renamed). Thanks so much, IZAK (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed it, IZAK. No offense, but, through no fault of yours, it's a complete waste of time. Bishonen | talk 02:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC).

• Should this article about the Judaization of Jerusalem include material on the realities of the degree of religious liberty available to Muslims, Jews, Christians, and others under this allegedly "Judaizing" regime. Or, as alleged by those who have removed this material, must it be limited to sources that explicitly address the "topic of Judaization of Jerusalem." As the article now stands, it alleges extensive "Judaization" without encountering the fact that Muslims , Christians and other freely worship and operate sectarian schools in the city. Discussion now on talk page Talk:Judaization of JerusalemAMuseo (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is what I had been having a problem with all along....

Current article states that "The Ark of the Covenant ... is a vessel described in the Bible as containing the Tablets of Stone on which the Ten Commandments were inscribed, along with Aaron's rod and manna." This is not correct. At best it can be alluded to one of the traditional views and should be CLEARLY labeled as such.

More specifically:

1) Exodus 16:33-34 states that a bowl with an equivalent of an omer of manna was not placed inside the Ark, but rather right next to it (in the Ark section(The Holy of Holies) of the Tabernacle.

2) Same goes for the Aarons' rod. Numbers 17:10 mention, in a similar manner, that the rod were also to be placed somewhere inside the Holy of Holies section of the Tabernacle. NOT INSIDE THE ARK.

3) To further support my concerns, I would like you to check out 1 Kings(Melachim) 8:9, that reads: "There was nothing in the ark save the two tablets of stone which Moses put there at Horeb, when the Lord made (a covenant) with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt."

I also think, that it would be beneficial to add modern insights about possible design of the Ark. I found these two articles:

1) THE GOLD OF THE ARK by JOSIAH DERBY - http://jbq.jewishbible.org/assets/Uploads/334/334_Goldark1.pdf 2) THE WEIGHT OF THE ARK OF THE COVENANT by ELIHU A. SCHATZ - http://jbq.jewishbible.org/assets/Uploads/352/352_Ark.pdf

These two articles, especially the latter, represent the best and most recent scholarly research into the matter that I'm aware of.

Happy Yom Kippur.

Aleksig6 (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Judaism articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate having another editor give an opinion on these articles Islamization of the Temple Mount and Islamization of Jerusalem under Jordanian occupation and on the discussions on their talk pages.AMuseo (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to set it up myself, but I think a page such as this one would be great for this wikiproject.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Second the motion. Depending on the person, it will improve the high profile articles or draw attention to under-viewed articles for improvement. Joe407 (talk) 09:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe that it would be helpful if the same proposed Popular pages cover both Israel and Judaism. Davshul (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Turns out that WikiProject Judaism has had it own popular pages page for some time now : Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Popular pages. This should be linked to on the project main page or in a new tab. Poliocretes (talk) 09:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I found a CNN article about a Neo Nazi who converted to Orthodox Judaism. I'm not sure how much information in this is of use, but see what it has:

• Cuff, Kristin. "Secret Jewish heritage converts neo-Nazi." CNN. September 24, 2010.

A quotation: "There were 350,000 Jews in Poland after World War II -- about 10 percent of the Jewish population before the war. In the 25 years after WWII ended the overwhelming majority left to escape persecution by the Soviet-controlled government. For those who stayed, their Jewish heritage was hidden often even from their own children. It provided a culture where anti-Semitism could thrive and in 1980s Poland, Pawel was embracing the hate festering in the concrete tower blocks of Warsaw."

I also found:

• Pleitgen, Fred. "Poland rediscovering its Jewish past." CNN. July 2, 2010

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

A number of edits recently have led to the start of an in-depth discussion concerning the names of Hasidic articles at Talk:Breslov (Hasidic dynasty)#Dynasty vs "group". Please see the discussion and add your views. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I am thinking about maybe changing the portal into one on a weekly rotation. There might be a few problems with doing so, however. I would welcome any input on the idea at User talk:John Carter/Christianity portals#Bible, Book of Mormon and Christianity portals, which I am currently using as a kind of crib sheet for all the portals related to Christianity directly. Any input from Jewish editors regarding the matter is more than welcome. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The perennial question concerning the images in the infobox that appears in the article Jews has come up once again. Please familiarize yourself with the issues and express your opinion at Template talk:Infobox Jews#Image. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Judaism and violence#Rfd thoughts It just closed yesterday. Thanx The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion taking place at Talk:Jerusalem over how the article should word certain issues. Some editors want the word "proclaimed" to be added to the first sentence of the article to describe it as the "proclaimed capital" of Israel as the international community does not recognise it as the capital of Israel, others disagree and think the status quo which has existed for about 3 years should remain (something that has been debated many times over the years but retained), and several compromises have also been suggested. The issue has now also spread to other matters, with some editors wanting it to say "proclaimed flag", "proclaimed mayor" , "proclaimed coat of arms" etc, to also highlight the fact the international community does not recognise the status of Jerusalem. This matter could have implications for other articles if changes are made and a similar pattern followed. So input from other editors would be helpful. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Input in the discussion here, regarding the deletion of links to the article List of Jewish Nobel laureates from the articles on prominent Jewish recipients of the Prize, would be appreciated. Davshul (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see the CfD proposal to rename Category:Yiddish to Category:Yiddish language at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 12#Category:Yiddish. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I came across this new article about Rabbi Weil, formerly rabbi of the very large Beth Jacob congregation in Beverly Hills, and now the executive VP of the Orthodox Union. I think Weil is a notable figure, but the article strikes me as blustery and overlong, and something that would benefit from pruning and shaping (not to mention a rename to Steven Weil). I'm a bit uncertain about where to start on this, however, and I'd appreciate it if some other editors might have a look. Thanks.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for spotting this. I gave it a once over. I'm unsure about the convention of having publications and lectures at the end of an article. It looks a bit like a WP:LINKFARM but I may be too zealous on that. Joe407 (talk) 12:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a set of outlines that cover a wide array of subjects, and that provide information as to the topical contents of that subject including how the subtopics are related to each other. And because the topics are linked to corresponding Wikipedia articles, the outlines double as tables of contents or site maps to Wikipedia's coverage of those subjects. When listed together, the outlines comprise an overarching outline of human knowledge.

Judaism does not yet have its own branch (outline page) in the network. However, several other religions have taken the lead in providing navigational aid to their subjects by creating outlines for them...

Religion

Buddhism • Christianity • Hinduism • Islam

Spirituality

To see how these are placed in the overall set of outlines, explore Portal:Contents/Outlines#Religion and belief systems

Between the overall set of outlines and the lists that are linked from them, the outline network provides navigational support to hundreds of thousands of key topics on Wikipedia.

But Outline of Judaism is missing.

The Transhumanist 18:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've just created a new article about Harris Lenowitz, a leading modern authority on Jacob Frank and Frankist writings. I've nominated it for the main page at Template talk:Did you know. Thought you might be interested in reviewing the article for DYK and/or expanding the article. --La comadreja _{formerly AFriedman} RESEARCH (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The almost 8 year old Mussar movement (2 "ss's") article was recently changed to Musar movement (1 "s") following discussions between a very small group of editors. Wider input is requested to arrive at fuller WP:CONSENSUS. Please see the discussions at Talk:Musar movement#Musar or Mussar. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

See:

Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Input at Judaism and bus stops please. Chesdovi (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you contest the PROD? Then remove the notice. JFW | T@lk 04:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It was deleted. Kind of sad. Mzk1 (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Next time you are waiting at a bus stop, ponder on the significance of bus stops in Judaism. Recall the insightful anecdotes, notice the pushkes and remember the vigorous campaigns that led to modest and non-offensive adverts. Judaism's impact on bus stops can not be overestimated. Chesdovi (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Please stop with this kind of nonsense. You are going to end up indefinitely blocked if you continue along these lines. Viriditas (talk) 01:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This should be speedily deleted. I don't think any reliable source is using the term "Rubashkin crime family." I don't think Wikipedia policy provides for the creation of articles on what in effect are nonexistent topics. Bus stop (talk)

Nominated under criterion G10 (attack page) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any harm would come from a few extra eyes on Agriprocessors, Postville Raid, Milton Balkany, Sholom Rubashkin, and especially Aaron Rubashkin. Check that long list of people in the "Family" section of that last article. What the hell can be the point of naming every member of a man's extended family like that in a Wikipedia bio? How do we even know how many minors might be on that list. I'll be honest, that section gives me the creeps. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

removed the entire section, consistent with our WP:BLP policy.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

May as well include Moshe Rubashkin while we're in the neighborhood. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

We also have Category:Rubashkin family. A kosher salami if you can guess who created it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 19#Category:Rubashkin family -- Avi (talk) 13:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Editors please watch the newly created Rubashkin family, as there appears to be POV, WP:COATRACK and BLP concerns.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

While there are many opinions as to whether they should or should not have been kept, after numerous AfDs, we have 3 related articles: Peace and war in Judaism, Judaism and violence, & Judaism and peace. Before we start with edit wars regarding both article names and content, I'd like to open up a discussion at Talk:Peace and war in Judaism as to article names and scopes. Questions include:

1. What should be the scope of the Judaism and violence/ Judaism and peace/ Peace and war in Judaism article be?
2. What should be the name of each article?
3. How should the articles be related? What information should be in each one and what should be exclusively in one or the other?

The threads are :Talk:Peace_and_war_in_Judaism#Article_names and Talk:Peace_and_war_in_Judaism#Article_scope. In both of these threads I am asking editors to put aside (for now) the question of whether a given article should be deleted and focus on clarifying what we have now. Thank you all, Joe407 (talk) 13:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

One cannot sweep problems under the rug. Original research is an important concept. We are not empowered to create reality out of thin air. We are not "hired" for our "expertise" in any given area of knowledge. If we do have expertise, we have to make that claim and substantiate it. But that isn't the case—no one here is claiming expertise in the subject of these articles. The point is that one has to use sources to determine the scope of these articles. Arbitrarily allocating material to these articles is to run roughshod over fundamental principles here. Bus stop (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

My point exactly. If the community as decided that these articles should stick around, let's clarify what they mean according to the sources available. As I said, before the edit wars begin. Joe407 15:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.219.212.27 (talk)

I'd like to ask whether people here are interested in assisting with a discussion of the new Labour Party leader, who according to perfectly reliable sources is Jewish. Discussion here -- where you will find some astonishing claims, e.g. the Jewish Chronicle and Haaretz cannot be trusted on this matter because they have "Jewish readerships". The edit in question is here, where an admin simply deletes the statement that he is the first Jewish leader of the party. Does this seem right? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

He is Jewish. Even though he is not a practising Jew, he was born to Jewish parents. Jewish in this case refes to his ethnicity, not his religious beliefs. Hence Jesus is categorised as a "Roman era Jew" and as a "Jewish Messiah claimant", etc. Chesdovi (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The point at issue is whether it is sufficient to describe him simply as Jewish, without any qualification or clarification, given the different meanings (religious, ethnic, etc.) which many readers place on the word, and given that he has said that he has no (or, no strong) religious beliefs. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I think similar articles tend to introduce such a person as "born to Jewish parents" or similar. Chesdovi (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle and Chesdovi—there aren't "different meanings," or at the least—these are of no concern to us. If you wish to elaborate on his "Jewishness" in accordance with reliably sourced information—that is a possibility. Of course some might object to undue weight being given to this aspect of the man's identity, given that his Jewishness is not highly correlated to the individual's notability. A nonobservant Jew is no less Jewish than an observant Jew. No source questions his "Jewishness." I think adding information, if reliably sourced, is a reasonable possibility. If sources say he has "no strong religious beliefs," then that wording constitutes a reasonable qualifying phrase that you might want to add. But I think it is totally unacceptable to exercise one's own personal reasoning to override what reliable sources say. They say he is Jewish. So I hardly see that as something that can be omitted. Bus stop (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

"A nonobservant Jew is no less Jewish than an observant Jew." That is your view, and, I'm sure, the view of many Jews. However, it is confusing to many other WP readers, and we should strive to reduce that confusion by making clear what we mean, in this circumstance where a prominent public figure has stated that he "does not believe in God". Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he need not believe in God. Do you suggest that the article on Ed Miliband go off on a tangent about Jewish identity? No, of course not—that would be silly. The appropriate thing is to add more information, not to take away information. Therefore in the same breath that the article asserts that he is Jewish, it should also include language, that strictly adheres to that used by reliable sources, which would serve to modify the fact of his Jewishness. Therefore it could be noted that he, "does not believe in God," if that is what a source says. Bus stop (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This is precisely right. Unfortunately a great deal of ignorance about Judaism is clouding the discussion, with one contributor in particular repeatedly referring to Jewish "blood" (see WP:BLPN). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Most readers are, in your terms, "ignorant about Judaism". That is precisely why we need clarity. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Our BLP policy, which applies to infoboxes also, says " Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." How far that should or does apply to plain text within an article is not so clear as far as I know. Dougweller (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It is irrelevant. We need not elaborate on his "religious beliefs." Jewish identity is primarily based on birth or conversion. This is unlike Christianity—a person is a Christian only if they accept Christ as their Savior. That is a belief. Jewish identity does not require belief. Many Jews are nonobservant. Many Jews state that they are atheists. This is all irrelevant to their being Jewish. It could be argued that if a person (an otherwize Jewish person) said that they were not Jewish, we would have to accept that as concerns the writing of our article, and certainly if the person was a living person. But Ed Miliband does not get stripped of his Jewish identity as a consequence of saying that he might not believe in God, or that he rarely if ever goes to synagogue. Such statements are not sufficient to support an argument that he is not Jewish. The situation that describes is common. The majority of Jews might not be observant. This issue is about trying to fit Judaism into a mold based upon Christianity. The two religions share similarities, but the two religions are different as well. Bus stop (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

"Religion is the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or a set of beliefs concerning the origin and purpose of the universe." Unless that statement is false, it follows that someone who states that they do not believe in or worship a god who is central to a particular religion cannot reasonably be described as an adherent of that religion. We can say things about their identity, their cultural background, their parents' or grandparents' beliefs, etc., but we cannot characterise that person as being an adherent of that religion - which is the wording used in infoboxes. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Feel free to set up your own project where this is the way policy works; you have that right. Meanwhile on this project, we have WP:BLP and WP:V and the long-standing idea that exceptional claims need exceptional sources, and that in cases of doubt we err on the side of not including contentious information on living subjects. --John (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

John—our article should state that he is Jewish because all sources that address that topic state that he is Jewish; no source asserts that he is not Jewish. In light of this I am trying to understand your WP:V concerns. WP:BLP is your other policy concern expressed above. You refer to "exceptional claims." What is the exceptional claim? That he is Jewish? You refer to "contentious information." Who finds this contentious? Sources are unanimous, including Miliband himself, that he is Jewish. Can you please explain to me what you find to be contentious? Bus stop (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

If the fellow doesn't self identify as a "Jew" then don't label him as such. Same goes for Catholic, Scientologist, Hindu, whatever. A mention that his parents are/were jewish is certainly appropriate for mention in the "education and upbringing" section. The binary categories are a way to label people, many of of whom don't appear to want to be so-labelled.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah -- but he has: "Obviously I'm Jewish, it is part of my identity, but not in a religious sense." Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This is revisiting discussions elsewhere. He is "Jewish" in the sense of having a Jewish identity - but, as a service to readers, what that means needs to be clarified beyond describing him simply as "Jewish". He is not Jewish in a religious sense, and it is therefore incorrect to describe his religion as "Jewish". Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and I would not propose to add "Jewish" to the infobox. I would suggest that this discussion move to the article talk page -- my purpose in coming here was to attract the interest of people who might actually know something about the general topic, but discussion should take place there. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Strange, but about two weeks ago the widely read (in Haredi circles) English-language Mishpacha Magazine had a detailed article, with a very nice photo, of current British PM David Cameron posing with a leading UK Rabbi Chanoch Ehrentreu making a presentation to Cameron of a Jewish Torah book written by a famous rabbi who is an ancestor of Cameron. See Index for the issue at Feature Article 2: DAYAN EHRENTREU’S FRIEND from TEN DOWNING David Damen, and see the first part of the article, with that great photo of Cameron with the rabbi at: Dayan Ehrentreu's Friend From Ten Downing (PDF). The article did not say that Cameron is "Jewish", but it stressed the fact that based on Rabbi Ehrentreu's personal close relationship with Cameron, that after they had met in the past, there is no question that Cameron has verifiable Jewish ancestry as well. The piece was probably also meant to counter negative PR against Cameron in Jewish circles for making pro-PLO statements lately. So it seems that both heads of the big parties in Britain come from Jewish roots. Mazel Tov! IZAK (talk) 11:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not news. The article on David Cameron refers to "his great-great grandfather Emile Levita, a German-Jewish financier who obtained British citizenship in 1871..." Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You quote from article that was published a little over a year ago, it's not that long ago. It may have been known in the UK, but it is very radical for Cameron to "go public" personally in a widely read modern-day English-language Haredi popular magazine and have a photo of himself openly published with one of the most powerful living English rabbis, who oversees conversions to Judaism in all of Europe today of all things, being pictured together and quoted getting a book from the rabbi who says that: "The prime minister is the direct descendant of one of the most prominent Jewish grammarians of five centuries ago.. Rav Eliyahu Ashkenazi" that goes further back than his great-great-grandad who came to the UK. So what do they want from the Milibands who have more recent Jewish ancestry, whose mother was evidently Jewish by birth in our times and not five hundred years ago. IZAK (talk) 05:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)