Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 26

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 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

Frankism is notable enough to have its own article, so I've created it and nominated it for DYK. It's a difficult article to write, especially NPOV--please have a look and let me know what you think. --La comadreja _{formerly AFriedman} RESEARCH (talk) 06:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Added Category:Frankism. IZAK (talk) 13:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The disambiguation page may not be needed. If it is needed it needs some touch up. Any thoughts at Talk:Jewish temple would be appreciated.Cptnono (talk) 04:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Cptnono: Thanks for noting this. I took care of it. IZAK (talk) 11:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a feeling that the article, The Transliterated Siddur, either needs expansion or should be merged somewhere else. I have not been involved in the set of articles regarding prayer and prayerbooks. Perhaps someone could take a look at it and see if it belongs elsewhere.Joe407 (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Megama - Perhaphs someone has the names of their other albums?? Joe407 (talk) 12:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Frustrated with random quotes from newspaper columns being used to slander all and sundry, I started a discussion at Identifying Reliable Sources asking if facts inside newspaper columns were considered top-level Reliable Sources, as news articles are. This resulted in what I believe are welcome (and still ongoing) changes in the rules regarding the level of RS of news opinion pieces. I recommend people take a look; while I do not like removing long-standing material, I think there are some places that could use a meat-axe. Of course, many articles appear to have little or no sources at all...Mzk1 (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

An editor has made a potentially valuble contribution by adding a large section to the article regarding the Geonic period. However, it has flaws, including the reliance on a single source that was not really geared towards the subject. I have put some of my reservations in the talk pages, and recommend that those interested take a look. (Don't forget the main source for the period, Iggeret Rav Sherira Gaon.) Perhaps some of you might like to take the original editor's good work and improve on it.Mzk1 (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

There is now a discussion concerning the recent expansion of the Rabbi Yitzchok Hutner article, more input is welcomed at Talk:Yitzchok Hutner#Expanding the article discussions. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Philosopher Frege was a Hitler admirer. There is an odd attempt going on at talk:Gottlob Frege to mitigate criticism of his anti-semitism by means of specious attacks against reliable sources. Tkuvho (talk) 06:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

In the article on Criticism of the Talmud the term "rabbinical rabbis" is used in the reference to the debate with the Frankists. Does "rabbinical" make sense as a modifier to "rabbi"? -- Jlodman (talk) 05:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a pleonasm if ever there was one. The word "rabbinical" is sometimes used instead of "mainstream Judaism". JFW | T@lk 13:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what a pleonasm is (sorry - I'm still trying just to get people to use adverbs), but Judaism for maybe 1500 years was split into two parts - Karaite Judaism, and Rabbinical Judaism, the latter of which has mostly prevailed. So if that is what is referred to, it is correct, if confusing.Mzk1 (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

While we are on this, where is Rabbinic correct and where is Rabbinical correct? I prefer the former as less midieval(sp?)-sounding, but I have been corrected on this. I would appreciate help here.Mzk1 (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "Judaism was split". Karaites are a too insignificant a group to use the word "split". "Rabbinical rabbis" could also refer to Pharisees as oposite to Sadducees? It obviously denotes those who stick with what we now consider "mainstream Judaism". But I agree another word should be used, other than the pleonastic "rabbinical rabbis". Debresser (talk) 06:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. Of course Karaites are not a very large group presently. But I was speaking historically, as was the person asking the question. At one time they were quite a significant group.Mzk1 (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

"rabbinical rabbis" is a tautology, like saying "priestly priests". In previous centuries the now archaic "Rabbinites" was used for the rabbis and their disciples. The term Rabbinites redirects to Rabbinic Judaism on WP it was taken to mean what today would be called Orthodox Judaism who continue with it, but Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism also claim to subscribe to Rabbinic Judaism claiming they are its true heirs, since neither Reform nor Conservative agrees with or subscribes to Karaite Judaism. At any rate, it was the Rabbinites who opposed the Karaites in their day, and it should be placed and understood in that historical context. IZAK (talk) 08:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It certainly appears redundant to me, especially after the preceding comments. I don't see any signs that non-rabbinic rabbis occur unless the word "rabbi" is used to mean things other than as a teacher of Judaism.Jlodman (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are Karaite Rabbis (or whatever term they use). I saw a pciture of one quite some time ago, and he was dressed in standard Israeli Rabinnical garb - black and and suit. But, OK, the phrasing is unfortunate.Mzk1 (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

LOL! So who gets to fix it? Jlodman (talk) 05:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, Is it possible someone could explain to me where "rabbinic" is applicable and where "rabbinical" is? As I said, I much perform the former, but many seem to insist on the latter.Mzk1 (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps you could solve your dilemma by viewing it as a problem of English usage and there are similar cases in English, perhaps like "magic" versus "magical" or "satanic" versus "satanical" or "comic" versus "comical" etc (sorry those just sprung to mind off the cuff). IZAK (talk) 02:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, any English-usage experts there? Or is there a better place to ask? (As I say, I have already had stuff modified on this basis, but left it alone due to lack of knowledge.) I will try some reference works, also. Mzk1 (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

A couple of users, one of them rather new, created a new article today at Religion of Ancient Israel. They're having a few disagreements between them at its talk page and they both made a number of edits to the lead of Judaism that accord with the contents of that article and link to it. I reverted because I didn't see any sources and the changes didn't seem to me to summarize the Judaism article. Then, I went to the new article to find that it has no sources or references at all. What do others here think? Is this a POV fork of Judaism? walled garden? I think the new article needs input from a wider range of editors. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It's very odd; POV, OR, and entirely unsourced. I'm not sure what, if anything, could be salvaged from it. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this could be salvaged, at least in name, if we added sources. Since Religion of Ancient Rome and Religion of Ancient Egypt are articles, I was surprised that Religion of Ancient Israel was not--until now. We should add information about other gods that were worshiped in ancient Israel, and possibly remove much or all of the information about modern religious movements that claim to be continuations of Israelite religion. --La comadreja _{formerly AFriedman} RESEARCH (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

What reliable sources would you use? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

And why wouldn't those sources simply be used in the "History" section of the Judaism article instead? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of this as a child article for Israelites. I would use reliable sources about ancient Israelite idolatry, for example. The Israelites article doesn't seem to have an extensive discussion of the various religious movements that competed for the following of the ancient Israelites. --La comadreja _{formerly AFriedman} RESEARCH (talk) 04:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

At the moment it is a redirect to Jewish history#Ancient Israelites. I brought it up at WP:Fringe where it was also suggested that ""Religion of Ancient Israel" would be about the pre-exilic, pre-monotheistic religion and as such a sub-topic of Ancient Semitic religions" which makes sense to me. Except that I don't like the word 'Israel' here as it is too limiting. Dougweller (talk) 07:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That may be if we define the scope of the entry differently. The original move to "Religion of Ancient Israel" was not correct IMO. The entry creator was trying to create an article on "Mosaic religion" which is a synonym of Judaism. His take on what that meant was monotheistic ancient Judaism but not the pre-monotheistic Semitic religions. The title move confused this however. Judaism is indeed the parent topic here, and its ancient history is the specific context. We have articles that deal with these topics already.Griswaldo (talk) 11:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I made the move not because of the article as it stood at the time of deletion, but because of how I was imagining the article would be rewritten. I think there's consensus that coverage of how the Israelites and their ancestors worshiped other gods, both before some of them became monotheists and after monotheism had become firmly established, is a conspicuous hole in the encyclopedia. We're done with discussion about the article "Religion of Moses and Israel", I think--no one seriously objected to its deletion. IMO the discussion is about where the relevant article about polytheism in Israel would be. --La comadreja _{formerly AFriedman} RESEARCH (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Redirected Religion of Ancient Israel to point to History of ancient Israel and Judah#Religion, which appears to contain the content you're looking for. Jheald (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Does a concept of "redemption" exist in Judaism? If so, something should be added to Redemption (theology), which is currently stubby and narrowly focused. bd2412 T 16:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the article, in Judaism this would refer to the concept of repentance, but I'm not sure this could be shoehorned in. I removed the second sentance in the header as unrelated.

Didn't somebody ask this same question once, even write an article about it with a lot of made-up things? Debresser (talk) 08:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I added a small section to Redemption (theology). Debresser (talk) 08:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Folks in this project may be able to contribute to the above discussion, J04n(talk page) 19:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• This AfD was withdrawn after sources were added. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Another AfD that may be of interest to this project. J04n(talk page) 13:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

There is currently a push to add sources to all unreferenced BLPs. There are over 20,000 of these article, which is down from over 50,000 this past January. Lists have been compiled breaking down the articles by projects. The list for this project can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Unreferenced BLPs. There are little under 100 articles currently on the list, any help in adding sources to these would be greatly appreciated. For more information see Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. J04n(talk page) 14:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Outline of Islam
• Outline of Christianity
• Outline of Buddhism
• Outline of Hinduism
• Outline of Judaism

The Transhumanist 19:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• • I started Outline of Judaism, take a look. Please everyone, feel free to improve it. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know if a List with text copy/pasted from the main Judaism article is eligible for DYK? Outline of Judaism looks like it might be a very good DYK if it meets requirements.

BTW, 2 more WP Judaism DYKs confirmed: (1) "that clarinetist Margot Leverett started a band that fuses bluegrass music with the traditional Jewish musical style called klezmer?" (2) and speaking of crossing boundaries, a DYK for Frankism about how it encourages people to transgress every single one. --La comadreja _{formerly AFriedman} RESEARCH (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind taking a look at these articles, please? There is a user called User:Greyshark09 who is intent on turning "Mosaic Law" into a full fledged religion distinct from Judaism, and changing the Judaism article to claim that Judaism is based on this Mosaic Law. Thanks. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Greyshark, by the way, is the same editor who created Religion of Ancient Israel under the title Religion of Moses and Israel (discussed above). That article was an unreferenced POV push until it was (mercifully) redirected. What he's been doing at the dab page clearly goes against MOS:DOB. I left him a note to that effect and made a few edits to the page to bring it more in line with the guideline. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The article on Frankism, recently expanded from a redirect, got 8,400 views while on the main page and is currently November's most-viewed Did You Know article. See Wikipedia:DYKSTATS#November_2010. Thought you might be interested. --La comadreja _{formerly AFriedman} RESEARCH (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a lengthy discussion going on at Talk:Ed Miliband#Cats again about whether or not Ed Miliband is Jewish, and in exactly which categories he can be included. Miliband is the child of two Jews, and has stated publicly several times that he is Jewish, as have various reliable sources. However, Miliband is quick to qualify that statement, by noting that he is not Jewish in a religious sense, as he does not practise Judaism, and, in fact, does not believe in God. Furthermore, he states that his family was not connected to the Jewish community when he grew up. The dispute is as follows:

• Some editors there have said that, based on his statements and various reliable sources, he should be included in the categories Category:Jewish atheists, Category:English Jews, and Category:British atheists. The first, in particular, was designed exactly for Jews who don't practise Judaism or believe in God, and the second is for anyone who either claims to be Jewish, or who reliable sources state is Jewish.
• Other editors have insisted that these categories are not applicable; that
  • the fact that a person states he does not believe in God does not necessarily mean that he would agree he's an atheist, and claiming he's an atheist based on that statement is original research
  • including him in a "Jew" or "Jewish" category would mislead the reader into believing Miliband practised Judaism. This is, in their view, a WP:BLP violation, because Miliband himself makes it clear he is Jewish, but doesn't practise Judaism.
  • Miliband has only stated he is "Jewish", but not a "Jew", and therefore "British Jew" doesn't apply.
• The second set of editors have argued that Miliband should instead be included in Category:British people of Jewish descent. The first set have argued against this category, noting that the category is intended for people who are not Jews themselves, but do have Jewish ancestry, and in any event that is not what Miliband himself has clearly stated, and thus would itself be a violation of WP:BLP.

Fresh, knowledgeable eyes on this discussion would be greatly appreciated. The discussion starts at Talk:Ed Miliband#Cats again, and is currently active in the Talk:Ed Miliband#arbitrary break 3 section. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Why not just let him describe his faith/ancestry in his own words and leave the binary categories off altogether? He's made it clear he's not much interested in a binary label. We shouldn't presume to slap one on him.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy if all the "Jew" categories were done away with - and indeed, all the other "ethnicity" categories. However, that doesn't seem likely to happen, so we have to work with the existing labels, and the existing inclusion criteria. We can't really make special exemptions. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Jayjg asked me to comment. To a large extent, my answer is "I don't really care." Beyond that, my suggestion is that since these things really come down to self-identification, and since he is very much alive and not particularly hard to reach, it would seem to me that the best way to resolve this would be to contact the man himself and ask which of these categories he would consider appropriate self-description. - Jmabel | Talk 04:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

That would be OR and since he is a primary source, you'd have to attribute that self-opinion to him. --Shuki (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

That would be a prime example of why I am no longer a particularly active contributor to en-wiki. - Jmabel | Talk 22:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Currently the article Chesed Shel Emes seems to be about an organization rather than about the concept. Should we rewrite to be about the concept with a sub-section about orgs or split the article to the concept of Chesed Shel Emes and if there are any notable orgs, they can have their own article. Thoughts? Joe407 (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be about 'the' organization, but not about a specific one. I think the article can be developed for both the concept and the organizations. --Shuki (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It would seem to be that the concept would belong under the Chevra Kadisha article, particularly since the organizations are often called "Chevra Kadisha Gemilas Cheses Sehl Emes (GCS"A)". Why not just modify the titles and create a disambiguation page?Mzk1 (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI {{Hebrew script}} has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see here Per that discussion, I have split Category:Yiddish into Category:Yiddish culture and Category:Yiddish language. Members of this project may want to inspect the inclusion of certain articles and the categorization of those articles for accuracy. Furthermore, I have taken all of the interwiki links and placed them in Category:Yiddish language, as it appears that this is the meaning of most of the other-language Wikipedias (and it is explicit in some of their names as well.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Ed Miliband is Jewish according to sources. Sources say he is nonobservant. The Infobox, it is argued, should read "None" in the field for "religion." Agree? Disagree? Bus stop (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. He does not practise Judaism, so it is not his religion. "Jewish" should be put under ethnicity or the like. Chesdovi (talk) 13:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi—I'm not sure if you are addressing precisely the question we are grappling with. At issue is that there is a field in the Infobox for "religion." The question is—how should that be handled? Should something be written in it? If so, what should be written in it? Or, should it be left blank? If it is left blank, then the whole question becomes unaddressed, in the Infobox at least—because the word "religion" does not appear as a consequence of no material being placed by an editor in that field—that is how the template for the Infobox works. Bus stop (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:ANI#Is wikipedia policy to confirm that the Bible is a story book?. Please see Solomon's temple for more background. -- Avi (talk) 13:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not Jewish myself, but had seen some media and pop-culture references indicating that in some areas there's a tradition of Jewish families going to the movies and going out for Chinese food on Christmas. One article mentioned the term "National Go to the Movies and Eat Chinese Food Day" in this context. WP has articles on Chrismukkah and the Matzo Ball, but those don't quite seem to cover this subject, with the former being more a fusion holiday than "alternate practice among non-Christmas celebrators". Am I missing the article I'm seeking, or is there no article on this practice? Should there be one? What would the title be: Jewish Christmas, Jewish alternate Christmas activities? I'd be happy to help put an article together, as the concept is interesting, even if it is less-common than in past decades where more mainstream businesses were closed during Christmas. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a parenthetical gag at best. It has no other significance than "Hey we have nothing to celebrate but we are off of work - let's go out!" And the only resturaunts open are ones owned by other non-christians (most common being Chinese). Joe407 (talk) 07:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree. It's like when I went to see fireworks on Silvester while I was living outside Israel. I just liked to watch it. No traditions involved, and definitely no pagan rituals. :) Debresser (talk) 08:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

In the UK there's always Limmud -- Jheald (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not a practice. It just happened that some of the only places open on Christmas have traditionally been Chinese restaurants and movie theatres. Since there was nothing else to do, those are the two places a lot of Jews ended up during Christmas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.209.109 (talk) 09:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The custom goes back quite a while. The phenomenon is called nittel nacht, where Jews would avoid doing anything joyous on Christmas Eve (which includes studying Torah, which is meant to be a joyous activity) to avoid giving the impression that they were celebrating the non-Jewish holiday. JFW | T@lk 23:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI, the usage of Sephiroth is under discussion, see Talk:Sephiroth (Final Fantasy). 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Howdy, Currently, the only Camp Moshava article is a redirect to Camp Moshava, Wild Rose, WI. While it is a very comprehensive article about this camp, it does not seem to pass WP:N and I think is a recreate of a page that was deleted a few years ago. What has occurred to me as a way of saving the article is that Beni Akiva's Camp Moshava as a whole (all of the camp sites) should be sufficiently notable that an article about it would pass WP:N. I've opened the question of redefining the scope of the article on the article's talk page. Perhaps you'd like to weigh in? Joe407 (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Who is putting these articles to the test now and deciding if they "pass" or "fail" anything? What's with all the "ayin hara" against articles that should be treated tenderly according to WP:DONOTDEMOLISH? At a time when quite obviously deletionism is on the rise and on the offensive all over on Wikipedia, therefore as a general rule it would be very unwise for serious Judaic editors to start their own virtual mini-campaign of deletionism at this time that in effect amounts to a self-defeating and counter-productive "non-policy" of cutting off the nose to spite the face. What we are trying to do is build up articles in a spirit of WP:CONSENSUS and hopefully of inclusionism rather than throwing them out. It takes a few minutes and it's very easy to march articles to the AfD gallows, but it's much, much harder and it takes years to write, build-up and improve articles. Let us consider the serious consequences of punching holes all over articles in Category:Jews and Judaism instead of saving and improving them!! IZAK (talk) 08:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not looking to delete the article. I'd like to redefine it as Camp Moshava, merge the Camp Stone article, and add information (and sources) about the other camp sites (Indian Orchard, PA and others). This is not an effort to remove but to improve. Joe407 (talk) 08:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

If an article can't meet our notability criteria, then it should be deleted. If it can, it should be fixed and not deleted. It's that simple. If anyone wants to throw out the notability criteria they should argue that out at the appropriate venue, not here. Dougweller (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Doug you sound too harsh and that's not the way WP works. WP was not started and does not grow with a grand policy in mind. The first consideration is the creation of an article and allowing it to grow and then prove, OVER TIME, that it can meet as many of WP's criteria as possible, that is what's called building an encyclopedia and not "demanding" that articles be delivered on platters, by order of the "higher command" like ordering "hamburgers and fries with ketchup" and if the fries or ketchup are missing the order gets sent back, the article loses it's head and an AfD nominator gets to gloat like he just shot a clay pigeon down. Nope, that's not the way WP works! Creating, writing, editing and improving articles is an art-form and takes time, and you cannot dictate how art should function. This forum is the best forum to discuss how Judaic articles should be treated and developed. IZAK (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm about to start work on an article, Sikhism in the United States military, and though it might be worth expanding the concept to articles to cover other aspects of religious groups in the US military. Particularly in terms of how those groups' customs/beliefs are accomodated (or not), issues of discrimination, etc.

A quick perusal of GoogleBooks seems to show some promising leads; with some texts on the appointments of the first military rabbis, the "untold story" of Jewish servicemembers, etc. Anyone else have an interest in this topic, or at least support its creation? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I highly support the idea. One of my best friends in the army was Jewish. I was amazed by the way he would try to adhere to various holidays while in the field on training missions. I once saw him light a cigarette, break the bread from the MRE, and drink grape cool aid in place of wine. There are no doubt others in the armed forces that go through similar struggles. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It sounds like an excellent topic for an article, and it's quite notable. Let us know if and when you start the article--if the prose portion is over 1,500 characters long and the article has an interesting cited fact, Template talk:Did you know gives you instructions on how you or other people could get a link to it on the main page. --La comadreja _{formerly AFriedman} RESEARCH (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Good deal; I've started the article with just a few basic sections, and any help expanding it and developing it would be greatly appreciated. Already ran across a really interesting anecdote about how Mark Twain criticised Jews' unwillingness to serve, was called out on it and given statistics to prove him wrong, and then wrote a retraction saying that the stereotype should be eliminated as incorrect. I'll go hit up WP:MILHIST for help too, but I think this could quite easily become a large article. The tricky part will be tracking down some good pics... MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a beautiful new article and y'all worked hard on it today. IMO, it would be a standout among the main page "Did You Know" articles. I've nominated it and feel free to review the nom--Template_talk:Did_you_know#Jewish_American_military_history. --La comadreja _{formerly AFriedman} RESEARCH (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Temple Israel (Memphis, Tennessee) has been nominated for Featured Article status; the discussion is here. Any comments, advice or other input would be appreciated. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

We are currently discussing ways to improve Book of Daniel. Any help from participants in this project would be appreciated. See discussion on Talk:Book of Daniel. Elizium23 (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I am unclear as to whether Wikipedia style guidelines support this edit at Mezuzah. I understand the reasons why some (but not all) Jews prefer to write the divine name in English as "G-d", but I couldn't find any "manual of style" ruling on whether or not this should be systematically done in articles about Judaism and Jewish topics. I do note, for what it's worth, that the current text of the Shema Yisrael article writes out the word "God" in full — and my initial thought is that references to the Shema elsewhere in Wikipedia should follow the lead of the main article on that topic. What do other people think about this? Richwales (talk · contribs) 15:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely no reason to adopt this writing style on Wikipedia. There is no Jewish law that directly prohibits a non-Hebrew name of God to be spelled out; there is merely a custom to do so but not to the point that this should ever be a MOS issue. JFW | T@lk 20:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't go as far as saying "no reason". Because pronouncing the word "God" is problematic in any language. But for clarity's sake, especially in non-Jewish publications, I think spelling it out is best. Debresser (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I think either usage is acceptable—G-d or God. I don't think it would be a bad idea to simply follow that which would be suggested by the WP:ENGVAR guidelines. It suggests that "no variety is considered more correct than another." It says that "When an article has evolved sufficiently for it to be clear which variety it employs, the whole article should continue to conform to that variety." I think that this obviously would only apply to articles on subjects related to Judaism. Depending on the leaning of the editor(s) who initiate the article—the article should retain that spelling. I realize this has nothing to do with a variation in English. I just feel the same sorts of principles could be applicable. Bus stop (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Why would pronouncing "God" in any language be problematic? JFW | T@lk 23:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Because that is what it says in the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (6:3). Debresser (talk) 08:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think a more relevant analogy here might be made to the style guidelines for the treatment of divine references in Islam (see WP:PBUH): "In keeping with the neutral nature of Wikipedia, Islamic honorifics should generally be omitted from articles, except where they are part of quotations." That would point to a uniform use of "God", except in the case of a direct quote containing "G-d", "Hashem", etc. Richwales (talk · contribs) 23:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

So far, over the years, the writing of "G-d" on Wikipedia has been totally rejected in favor of plain and simple "God" as understood in English. If one wishes to make sure it's the Jewish God then disambiguate the word God as follows [[Names of God in Judaism|God]] = God (click on last link to see it). While Wikipedia respects all religions, including all aspects of Judaism, it is neither a synagogue nor a yeshiva. Hope this helps. IZAK (talk) 08:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both the fact that "nornal" spelling is preferred here on Wikipedia, and with the suggestion to use this link (first time only, off course). Debresser (talk) 08:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

So, then, is there a recognized MOS document somewhere to which IZAK's suggestion above can be added? That way, the next time this issue comes up somewhere (and I'm sure it will come up again somewhere!), people can point to an official (or semi-official) statement rather than be forced to debate the question from scratch. Or is it in fact already somewhere that can/should be cited? Richwales (talk · contribs) 19:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

About 40 articles were changed in about 45 minutes by one editor. The article's "Infoboxes" were changed from reading "Religion": "Jewish" to reading "Religion": "Judaism".

These are the articles:

Edward Zorinsky, Joseph Simon, Richard L. Neuberger, Herbert H. Lehman, Judah P. Benjamin, Dick Zimmer (New Jersey politician), John Yarmuth, Lester L. Wolff, Anthony Weiner, Brad Sherman, Allyson Schwartz, Chuck Schumer, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Lynn Schenk, Steve Rothman, Abraham A. Ribicoff, Richard Ottinger, Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky, Nita Lowey, Sander M. Levin, Tom Lantos, Ron Klein, David S. Kaufman, Steve Kagen, Steve Israel, Elizabeth Holtzman, Paul Hodes, Alan Grayson, Gabrielle Giffords, Martin Frost, Bob Filner, Peter Deutsch, Ted Deutch, Susan Davis (politician), Steve Cohen, Ben Cardin, Eric Cantor, Sol Bloom, Isaac Bacharach, Gary Ackerman.

Recent activity at the Jan Schakowsky Talk page seems to be the precipitating factor leading to the above edits. In my opinion, wider community input is called for. Bus stop (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

This complaint is so wrong for so many reasons. First, clearly the religion field takes a noun and "Jewish" is an adjective. Judaism should be treated like other religion and in every case possible should be clarified as Orthodox Judaism, Conservative Judaism, Reform Judaism, etc. We don't say "Catholic" when when have the details to say "Roman Catholic" or "Irish Catholic". We don't say "Protestant" when we can say "Baptist" or "Lutheran", people don't really say "I'm Orthodox Jewish", "I'm Reform Jewish", now do they? Finally, to anticipate the complaint that we say "Catholic" not "Catholicism", "Catholic" is a noun. A person might say "I am a Catholic" but no one ever says "I am a Jewish". There might be an argument to use "Jew", "Orthodox Jew", "Reform Jew", which I don't think is better than using "Judaism", but there is no possible argument for using "Jewish" in a field that takes a noun. Yworo (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that Judaism is not just a religion. And due to the complexity of the religious/cultural issues involved, "Jewish" is appropriate. There are many people who will identify their religion as being Jewish, but will not identify with Judaism. Perhaps you should have looked into the subject before assuming that everything on Wikipedia has to be absolutely uniform. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 23:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Not true. Per the hatnote on the Judaism article, it is precisely about the religion. It is true that a subject may identify their ethnicity as Jewish but not also identify with the religion, Judaism. However, in such a case there should be no religion field in the infobox at all (or the religion field should specify the religion with which the subject does identify). The religion field requires that the subject identify with a religion (self-identify if a living person) and specifies the religion with which the subject identifies. There is an ethnicity field which should be filled in as "Jewish" if the subject so identifies but does not also identify with Judaism as a religion. You will find that articles where the subject has converted to Christianity (for example) with "ethnicity=Jewish, religion=Unitarian" for example. Yworo (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see the relevant section of the Jan Schakowsky Talk page. This is not about theory. Nor is this about grammar. The Washington Post can serve as a guide as to how we should construct our Infobox because 3 examples are given in which The Washington Post creates Infoboxes for Jan Schakowsky—example 1, example 2, and example 3. "Religion" is considered "Jewish" in the Washington Post's Infoboxes for Jan Schakowsky.

The 40 articles were created by editors who presumably knew the difference between a noun and an adjective, and they presumably were aware of the term "Judaism." Just as the Schakowski article is being discussed so should each of the above 40 articles be discussed. In my opinion one editor should not be deciding that "Jewish" should be replaced by "Judaism" in all of those Infoboxes and without any discussion. WP:NOR says, "stick to the sources." Bus stop (talk) 01:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not original research to switch between an adjective and a noun (or vice versa) in order to use the the correct grammatical form. Continuing to imply that it is just sounds ignorant. It's a complete red herring. Also, this is Wikipedia, assuming that the user who filled in a field in an infobox knew what they were doing is quite a stretch. Yworo (talk) 02:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Can anyone cite some halfway reliable sources as to shades of meaning yielded by Jewish and Judaism? Oh, wait, I guess I did. Jewish can mean one who follows the faith, or it can have to do with one's ethnicity, whatever their faith. Judaism means the faith. It has nothing to do with info box buckets taking nouns or adjectives, it has everything to do with what the words mean. I don't think it's a big deal to call someone who follows Judaism Jewish or a Jew. I do think it's a big deal on en.WP (and rather nettlesome) for an editor to go on about it, in a way that hints they think calling someone Jewish is a handy smear, maybe, since the word is much more widely known/heard than Judaism, the latter word meaning, spot on and only, the faith. So cite the dicdef if need be and anyone who is bickering over their hopes to plug in the fuzzier word, please stop, your slip is showing. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Gwen Gale—shouldn't we be adhering to the terminology actually used by reliable sources in this instance? And shouldn't we be collaborating with others? Those articles had been in existence for years. Why should one editor take approximately 60 seconds per article to make those changes—without any reference to sources that might support the change being made? I don't know what you are referring to when you speak of a "handy smear." Neither word is derogatory. I can't understand what you mean when you say that someone is trying to "plug in the fuzzier word." These articles are years old. They have had the word "Jewish" in the Infobox for a long time. And sources are using that word. Should we not be using the word "Jewish" when for instance a source as reliable as the Washington Post uses that word? I agree with you that this has nothing to do with nouns or adjectives. Reliable sources are reflecting common usage when they plug a term such as "Jewish" into their own Infobox field for "Religion". Nor is it only in Infoboxes that we see "Jewish" as the term used in the case of Jan Schakowsky. Every reference to her in reliable sources plus every reference that she makes to herself employs the word "Jewish." Not one reference shows the term "Judaism" associated with Schakowsky. Yet Yworo makes this edit plus the same edit to 40 other articles. Yworo should undo those edits and approach each article with a new section on the Talk page suggesting the change and inviting input. Bus stop (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I don't think listing someone's verifiable, notability-linked faith as Jewish is, in itself, a worry, at all. If you don't mean to be derogatory, be aware that from the outlook of many editors, what you want to do and the way you're going about it seems derogatory. As for WaPo, newspapers do all kinds of sloppy things and over time, swap them out with other sloppiness. You've run into a hitch in doing what you want to do (whatever that is), so you should take the hint and stop. I think editor consensus is the way to go here so instead, please wait for that. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• IMHO the changes were correct. Semantically. Debresser (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not the way to go about doing it because it allows no one a realistic way to respond. That should be obvious. There was no egregious "wrong" that needed to be "righted." Even if Yworo feels strongly that this change needs to be made, it is not the collegial way to go ahead and change 40 articles in 45 minutes and to do so right on the heels of a somewhat heated discussion on the very same subject at Jan Schakowsky. Is that not obvious? The closest policy-like thing I can come up with to liken that to is No angry mastodons. (OK—it is only an essay.) I brought a good source (The Washington Post) to support my contention that "Jewish" was the best choice of wording. Yworo reacted angrily (read the relevant section of the Talk page) and went off and made these changes rapidly to 40 articles. I am trying to respond in a measured way. I did not for instance go off and start reverting Yworo's edits. There is a way to conduct oneself at Wikipedia and that is not the way. Either you work cooperatively with people or you should be blocked until you learn that this is a highly collaborative project. For an editor with a long editing history (June 2009) Yworo's behavior is particularly disturbing. As for myself—I have experienced a long block from Wikipedia. I know what it feels like, and I try to conduct myself with decorum. But I find it hard to remain silent when someone makes such a brash move. Bus stop (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

My part in the discussion you refer to was in no way heated, nor did I react "angrily" at any point during the discussion. The rest of your comment is about as accurate as those two claims. Yworo (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The simple point, which I don't think you can refute, is that when you make 40 rapid-fire changes as you do above—you leave those who disagree with those changes little in the way of a calm way to respond. We were by no means in agreement about the point that you addressed in those 40 articles. Rather, we were discussing that very point at the Jan Schakowsky article at this section of that article's Talk page. It makes for a crummy editing atmosphere to have one editor decide to take matters into his/her own hands as you did. Bus stop (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Interested participants should provide input to the above. Bus stop (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Military history of Jewish Americans has just joined Frankism, which was feeling a bit lonely as the only Judaism-related article on the list of this month's most-viewed "Did You Know" articles. Let me know of any other Judaism-related articles that need to be or are being written/expanded, especially articles that show facets of Jews and Judaism which are different from the stereotypes. Our readership seemed interested in Jews who were prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice as American patriots. Any group as large and diverse as our own is bound to have many kinds of people and countless stories. --La comadreja _{formerly AFriedman} RESEARCH (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Is he Jewish? Chesdovi (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

No, he is Christian, there is a picture of his grave with the Cross in his profile. - 217.132.135.93 (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Jewish law considers him a Jew. Chesdovi (talk) 12:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you say that he was halachically Jewish but a practicing Christian? Bus stop (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Template:Religious text primary, please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Religious text primary. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi folks. I came across the above article, considered giving a stab at cleanup but then backed away, unnerved by the sheer immensity of it. Was hoping that someone with a bit more expertise in the area could take a look. The editor who is working on it is adding some interesting and relevant content, and neat pics, but "clear" and "concise" don't seem to be part of his M.O. If anyone has the time, take a look. She's a doozy. The Interior(Talk) 06:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Nice find. It really does need clean up even before addressing any sourcing or content issues. The only request I'd make due to the article size is to (when possible) edit the smallest sections possible to avoid edit conflicts. Joe407 (talk) 07:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Second request. If we could get a few more eyes on this article. regardless of knowledge of the subject it needs editing for OR and lengthy phrasing. Joe407 (talk) 04:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hag Sameach! I am very happy and proud to be celebrating Hanukah and honoring the great deeds of the Maccabees. I don't care that the Maccabees' movement was not the same as our own. If only we went farther in respecting and celebrating our differences. Light one candle for the Sadducees, for their courage and their heroism in Hellenistic times. Light one candle because the Jewish historian al-Qirqisani still had so many stories to tell, such a long time after them. Light one candle for the Jews around him, who refused to light candles on Shabbat. Light one candle for Isaac of Troki, whose work Chizzuk Emunah was written out of pure courage. Light one candle for the thinkers of the Enlightenment who read his work and questioned themselves. Light one candle for our right to question, one candle for our right to form our own opinions in our journey toward what is true and good, and a final candle for our right to be ourselves. Don't let the light go out! --La comadreja _{formerly AFriedman} RESEARCH (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Not sure what your theories, all pure WP:OR, have to do with Chanukah, please also note WP:SOAPBOX, but have a great one all the same! Best, IZAK (talk) 08:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You too. Of course they are OR (but is OR banned from discussion pages? I thought it was only verboten in articles), and the theory over here is that (1) the Sadducees gave rise to the Karaites, and especially that (2) the Maccabees were Sadducees and the Sadducees were a distinctive branch from the direct ancestors of Rabbinic Judaism. Those two items made up Geiger's thesis, although Revel disagreed with (1). From what I understand, Revel might still have agreed with (2). (3) is that Isaac of Troki's Chizzuk Emunah was reasonably well known in the time of the Enlightenment and that it had some effect on encouraging the Enlightenment thinkers onward, which is based on Voltaire's conscious response to and intellectual respect for the work. I'm not sure that this history is technically correct, but I do think of al-Qirqisani and Isaac of Troki as full-fledged Jewish heroes. And of course the Maccabees were heroes, no matter what branch of Judaism they would have belonged to. We may well be lighting candles for the Sadducees. Which makes me wonder which other historical figures we should revisit... --La comadreja _{formerly AFriedman} RESEARCH (talk) 11:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course, there is the opposite theory, that the Saduccees were a continuation of the Hellenists, whom the Macabbees fought against even harder than the Greeks. (Chanukah, of course, has nothing to do with religious freedom, except in the national sense.) But Issac of Troki is well known to Rabbinic Jews; I've even seen a translation of his work against Christinaity (which is what I've read of Chizuk Emunah) in English. I believe Rav Eichenstein's Otzar Vikuchim also has it; I would check if it wasn't 1:11AM.)Mzk1 (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:American people of German-Jewish descent, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 12:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:German Jews who emigrated to the United States to escape Nazism, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 12:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Jews who emigrated to the United Kingdom to escape Nazism, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 12:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

At WP:BLP/Noticeboard#Ed Miliband there is a discussion taking place concerning Ed Miliband and Jewish identity. Bus stop (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I have proposed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Annual meeting? that we perhaps have a page where we can, maybe annually, discuss issues and material of a religious nature in an interreligious context here. Any input is more than welcome. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Can someone apply this Talk:Jews#New_Jewish_population_as_of_2010 to the Jews and Jewish population articles (including sub-articles in the Jewish population article).

I have wrote it yesterday and I think writing the request in here may get more views. - 217.132.147.10 (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I have added the information to the lede of Jews and Judaism. The non-lede sections of these articles still need to be updated with this source, and many of the charts in Jewish population related articles also do not have this latest figure (although the figures they do have are not markedly different). Jewish population was already updated by the time I got there. --La comadreja _{formerly AFriedman} RESEARCH (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I recently made Category:People of Jewish descent a subcategory of Category:Jews. Does that seem correct?

My thinking is that most everyone agrees that a person of Jewish descent is --- in at least some sense --- a Jew. Whether a person is of Jewish descent is pretty much a matter of self-identification (especially if not all of the person's ancestors self-identified as Jews). Anyway, does anyone have a problem with Category:People of Jewish descent being a subcategory of Category:Jews? If that's okay, then I'd like to do likewise by making Category:British people of Jewish descent a subcategory of Category:British Jews (instead of vice versa as it is now).Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's correct. We only use the "Jewish descent" categories for people who do not consider themselves Jewish, but have a Jewish ancestry, etc. I will be undoing that change. Yworo (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Right now, Category:British people of Jewish descent is a parent category of Category:British Jews. Why don't you undo that? The same is true for many other countries other than Britain.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Yworo, you say, " We only use the "Jewish descent" categories for people who do not consider themselves Jewish," - is this like an opt - out clause or are there some guidelines as to what is the weight of understanding to peoples vague comments in regard to this self identification issue? Off2riorob (talk) 02:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The "people of Jewish descent" category is for people who have Jewish ancestors, but are not Jews themselves. This isn't a "opt-out clause", it's a "reliable source identification" thing, as these all must be. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

If that's really the purpose, then why not say "Non-Jews of Jewish descent" or something like that?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, there are hundreds of millions of people "of Jewish descent" in the world, but only around 14 million Jews. Not everyone with a Jewish great-grandparent is a Jew; in fact, they're typically not. Jews are generally a sub-set of "people of Jewish descent", not the reverse. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

If being of Jewish "descent" means that every single parent and grandparent self-identifies as Jewish, is the child Jewish in at least some sense? I thought so. In any event, British Jews are now being categorized differently from Jews generally, and that ought to be fixed somehow.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't mean that. Typically it means that one parent or grandparent or great-grandparent was verifiably of Jewish descent. Ethnicity has to do with cultural identification, it's not the same as race so it's not genetically inherited. The people in this category may have a Jewish ancestor that converted to another religion to marry or for some other reason abandoned their Jewish identity and raised their children outside the Jewish culture. In any case, the people in this category are typically not brought up within Jewish culture and don't identify as Jewish. If they are living people, we cannot force this identification onto them. Yworo (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Yworo . Obviously being Jewish is a stricter definition than being of Jewish decent. Debresser (talk) 05:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I am in 100% agreement with User:Jayjg's statements above. IZAK (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg hits it more or less right on the head, but I'd like to qualify the point a little. Specifically, where does that place individuals who convert to Judaism and have no Jewish ancestry? I understand that the religious affiliation is not necessary to be considered a Jew, it is my understanding that it is sufficient. If this is right (please correct me if it is not), this would seem to take the necessity out of Jewish ancestry for membership in the "Jews" category, and thus make the subcategorization technically incorrect.

A possible solution might be:

• Rename Category:People of Jewish descent to Category:Non-Jews of Jewish descent (as suggested above) and place it under Category:Jews and Judaism and removing it from Category:Jewish diaspora (since that's a subcat of Category:Jews).
• Keep Category:Jews as a direct subcat of Category:Jews and Judaism.
• Make Category:Jews and Category:Non-Jews of Jewish descent mutually exclusive.

Any thoughts? Obviously this would be a project since we'd want to verify the new categorizations, and probably harmonize the "(Nationality) people of Jewish descent)" and "(Nationality) Jews" categories to reflect this change as well. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Where would someone like Ed Miliband go? Miliband has four Jewish grandparents and two Jewish parents, and has strongly self-identified as Jewish, but has also made it clear he does not believe in God, and growing up did not associate with the organized Jewish community. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

In response to Menadaliv's question about "where does that place individuals who convert to Judaism and have no Jewish ancestry?" WP has an easy answer to that, it goes in Category:Converts to Judaism with its many sub-categories, because a convert to Judaism is in a class of his/her own. Converts' children can in turn claim full Jewish parentage if both parents were either properly converted or one was a convert and one born Jewish. IZAK (talk) 08:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

IZAK—wouldn't a convert to Judaism additionally go into one or more categories for Jews? If not, why not? Bus stop (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bus stop: I was answering a specific question only. The fact remains that, obviously, a convert to Judaism does not have "Jewish ancestry/descent", otherwise they need not convert, but rather a convert has non-Jewish gentile ancestry and is of gentile descent, yet only becomes a Jew because of the conversion process and nothing else. Sure, after they convert they are Jews, but they are not of Jewish "descent". (Perhaps "spiritually" their souls are mystically "descended" from some holy source, but that has nothing to do with Jewish law). The children of converts, only born after their parents converted, can then claim "descent" from their genuinely converted parent/s. IZAK (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say Category:British Jews, as he has self-identified. Yworo (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I am beginning to question whether we should have the "of Jewish descent" categories at all. Since Jewishness is cultural/ethnic/religious and not racial/genetic, it seems we are simply tagging people for no valid reason. That is, the connection can never really have the required notability to merit being included! Yworo (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Mendaliv—a convert to Judaism would be a Jew. A convert to Judaism could never be "of Jewish descent"—for Wikipedia purposes. I would say that all Jews are of Jewish descent (except converts to Judaism) but that all people of Jewish descent are not Jews—for Wikipedia purposes. Interestingly (and I could be wrong about this) I believe that from a Jewish theological point of view—a convert to Judaism is considered to be of Jewish descent. Hopefully someone knowledgeable of Jewish theology will weigh in on that last point. But we are of course not talking about Jewish theology when we are talking about Wikipedia policy regarding categorization that is consistent with WP:BLP. Bus stop (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep theology out of this discussion, since - as you mentioned correctly - it has no effect on this discussion. I, btw, agree with the rest of your words. Debresser (talk) 06:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:History of Hanukkah, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.IZAK (talk) 10:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Howdy, I made this edit at HaEmunah as per my memory and as per sources found online. Could some people check and see if I did so correctly? I do not have a copy of Orot to check the actual text. Joe407 (talk) 12:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Jewish theology of love#Requested move. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Galician Jews, Category:Galician rabbis, Category:Galician Orthodox rabbis, which are under the purview of this WikiProject, have been nominated for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at these categories entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.IZAK (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

1. I think there should be category for American_people_of_isreail-Jewish_descent because that applies to such people as Natalie_portman and Oded_Fehr. 2. I created a category called American_people_of_Danish-Jewish_descent and I only added 2 names. Could someone add some for names to that list? Also why not create a category called Danish Jews? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 04:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Shalom, I am a new little member of English Wikipédia. I work a page on Andres Spokoiny, a leader of my community at Montreal (Canada). There are many corrections to be made. It is normal because it is my first experience in English. My written English is not perfect ( my natural language is french). my text is here in my sandbox User:Genevieve2/sandbox01. If we will make corrections or edit. It is the pleasure to discuss friendly with you. Enjoy. C'est avec amitié que je vous écris. Bienvenue à vos corrections et ajouts. תודה --Geneviève (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour à tous, Hello Everybody, The doubt in me : I wonder: Andres Spokoiny is Notability or not for Wikipedia ??? I make a research on Google. Google give no link towards daily papers (English and French Quebecois) of Canada. The notability of Andres Spokoiny User:Genevieve2/sandbox01 seems limited to the differents Jewish Canadian newspapers and in Jewish communauty of Montreal (71,000 jews persons in montreal - last Canadian census of 2006). Maybe It would be more pertinent to join my project for Spokoiny into the page on the Jewish federation of Montreal Federation CJA . It will could give this: User:Genevieve2/sandbox04

yours opinions and your support, please . I love you --Geneviève (talk) 14:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to English Wikipedia and WP Judaism! If Spokoiny has a personal interview in the Canadian Jewish News and multiple articles about him, my own opinion is that he is notable. Jewish Canadian newspapers count towards the notability requirement. --La comadreja _{formerly AFriedman} RESEARCH (talk) 19:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your advice and opinion Comadreja. Today my mentor's wikipedia, Ottawa4ever, write on my talk page:

• ::I think he will be able to show notability, but if all sources are coming from one area releated to him in subject, his article might be taken to AFD (articles for deletion). The article needs to reinforce what makes him notable. I think it pretty much does but the article needs something that 'hammers it down' that hes notable, ie something that explicitly says this. Normally notablility as the executive director of the Federation CJA should be sufficent, but an outside reader may question the notability of Federation CJA since its tagged for notability. So some might question notability on that. (One other (easier) method might be to improve that page (Federation CJA) and show that as notable). At that point the Spokoiny article makes a good case in its current form for notability. AFD / or any tagging is something we should avoid. Also if the article can be developed, why not prepare it in a state for dyk so it appears on the mainpage? DYK, is a process known as 'did you know' where articles are listed on the page with an interesting fact. This process does bring more scruitinty to an article due to the increased traffic the article receives. Hope this makes sense but one goal of posting a new article should be not to have any questionable notabilities and to have people read the article. Going through an AFD is not something fun and can be a death nail in any article re-development if it gets consensus for deletion by afd. Bonne chance and talk soon Ottawa4ever (talk) 11:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This week, I will work Two pages: one for Andres Spokoiny and one for Montreal Jewish Federation CJA (working the old page + more new informations). Happiness to you. Merci, תודה --Geneviève (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• page Federation CJA is ready --Geneviève (talk) 13:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Good Morning, a new page Andres Spokoiny is ready --Geneviève (talk) 13:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Shalom, I have a note this morning on my talk page --Geneviève (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted this series of edits to Federation CJA as they do no comply with Wikipedia's policies on neutrality and promotion. Also, all of the sources you added were primary sources, published by Federation CJA themselves. Please do not use Wikipedia to promote an organization, no matter how worthy the organization may be. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

If I understand the rules correctly, people (self-published) can be used as sources about themselves, but should be combined with other sources.

Shalom, I have worked on the Wiki page of Rabbi Sandy Eisenberg Sasso. But now this page is being considered for deletion. Please give yours opinions on this Discussion, Thank you so much for all yours contributions in this discussion , je vous remercie, אני תודה --Geneviève (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

and now today Wikidan61 Propose:

I have proposed that Andres Spokoiny be merged with Federation CJA. Please join the discussion on Talk:Andres Spokoiny. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

after my disappointement , I have now no opinion. If you will give your support, your advice Thank you, je vous remercie, אני תודה --Geneviève (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Do we need Template:Mesivtas? Joe407 (talk) 10:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

A big no here. Debresser (talk) 12:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I can see a point in the template. I'm sure there are mesivtas elsewhere not covered in the template. Wouldn't it make more sense to send it to CFD directly? JFW | T@lk 18:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I try and test the water on a topic before sending it to AfD/CfD. I think the question may be: Is a Mesivta a distinct type of school that it's members should not be put into a category of "High Schools" or "Yeshivas"? Currently, I'm thinking that they should be put in with high schools and sorted by region as other schools are.
BTW, this template did lead me to look at Yeshiva Torah Vodaas which is a very notable and important institution and a wikipedia article in some disrepair. Joe407 (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Firstly a "mesivta" is usually used to refer to Haredi yeshiva high schools in America. In Europe and Israel they are sometimes called "yeshiva ketanas." So "yeshiva high schools" would be best for clarity's sake. This template seems pretty useless and lame, even the usage of the pejorative term "Ultra-Orthodox" in its title reveals its problems. IZAK (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Shalom, I share the opinion of Izak. In Canada, it is the appelation of mesivta is more used (see also differents Wiki pages Oholei Torah, Yeshiva and Tomchei Temimim ). Also I don't like the term "ultra-orthodox" because it divides the Jewish people. I don't use this term because it is lack of respect for my brothers and sisters of the other memberships affiliations different from mine. But this is only my opinion. Friendship and kiss for all, --Geneviève (talk) 13:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The template is up for deletion. Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Mesivtas Joe407 (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chabad houses. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a discussion here. Input welcome. Bus stop (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of discussion threads in the talk page concerning what this article should be called and also on whether the scope needs to be decided first. Members of this project may wish to participate.

Discussions on the name include whether the name should be simply "Jewish control of the media", whether it should have terms that identify it as a myth, conspiracy theory or antisemitic canard, or whether it should include terms such as "accusations" or "allegations" which identify the allegations/accusations as a matter of debate without assuming an a priori stance. Discussions on scope include whether it should be confined purely to the conspiracy theory or should look for evidence of Jewish influence on the media, whether it should include matters regarding Israel/Zionism, and whether it should be rolled up into a broader article on the Jewish World Conspiracy which currently exists only as a redirect.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

An unreferenced BLP for the" former Chief Rabbi of the Satmar Community in Monsey",. I am nhaving difficulty in finding sources in those available to me, and perhaps someone here can be of assistance. DGG ( talk ) 15:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Shalom, DGG, Why do you not write at the Rabbi. If Rabbi Halberstam is kind, he is going to answer you and to help you for this biography (reference and serious sources). I found only on Rabbi Shlomo Halberstam: Grand Rabbi Shlomo Halberstam, 92, Is Dead... in NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2000/08/03/nyregion/grand-rabbi-shlomo-halberstam-92-is-dead.html and http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9f06e6d9163cf930a3575bc0a9669c8b63 . And no article for Rabbi Joshua Halberstam. I found another Jew person have a same name but he isn't a Rabbi: http://joshuahalberstam.com/webtest/biography.html , and A Tale of Trade-offs http://www.forward.com/articles/123862/, bon courage אומץ טוב --Geneviève (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

yes, I found these also. But this isnt my special field and I have no particular interest in writing rabbinnic bios. What I do have an interest in is screening candidates for deletion, & asking help of those who might be interested. What I hope someone here could find is a reference from one of the Satmarer publications.

Another similar problem article Moshe Mordechai Eichenstein , the Trisker rabbi of Jerusalem. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Shalom DGG, Do you have look in Hebrew Wiki: There are several pages on rabbis in Jerusalem ( see רבנים ראשיים לירושלים and קטגוריה:רבני שכונות בירושלים ) but few pages on the Affiliation Satmar. --Geneviève (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Can someone who understands a bit more than I do about templates look at the infobox for Aharon Kotler and fix the date of death? Joe407 (talk) 10:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done Debresser (talk) 10:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

this whole thing is pov -- hpw come its laden with only ashekanzi stuff? the article on the shepardic is not even complete.(Lihaas (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)).

Shalom, Hello Everybody, a page mattering for me as woman and as Jew: Women in Judaism. This page approaches a complex subject. I did not want to work sections on the orthodox Judaism, conservative and reformist. I did not want to miss respect to my Jewish sisters of the others Affiliations. I respects others' affiliations (Orthodox Judaism, Conservative Judaism, Reform Judaism) but I realises this page haven't a small place for Reconstructionist Jews. I wrote one section for Women in Reconstructionist Judaism: User:Genevieve2/sandbox08. Please can you help me. You can edit, put comments on this sandbox because it is only a draft for making a section of wikipage page on Women in Judaism.

I thing thought of putting the text draft in the following section 4.4:

   * 1 Biblical times
   * 2 Talmudic times
   * 3 Middle Ages
         o 3.1 Domestic law
         o 3.2 Religious developments
   * 4 Present day
         o 4.1 Orthodox Judaism
               + 4.1.1 Rules of modesty
               + 4.1.2 Rules of family purity
               + 4.1.3 Beis Yaakov
               + 4.1.4 Modern Orthodox Judaism
               + 4.1.5 Women's prayer groups
               + 4.1.6 Women as witnesses
               + 4.1.7 Debates within Orthodoxy
               + 4.1.8 Orthodox approaches to change
         o 4.2 Conservative Judaism
               + 4.2.1 Changes in the Conservative position
               + 4.2.2 Conservative approaches to change
         o 4.3 Reform Judaism
               + 4.3.1 Reform approaches to change

4.4 Reconstructionist Judaism

   * 5 Footnotes
   * 6 See also
   * 7 External links
   * 8 References
         o 8.1 Orthodox Judaism and women

Working together. I also put the same note in the Talk page of the project Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism. Because I want to be including my feminist sisters. Your opinions, suggestions and advices are welcome. Thank, Merci Beaucoup,תודה --Geneviève (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Seeing that Reconstructionist Judaism is generally recognised as a branch of Judaism (as opposed to, say Messianic Judaism) there isn't a problem with such a section. Have you got any good references to jumpstart such a section? JFW | T@lk 19:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you JFW, I think so. The references are at the end of the page User:Genevieve2/sandbox08 . I am going to join this part Reconstructionist Judaism that we worked together (thanks to all contributors have to participate) on the page Women in Judaism . It is always possible to make additions and modifications (as all the Wiki pages). Shabbat Shalom --Geneviève (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Left me a bit speechless. Anyone brave enough to take a look at it? Dougweller (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I would not be surprised if Michael Paul Heart (talk · contribs) was a reincarnation of Hermitstudy (talk · contribs). JFW | T@lk 19:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Something has gone a little out of hand there. :) Perhaps nominate for deletion as original research. Not the mention that even upon a cursory reading I found obvious mistakes. And a lot of uninteresting details. And unencyclopedic remarks. The least it needs is some serious pruning. If such would be consensus here, I'd be willing to lend a hand. Debresser (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I posted a FYI with a link here on the User:Michael Paul Heart's talkpage. Note that he has been warned before for violating WP:OR and WP:SYN. Debresser (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Gentlemen: I am not Hermitstudy. I have spent the past week getting rid of his OR and SYN and reducing the amount of text and repetitious nonsense without compromising real historical information. Its a real challenge to NPOV revise presentation of historical facts that have been presented with a slanted point of view. I am halfway through the cleanup. See the talk page and compare the versions. As an historian I found the material interesting from an anthropological perspective. I am also an amateur Bible scholar (unpublished) for thirty-five years, and from that standpoint I found the variations in translations interesting. I understand your concerns. But let's not "throw out the baby with the bathwater". --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Give me another week. I should be done by then. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Fine with me, but there is a lot of original research and synthesis there, and whoever wrote it, it can not stay. Debresser (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

My challenge with this article is that is it so darn overwhelming. I rewrote the lead and shuffled some sections. I'm currently trying to sort out the animals section (assistance is welcome at User:Joe407/Tachash animals). The huge etymology section is just too darn daunting. I'm not willing to tackle it. Joe407 (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That is the part with the most original research, synthesis, mistakes and simply nonsense. Debresser (talk) 07:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe User:Michael Paul Heart is User:Hermitstudy (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hermitstudy/Archive) and as such is basically the sole author and owner of the article. I started cutting the article down by removing inappropriate material but Michael interprets any attempt to modify his content as a deliberate personal attack or POV-pushing vendetta. Really I'd just like to delete the entire etymology section, as was attempted previously, but by acting alone I'd simply start an edit war. --Pontificalibus (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gershon Wiesenfeld. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counter-missionary. The article is supported by this project. Borock (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Do we really not have an article that covers this? If we don't, this needs work. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Howdy, This sunday, Rabbi N.W. Dessler died. He was the son of the michtav me'eliyahu and a founder of Torah Mesorah education in Cleveland, Ohio and elsewhere. I created a stub Nachum Zev Dessler. Contributions (sources, etc) are welcome. Joe407 (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Shalom , Que D... repose son âme et apporte la consolation à sa communauté. I find only some websites:

• Hebrew accademy of Cleveland
• Cleveland.com
• Encyclopedia of Cleveland history

Sincères condoléances. --Geneviève (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

(sorry for my confusion , I wrote my condolences in French language--Geneviève (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC))

No, actually it was quite cute! IZAK (talk) 08:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Could anyone please help out with the following request that I received, thanks. IZAK (talk) 08:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC):

"Meshulam Dovid Soloveitchik: Howdy. I've come across and appreciated your work on rabbinical biographies before, and in my usual process of trying to add sources to unreferenced biographies of living people I came across this article. I've been having some trouble finding reliable, secondary sources to verify/establish notability, although it sure looks like he would be independently notable with a bit of sourcing. I had been considering replacing the article with a redirect to Brisk_tradition_and_Soloveitchik_dynasty#Rabbi_Meshulam_Dovid_Soloveitchik, but when I noticed you'd been the original author, I figured I'd ask you if you could suggest/add something you consider appropriate and reliable first, so, any suggestions? References absolutely need not be in English, but I'm personally limited to reading English myself. Thanks in advance, --j⚛e decker^talk 20:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm making more progress after recognizing an alternate spelling, so feel free to pass on this if you wish, although sourcing improvements are always welcome. All the best, --j⚛e decker^talk 00:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)"

An RfC has been opened on whether Infoboxes for articles on ethnic groups should include images of appropriate people belonging to the group; or whether this practice should be banned.

This would affect the infobox at Jews, for example.

Follow-ups probably best there. Jheald (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Do we need this section? Talk:God_in_Judaism#God_of_Israel. Debresser (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Shalom, I saw the critics in the talk page ...Oh lalala and I decide working to write a new page for Reconstructionist Judaism. Not easy work because I am not an expert. Can be you have suggestions for my work? I thank you for your support, je vous remercie, תודה --Geneviève (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Genevieve: Nothing personal, but are you sure you should take on such a big and responsible task when you evidently have poor English language skills, as evidenced from the way you write this short "request"? IZAK (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Shalom Izak, your comment is very just. Yesterday I began a text in English language but the difficulty is too big for me. Today I thus wrote in my language (which is the French language). See my work in french User:Genevieve2/sandbox009cb Can be when my draft will be ended, I shall can asked the ambassadors of English Wikipedia to translate my draft into English language. Be it a realistic option? Yes this subject is complex, that I am only a young woman who wants to help? Can being I am not realistic? But it makes me very sad to read the Wiki page on Reconstructionist Judaism... There are just critics in the talk page. This article must be redone . We shall find together a solution. I hope for it. Thanks, merci, תודה --Geneviève (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• Shalom,after reflection, I decided not write a new page of Reconstructionist Judaism. The subject is complex and too difficult for a new person without experience. I thank the persons who gave their opinion. --Geneviève (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Having trouble fighting for his page which I made. People deleting it are not familiar at all. (We are discussing R' Moshe Stern, author of responsa Be'er Moshe.)Rebyid613 (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The article was deleted under Speedy Deletion criterion A7: the article didn't indicate why its subject is important or significant.

Keep in mind that most readers of Wikipedia don't know what Be'er Moshe is. If you want to write a Wikipedia article about a rabbi, you've got to explain why the rabbi is important, in language that is so clear that somebody who isn't familiar with Judaism can understand. Ideally, you should include a couple of reliable sources, although they're not essential. Who a rabbi studied with, or whose daughter he married, doesn't mean anything as far as Wikipedia is concerned. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kabbalistic Palmistry. Anyone here who could improve the Kabbalistic Palmistry article, feel free. I started, but it needs help. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_9#Bias_categories -- Avi (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

is anyone able to look at the sections on Bashert: Jewish view of soulmates in soulmate for it's accuracy? it was previously deleted without discussion which I reverted but I'm unsure of its accuracy (it lacks proper citations). thanks IRWolfie- (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:History of religious Jewish music#Speedy deletion and restoration. I'm not sure what should be done here. Graham87 03:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to request some advice/input from members of this Wikiproject. We have recently had a spate of edit warring at Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto, which resulted in the page being fully protected. This was, in a certain sense, very useful, because it forced the two warring editors to actually start discussing the issues. The short version of the dispute is that one editor (User:Babasalichai) believes that Pinto is a highly controversial rabbi who is far out of the Jewish mainstream, and wants the article to reflect that claim, but generally has been unable to produce sources that clearly support that position. There are a number of different issues that are being discussed, so any help would be appreciated. But there is one specific question that we are focused on right now. One source that Babasalichai would like to use is from an opinion column written by Yuval Sherlo, who is (quoting from his wikipage), "Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Hesder Petah Tikva in Petah Tikva, Israel." The opinion is extremely strong and negative, either calling Pinto an idolator or at least calling his actions (a pilgrimage to Bulgaria) idolatry. The question is whether or not we can include this opinion under the strictures of WP:DUE. Normally, one person giving one negative opinion about another would not meet that standard. Babasalachai, however, argues that Sherlo is a highly important Rabbi, whose opinion influences millions, and thus his opinions are notable enough to be included in the article about Pinto. Two editors (User:Beobjectiveplease and User:Diannaa) do not agree, while I myself am undecided. It would help if editors here could come and weigh in on the discussion, or any other part of the more general dispute on that article's talk page. Thanks for you help. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Pinto has had extensive negative media (including underworld references in Haaretz multiple times), and questionable practice, whether idolatry as a Rosh Yeshiva has called him, or charging Lebron James 6 figures for some form of advice (Is that an Orthodox practice?). These things should simply be noted in the Wiki entry... Babasalichai (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Babasalichai (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

while I personally find R Sherlo a more appealing figure than R Pinto, I am doubtful from reading his wiki page that R Sherlo really personally influences millions. On the other hand I wouldnt doubt that there are other MO rabbis, and non-rabbis who share his opinion of R Pinto. OTOH R Pinto may not be notable enough to have caught the attention of a wider audience Ricardianman (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I was actually editing a page on White Stork when I noticed this page - White Stork Synagogue - I was looking into the naming to see if it can be related (and linked back) to the White Stork page. Pages in English relate the name back to a White Stork Inn on hte site before 1829. I was wondering whether any Polish, German, Yiddish or Hebrew pages had any further information (like did storks nest on it and is this why the inn got the name etc.) It would be good to link from a culture section on the White Stork page. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

When I read a portion of the bible in Exodus the other day, I didn't find any mention of Nisan in the New English Bible. It stated that passover is for 7 days and it starts on January 13 to January 20 if I recall correctly ending on a Sunday. No work is to be done on Sunday for the preparation of food. I will read it again to be sure I read it correctly. This bible is compiled by The baptist union of great britain and ireland, the church of england, the church of scotland, the congregational church in england and wales, the council of churches for wales, the irish council of churches, the london yearly meeting of the society of friends, the methodist church of great britain, the prespbyterian church of england, the british and foreign bible society, the national bible society of scotland and later the Roman Catholic Church. There is a jewish museum in san francisco that consists of 1/4 city block across the street from the Buena Vista Arts Center and Complex. I found a small collection of books on Jewish customs, folklore and religion that will be interesting to read at some point. 70.59.217.96 (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC) Ref. The New English Bible with the Apocrypha 1961, 1970 Printed in the United States of America.

You have misread it. Exodus chapter 12 designates the month of the Exodus as the "first of the months". From other sources in the Pentateuch we derive that the first month, Aviv, is always in spring because it coincides with the barley harvest. The names for the months currently in use only came into vogue during the Babylonian exile, and they are not in fact in Hebrew. For instance, the month "Adar" is mentioned in the Book of Esther, by which time they had become accepted. I hope this clarifies your question. JFW | T@lk 19:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Nissan is explicitly mentioned, by name, in the Bible at Esther 3:7. If you had posted a month later, every religious Jew would have jumped on this one, since all Jewish adults a required to listen to to listen to every word of the entire book twice on the holiday of Purim, about three weeks from now.Mzk1 (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Shmuley Boteach Need assistance on his Wiki page - There had been a lot of self serving items there and assistance to provide balance and structure would be greatly appreciated. Jonathanglick13 (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I saw the term Mesirah used on an internet forum, and found the idea really interesting (a prohibition on Jews turning their fellows over to non-Jewish authorities). It was used in the context of modern American Chassidim who would sometime refrain from reporting serious crimes to civil authorities, preferring to handle the issue in rabbinical courts. I feel I have the basic idea down pretty well, but would appreciate a few more eyes, and any help getting the proper Hebrew spelling in the lede and also for the noun mossur. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, in the White_Stork#Cultural_associations I have added a bit from a psychoanalytic journal about the stork in Hebrew as chasidah - I wondered if someone could add the hebrew characters - and if there is any other folklore abot storks that'd be good to add as well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

PS: Apparently the stork is forbidden to be eaten as it is a bird of prey according to Leviticus - I'd use a psychoanalytic text as a ref others not withstanding but a biblical one would be more appropriate I think (are storks specifically mentioned???) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The Chasidah - חסידה - is explicitly mentioned (first time in Lev. 11:19), and it is commonly translated as stork, but most of the animals in the Bible (except the really common ones, like sheep and camels) are difficult-to-impossible to identify explicitly; this includes relatively common animals such those commonly translated as the deer, the hare, and the eagle - and in fact, modern Hebrew seems to have done an about-face on some. It is, however, a non-kosher bird. One nice reference, both for flora/fauna and for possibly-Egyptian words, are the extensive footnotes of Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's English translation, the Living Torah; unfortunately, I do not have a copy.Mzk1 (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bible does not state why the prohibited animals are chosen, although this is a common explanation, and the practical rules used for determining which birds are prohibited (the Bible just gives a list, unlike animals and fish where signs are given) does tend to include birds of prey.Mzk1 (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, now if someone has that book that'd be great...not that I can imagine in my wildest dreams eating a stork anyway but I suppose I did have a crocodile kebab the other day...I'll keep my fingers crossed. Thanks for the hebrew characters (wow, my arrow keys flipped around when I highlighted it!). Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Passover#.22See_also.22_link and comment. This involves a "See also" link to Eucharist. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Please look at the article Tahash, and on the Discussion Page: "Consensus on Timeline" give your opinion about the Timeline. Thank you. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Some more knowledgeable eyes would be useful at Ritual decalogue where a slow editor war has been brewing over the lead. The discussion on the talk page seems deadlocked between the same three editors. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Some background: the article is a fork of Ten Commandments, and has been the personal pet project of Kwamikagami (talk · contribs) since at least 2005. Those with an interest in the documentary hypothesis should also read the perennial discussions on Talk:Ten Commandments; they are generally between Slrubenstein, me, Kwami, Jayjg and a fellow called Steve kap (talk · contribs) who seems to be interested in only one thing - this. JFW | T@lk 23:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

OK so you are already involved in this mess. I'd like to see some fresh eyes on this. I mean no disrespect to yourself or the other four editors you named above, but apparently the lot of you have been going around in circles on this for some time now and nothing has been resolved. As to the notion that it is a fork, I'm not sure entirely what the argument there is. I gather that Kwami wanted it included in that entry as one of three decalogues, but SLR and Jayjg did not. Is that correct? I'm not sure what my own opinion on that is, but I do know that singling out this specific series of commandments is something that a whole lot of biblical scholars have done and till do. I also know that when people refer to the ten commandments they are not usually referring to this list. It seems logical to have a separate article to me. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion on Talk:Ten Commandments has been going around in circles, because Steve Kap never seems to be satisfied with the current version, yet offering little by way of actual views on how it can be improved. Kwami created the RD article in 2005, but much of the related discussion has remained on the 10C page. This was a correct move ("fork" may not do this justice), and I agree with your assessment that nobody would the term "Ten Commandments" without a modifier when discussing the RD. JFW | T@lk 00:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

There's yet another debate regarding inclusion of ethnic categories. As is so often the case, it originally arose because of a debate over including Jewish "ethnic" categories for living people that don't consider themselves Jews. The wiki-lawyering logic seems to be this:

• WP:BLP is a "policy", while Wikipedia:Categorization, Wikipedia:Categorization of people (WP:COP), Wikipedia:Category names, WP:EGRS, and Wikipedia:Overcategorization (especially WP:OC#EGRS) are "guidelines".
• Certain quibblers argue that policy trumps guidelines for these special cases.
• Ethnicity and gender are not specifically listed in WP:BLP.
• Thus, (non-notable or irrelevant) ethnicity and gender categories might be allowed for living people, but must be removed for the dead, undead, or incorporeal.

The argument is an end-around, bypassing notability, relevance, and self-identification -- because they have a Jewish grandparent, that they didn't know about until they were in their 20s, and even though they were raised Catholic, and are raising their children Catholic.... (heavy sigh)

There are fewer cases about Gender, but that's the other missing WP:EGRS element for consistency, and closing further loopholes.

Anyway, I think this community will probably be interested.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson, what are you talking about? This debate did not arise because of "a debate over including Jewish "ethnic" categories for living people that don't consider themselves Jews". That issue (nor any other Jewish-related issue) was not brought up at any point during the discussion over the last few days. Your example ("because they have a Jewish grandparent"...), <deleted>, also has nothing to do with anything. It was a single edit you made to her page, that had nothing to do with this discussion, nor with any discussion - since nobody reverted you or debated with you on it; no one challenged your edit citing ignorance of policy. What the fact is about your proposed policy is that it has nothing to do with anyone being a self-identified Jew or Mormon or Irish-American or otherwise. If your policy is adapted, a practicing unambigious Jew or a self-identified Irish-American still wouldn't be listed as either Jewish or Irish, because your policy requires that this be related to their professional life. So don't misrepresent what you're suggesting. "How Jewish" someone is has no bearing on their inclusion in the category under your proposal. They could self-identify all they want, and they still presumably wouldn't be listed as Jewish unless somebody decided it was relevant to their activities. (and for the record, I've probably personally removed more unsourced and / or inaccurate "Jewish categories" from articles than you ever will; we don't need your destructive policies to do so). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 07:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, throwing temper tantrums really doesn't help your cause.

1. More than a half dozen guidelines for over 8 years have required both notability and relevance, so that's always been the case.
2. Only you have decided that doesn't apply to Living Persons policy, through your wikilawyering!
3. Only you have decided that doesn't apply to "ethnicity", as current BLP policy already specifies religion. There are very few cases where folks are adding an ethnicity category to bypass a religious category restriction. (Only Jewish versus Judaism comes to mind.)
4. And this is the second or third time that you've added links to BLPs in discussion, thus making an editing controversy about them show up in Google searches, when I've specifically asked you to stop and <deleted> it.

Please stop WP:STALKING my contributions. You've never edited here before.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

A reminder to all here, we're on the 6th day. Traditionally, these polls go for 7; unless there's no obvious consensus, when we go for an additional 7 days. We're seeing the usual obfuscation and poisoning the well, from some of the usual such editors.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

This article was developed in German, then translated, with a little help of my friends. The text lacks the elegance, that only an art loving native speaker can bring to it. The familial and religious is left beside for at least months at the beginning. The focus shall be on the artwork, to avoid certain traps. I beg, occasionally to have a protective eye on the article. Please bring the style of the text to a better level, without risky changes of the content. I might react on e-mail. --Fluss (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC) - small corrections --Fluss (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There has been repeated vandalisms by single user account through the years to someone who vandalises Wiki - Need assistance on his Wiki page and someone to assist ? Jonathangluck (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at that article and found a few BLP violations, mostly careless use of sources. I'll stop by WP:BLPN and see if anyone has asked for more eyes there. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

More on this. That article could use more eyes. Jonathan obviously doesn't like Boteach and a dispute between him and another editor has made its way to ANI. The content disputes won't get resolved unless more editors show up and form a consensus. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Major investigative story was done alleging financial misdeeds - Appreciate edits and feedback at Rabbi Pinto http://forward.com/articles/136250/#ixzz1Goj0zRf5 Jonathangluck (talk) 02:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm in the process of arranging the distribution of 400 free Credo Reference accounts to Wikipedians, generously donated by the company and organized by Erik Moeller of the Wikimedia Foundation. See WP:CREDO for more details. The accounts will be distributed on a first-come, first-served basis, plus some eligibility requirements, and the application list will open on March 23 at 22:00. I want to make sure that this day doesn't clash with any religious Christian, Jewish, or Muslim holidays that would make it less likely, or impossible, for observant Wikipedians to be online. Could you please let me know if there's any such issue with March 23? The list will remain open for a week, but the first day is likely to be the busiest. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

23 March is not a Jewish holiday, and I don't think the after-effects of Purim should be expected to last as long as that. JFW | T@lk 00:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Chuckle. Debresser (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, many thanks. :) See Wikipedia:Credo accounts if you're interested in applying for one, March 23, 22:00 UTC. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The Vilna Gaon article is arguably one of the worst I have read on Wikipedia so far, not because of spelling or style but the tone.. if someone with access to resources on the subject could fix this article that certainly doesn't deserve a B-class rating (rather, start class) in this WikiProject, that would be great.. such an important article should have fair coverage, not some haredi-fanboy written poorly/questionably sourced advertisement for their Great Rabbi. Seriously, he memorized the tanakh at age 3? No inline citation? Either way, I'm ranting a bit, but it should be fairly clear that the article needs serious improvements if not a complete rewrite.. its just that I lack the Wikipedia experience and the sources required to do such a thing. Cilibinarii (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Um, as long as you are complaining about tone, could you do something about your own?Mzk1 (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Some members of the project might arguably take offense of your choice of words ("haredi fanboy" etc). You will rapidly discover that much that is known about the Vilna Gaon is through derived works, many of which written by his pupils, which might take a hagiographic tone. You could personally improve things a lot by tagging the problematic content, toning down some egregious examples, and looking for better sources. JFW | T@lk 23:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

On the side, before assuming a claim is unrealistic, one should see if such behavior is in fact found in other prodigies and people with extraordinary memory. I do not think "common sense" is a good indicator here. Plenty of things from real life would be rejected in fiction as unrealistic.Mzk1 (talk) 06:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Could someone provide the IPA for Zeev Suraski, the current article is a bit ridiculous. Thanks, JACOPLANE • 2008-06-27 10:14

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unification Church and antisemitism

Hi! I'm one of the directors of Featured sounds, and we'd like to include more sound files related to Jewish culture (among other things), as systemic bias is, alas, rather strong. To start off, I thought I'd try an example of cantillation, Wikipedia:Featured_sound_candidates/Cantillation, but we could use more expert opinions on it. Also, if anyone knows of any freely-licensed sound files related to Judaism, please, please feel free to nominate them at WP:FSC. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

We urgently need a comment on the cantillation, it's in regard to whether or not it's being sung too fast. Regards, —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 11:22pm • 12:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

This article was just created and was almost simultaneously retitled Economic history of the Jews and put up for deletion. I also made a post to AN/I concerning the author, Noleander; see this proposal. It has been tagged as an article in a series of articles on Jews and Judaism so members of this group should have constructive comments. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh heavens I thought this character had gone away. JFW | T@lk 21:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

In fact, almost have the comments at AN/I support him. There is also considerable support for the article, although this sums up its problems in a nutshell: User:Mathsci/example Slrubenstein | Talk 16:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

A major feature story ran on Rabbi Pinto, the largest story ever written about him and the few editors who control the board didnt allow neutral entrees to be placed. The article was syndicated and picked up by Globes a major Israeli paper, The Real Deal a major NYC real estate publication and Vos Iz Neas Religious news service but entire chunks of article werent included. Can we have new eyes please ? Would suggest adding: "Considerable questions have risen regarding Pinto’s organizations finances. A report by a leading New York Jewish newspaper has revealed a “contrast between the rabbi’s lifestyle and his reputation for modest living, and questions about the rabbi’s image as a business guru when his own not-for-profit faces financial problems.” The Forward stated: “The business troubles at Mosdot Shuva Israel could be seen as ironic, given Rabbi Pinto’s reputation as an adviser to businessmen, and particularly to real estate brokers.”

http://forward.com/articles/136250/#ixzz1Goj0zRf5

65.112.21.194 (talk) 13:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be a little forum-shopping going on here. Versions of the above request have been posted at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism, an RfC, and on four different user talk pages (all today).

Some related background is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Babasalichai/Archive. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

And this is the Shmuley Boteach troll again. See the thread below this one. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see the central discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews#Economic history of Religion X, regarding:

1. Economic history of the Jews and its related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews.
2. Economic history of the Christians and its related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Christians
3. Economic history of the Muslims and its related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Muslims

Thank you, IZAK (talk) 03:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be happening at 5W Public Relations where inappropriate irrelevant information (Aish Hatorah supports East Jerusalem Settlements) is being posted to a PR firm page (Clarion Fund link to anti-Muslim movie). Please assist as seems to be editors adding information which has been debated for a very long time on talk page and now vandalism repeatedly occuring. Am not skilled enough to ward off these seemingly biased attacks can you assist please. They are making inaccurate irrelevant accusations. Appreciate your attention to 5W Public Relations --Emetemet13 (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC).

This is a really odd post. I followed the link only to find out that it appears to be a dispute between those who want critical attention to a PR firm added to the entry and those who do not. None of it has anything to do with Zionism or left wing politics.Griswaldo (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

OK I didn't see the right version I guess (missed the "Government, religious and public affairs" section that had been added and deleted). It seems to me that some of the material is simply negative criticism of a PR firm and some is politically charged, dealing specifically with criticism of the firm in relation to Israeli politics.Griswaldo (talk) 12:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI, this was originally posted by a now-blocked sockpuppet of a persistently disruptive user, the same guy who's been causing all the trouble at Shmuley Boteach. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Simple: A politically motivated left wing user who admits bias on his own talk page: www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:Ravpapa/Tilt and admits to having become "carried away by my anger" when referring to this page at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Ronn_Torossian lists his own opinion regarding a former spokesperson for Israel government by calling it " fringe views on Israel." Greenbay1313 (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC) --greenbay1313 (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Another sock?Griswaldo (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I fear Ravpapa may have unleashed a monster. If the sock farmer has read his essay, then I expect a POV content fork along the lines of "5W Public Relations and Bus Stops" to appear within minutes. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronn_Torossian Following supposed sockpuppet incident, a user has completely changed a living persons biography. Said biography is for a PR agency owner and his page has been turned into a debate about Israel-Palestine. Features in articles in the Jerusalem Post dont include that he co-founded organization with 2 Israel Members of Knesset and Rabbi Avi Weiss spoke highly. Cites an Anti-Zionist blog as a source about Hebron and leftist media as experts. Can neutral editors review the article and add balance. Balance is required. --199.19.186.9 (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

An editor has been arguing that Category:Antisemitic canards should be removed from the Criticism of the Talmud article. A discussion regarding this can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Request board#Talk:Criticism of the Talmud. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Passover Seder#possible copyright violation Bus stop (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to request input on two draft articles that I have been working on:

• User:Pseudo-Richard/Jews and banking
• User:Pseudo-Richard/History of Jews in American banking

Yes, I understand that having an article titled Jews and banking sounds like an antisemitic canard and I am open to changing the title. However, I do think that there is an encyclopedic topic around the role of Jews and the emergence of modern banking. My interest in this topic was sparked by the disastrous attempt by Noleander to create an article titled Jews and money, subsequently retitled to Economic history of the Jews which has since been deleted via AFD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews). It has been widely recognized by participants in the AFD discussion that there were many problems with Noleander's initial attempt including overly broad scope which suggested a coatrack, poor organization of the article, injudicious selection of sources and misrepresentation of some of the sources. However, a number of editors (myself among them) felt that there were one or more encyclopedic topics covered. It was proposed here that some of the issues could be resolved by pulling out the encyclopedic topics and making articles about those specific topics. The two articles above represent my efforts to begin that process.

I would like to ask enlist the help of members of this project to review the entire text of these proposed articles as well as critique the article title.

I think the judicious selection of article titles is almost as important as article text because titles change much less frequently than article text does and the article title implies a scope that strongly influences what text is added and deleted from the article.

I am not too thrilled with the title "Jews and banking" as it still sounds antisemitic to me. I'm playing with "History of Jews in banking" but I'm open to other suggestions.

Thanks in advance for your assistance.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

On cursory skimming of the opening paragraphs I think I like the approach you have taken. At the same time, I would strongly suggest you delay moving this article to the main namespace until Noleander's arbitration case has closed. JFW | T@lk 15:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see less reliance on the ADL in debunking the antisemitic canards. Antisemites immediately dismiss anything the ADL says, and in any event scholarly sources would be best for this minefield of a topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeh... I understand your point. It's just that the ADL stuff was easiest to find via Google. There are other sources available through Google Books but it's been heavy slogging to turn up the appropriate sources. Maybe other editors can provide better sources if and when this goes into article mainspace. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I would just ask that you do think of another title, as I think your instincts regarding how the title would be perceived are correct. I am frankly more concerned on how anti-semites would perceive it (unfortunately, they are still a substantial group) than how Jews would.Mzk1 (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeh... I'm still struggling with article topics and article scope. I decided for now to give up on History of Jews in American banking and just create an article titled History of investment banking in the United States. About 20-25% of that article is devoted to the Jewish part of the story. I expect that percentage will shrink to 10-15% over time. For now, my thinking is that it is sufficient for the German-Jewish part of the story to be presented in the overall context of this article and that we don't need an article that focuses on the Jewish part of the story.

However, I'm still struggling with Jews and banking. I really think there is an encyclopedic article here and this thesis is supported by the existence of reliable sources in the form of books on the subject of "Jews and money" by Gerald Krefetz and Abraham Foxman.

Especially given the recent

ARBCOM case regarding Noleander, I want to step very carefully in this area. I think my proposed draft eliminates most, if not all, of the issues that were present in Noleander's failed attempt at an article on Jews and money. However, I'm concerned that moving my draft into a title like Jews and money or Jews and banking will set off tripwires unnecessarily. I am very much open to suggestions to changes in title or even changes in article scope. I am more interested in presenting the information and not interested in pushing any particular POV thesis (with, of course, the exception of debunking the antisemitic canard that there is/was an international Jewish conspiracy to control international finance).

In this regard, I've contemplated an article titled Jewish control of international finance (antisemitic canard) which would focus specifically on the canard, the facts and arguments that are used to promote it and the arguments used to debunk it. For example, I found it interesting that, after Jacob Schiff died in 1921, the Jewish presence in investment banks founded by German-Jewish immigrants diminished. There are sources who provide statistics indicating that Jews are barely present in banking throughout much of the 20th century. Most of the data I've seen relates to the U.S. banking industry but I also saw one reference making a similar point about the French banking industry. Does anybody have thoughts on the desirability/undesirability of creating such an article?

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The article Jerusalem during the Second Temple period was recently renamed to Jerusalem during the Persian, Hellenic and early Roman Periods. There is an ongoing discussion regarding the proposal to rename it back to its original title. This article is listed as part of this WikiProject, and comments may be left at Talk:Jerusalem during the Persian, Hellenic and early Roman Periods#Requested move. • Astynax ^talk 19:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

There has just arisen a broad-based attempt by a user to slant various articles to match the philosophy of a new denomination connected with a school in Toronto. The denomination claims to be reconstruction (N.P.I.) of the original Judaism. No problem there, but the author is not only writing POV, but slanting writing about other denominations (Orthodoxy, to be specific) to match. (See my revert in Jewish religious movements; there is nothing wrong with the comment on Orthodoxy, but it clearly is there to support the conclusion of the article, where he gives his denomination as an alternative.)

The basic article is Classic Judaism; nothing wrong with his describing his denomination and even slanting a bit, but the article is so POV/COI (particularly with the implications about current Orthodoxy) that I am wondering if it should be deleted. However, I am not familiar with the criteria for such a move or better alternatives.Mzk1 (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I just AfD'ed it. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic Judaism. Joe407 (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see my comments on the Talk page there under "Noah". I suggest that "Olive branch" is not part of Judaism. Marshall46 (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be a very good idea for knowledgeable members of this project to take a look at Tahash. I'll be frank; the reason I ask this is because the article has had hundreds of edits by an editor who has recently said that he's leaving Wikipedia in a huff, mainly because he's not getting his way at Ark of the Covenant and who has some very odd ideas about sourcing, including using Conservapedia as a source]. I'll be honest; there's so much scattered crap at the article, I'm more than half tempted to revert it to the state it was in before his first edit there. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

A good number of editors have tried their (our) best at Tahash. The editor in question has a real problem with WP:OWN. He has some good content but is difficult to impossible to work with. I've dropped the article from my watchlist in frustration as may have others. If you are willing to give it a shot I'll join you but I'm short on patience for problems of WP:OWN. Joe407 (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned, the editor in question seems to have left in a fit of pique, so there may be hope for the article, I made two small edits, then took a longer look at the article and concluded that the sort of minor revisions I was making weren't going to help much. The article is about 75,000 bytes long right now. (It has been as high as 100,000) I figure that's about 70,000 bytes too long. Take out all the irrelevant speculative nonsense, like disputes about the dates for Moses, that have nothing to do with tahash, and we'll probably be in about the right neighborhood. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Mesivta Birkas Yitzchok needs some serious cleanup, sourcing and wikifying. Any help would be appreciated.Nerguy (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Giving it a shot. It seems copy-pasted from the school web site. Joe407 (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.Nerguy (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

We have a little content dispute over here at Talk:The Holocaust in Serbia, so a third opinion (or contribution) is appreciated. Basically, another editor created the article, but only to a level of a poorly referenced stub, and then left. I don't see a point of such an article, so I merged what's usable into History of the Jews in Serbia.

The topic potentially deserves a full-scale article, but this is hardly a good start. No such user (talk) 07:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like some more input at Talk:Noah's Ark might be useful. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Good point, but I am even more concerned that the header of The Exodus ignores the traditional view entirely. What happens when people do school reports about Passover? I believe the NPOV page (see the questions) allows traditional views. I fixed this somewhat at the Daniel page.Mzk1 (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Now that the Arbcom case and Passover are both out of the way. What should happen with this article? Is it salvageable in its current form? Or would an AfD be better with the option of someone with a less dubious editing history being able to start again from scratch?--Peter cohen (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind to explain the issue? Not everybody here (me specifically included) knows what the problem is with this article and/or its editors. And what Arbcom case (link)?Debresser (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It was created and built by Noleander (talk · contribs), who on 18 April received a topic ban from Judaism articles by the ArbCom for odious bias. JFW | T@lk 22:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I can only say this about Noleander. Some months ago (over a year?) I did a reliability check on his use of sources at Criticism of Judaism. What I found was that, of the online sources I could easily check, none of them was free of distortion, misuse, original research or other fundamental problems. Since then, I have noticed that he heavily favors print sources over sources that are easier to verify. However, I didn't really have time to chase them down so I left them alone. Now that this arbcom decision has been made, I think it's clear that nothing Noleander says about a source can be taken on trust. It should all be treated with a presumption of having been falsified unless proof is provided to the contrary. I don't know if the arbcom decision went this far, but I favor deleting or reverting all his contributions on the subject of Judaism. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I have created Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Allegations_of_Jewish_control_of_the_media. Steven, you are welcome to use this space for any related afds you want to create.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The attention of others should be brought to this matter. Should a reliable source referring to Nikki Yanofsky as a "Jewish artist" be removed as here? I have restored that source here. Would 2 sources be an excessive amount of sources to support that Yanofsky is Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 11:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone else weigh in, because it is not my aim to edit war here (Yworo), here (Bus stop), here (Yworo), here (Bus stop) & here (Griswaldo). Bus stop (talk) 02:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The source, which uses the adjective "Jewish" to describe her does not actually verify the text in the entry, which says that she was raised by a "close-knit Jewish family," but another source, already in the entry does. Why do you keep on adding back? It is not needed. Leave it be.Griswaldo (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo—the source says: "Jewish artist records Vancouver Olympic theme song", and "Jewish jazz sensation Nikki Yanofsky's career continues to blossom." What do you mean by "verify"? The Jewish Tribune (Canada) is a reliable source. "Jewish artist" means the artist is Jewish. Why would someone be referred to as a "Jewish jazz sensation" if they were not Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 03:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop why are you asking questions that I have already answered. The entry does not say that she "is Jewish" it says she was raised in a Jewish family. The references you cite here don't say that she was raised in a Jewish family but refer to her as Jewish. We have a source being used in the entry that clearly states what the entry does. Case closed. Move onto something more productive. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo—I find you stating here that it would constitute "obsessive ethno-tagging" for our article to state that Nikki Yanofsky was Jewish. Do you still stand by that? I find that our two sources—here and here—support quite appropriately, even by our more stringent WP:BLP standards, that Yanofsky is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 04:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

She is a minor who has made no statement about her own identity being Jewish (ethnically or religiously). This is a BLP issue. And yes you do seem to be obsessive about your ethno-tagging. I suggest taking a break from it and doing something else. It would be much more relaxing and productive for you. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo—you say that she "has made no statement about her own identity being Jewish"

Nor need she. No policy says that "self-identification" is necessary for placement of this material in the body of an article. Such assertions have to be reliably sourced, which this material is.

You may be referring to the policy found at WP:BLPCAT.

"Self-identification" is required for placement in Categories. It is also required for placement on Lists, Navigation Templates, and Infobox statements. I derive that from this wording found at WP:BLPCAT: "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and/or infobox statements (referring to living persons within any Wikipedia page) that are based on religious beliefs, sexual orientation, or suggest that any living person has a poor reputation."

No policy exists to require "self-identification" for placement of such material in the body of an article. But if you feel that such policy exists will you please bring it to my attention? Bus stop (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Bus Stop, a simple question. Are you claiming that the sources you cite state that Yanofsky is Jewish (a) by ethnicity, or (b) by faith? These are two different questions, and need to be considered as such. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Bus Stop, consensus is against you. I have certainly not said personally that there is a clear BLP policy prohibiting what you want to do. Yet you do realize there is no policy saying it needs to be done either, or that it is wrong for consensus to go against your wishes on this. Let it go.Griswaldo (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo—Consensus is not all that matters. At WP:VOTE I find "Wikipedia decisions are not made by popular vote, but rather through discussions by reasonable people working towards consensus.

Here you say "Leave it be"

Here you say "Case closed. Move onto something more productive."

Here you say "I suggest taking a break from it and doing something else. It would be much more relaxing and productive for you."

Here you say "Case closed. Move on."

At WP:NOTDEMOCRACY I find "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary but not exclusive method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting."

Do I not detect a bit of impatience in your dialogue with the rational process of collaborative article creation?

You say immediately above "Let it go."

Let what go? You say above "This is a BLP issue. And yes you do seem to be obsessive about your ethno-tagging. I suggest taking a break from it and doing something else. It would be much more relaxing and productive for you.'

Let me respond to that. I would love to address other topics on Wikipedia. Would doing so be more "relaxing" for me? Probably so. But I find myself repeatedly up against the group of editors, of which you are a part, who insist that a Jew can't be called a Jew on Wikipedia—despite the overwhelming support in sources as seen in this instance.

And you are now conceding that no—WP:BLPCAT would not apply to require self-identification concerning saying someone is Jewish in the body of an article. But still you are saying to "Move on".

This is a collaborative process. Here we see "AndyTheGrump" and "Off2riorob" weighing in with their predictable objection to following sources.

It is the same group of people making the argument in so many of these instances. Here we see a typical turnout of some of the usual members of the group of editors I am referring to. Wikipedia is supposed to be based on sources but this group of editors seem to often feel that we can not state in our articles that an individual is Jewish.

Jewishness is an attribute of identity. Where it is thoroughly sourced it is certainly valid material for inclusion. WP:BLP only requires enhanced stringency in sourcing. Bus stop (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"Jewishness is an attribute of identity". Exactly. Yanofsky's identity is for her to define. Any outside source claiming to be able to assert her identity for her is therefore not a reliable source - you cannot assert that someone else is X or Y, only that you chose to identify them as such. And I note you've refused to answer the perfectly simple question I asked earlier. Or is it too complex for you to understand? AndyTheGrump (talk)

AndyTheGrump—do you find any policy in support of what you are saying? I think you are saying that otherwise reliable sources are not reliable for the purposes of reporting that someone is Jewish. I would assume you mean in the absence of self-identification. Is this proposed policy? Or is this already-existing policy? If so—please point to policy. Bus stop (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Answer my question, and I'll answer yours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—what is your question? I'm "claiming" that sources are saying the person is Jewish.

You ask: "Are you claiming that the sources you cite state that Yanofsky is Jewish (a) by ethnicity, or (b) by faith?"

The two sources we have do not use the terms "ethnicity" or "faith". What is your question?

This is your entire post: "Bus Stop, a simple question. Are you claiming that the sources you cite state that Yanofsky is Jewish (a) by ethnicity, or (b) by faith? These are two different questions, and need to be considered as such.

What question would you like me to answer from your above post? You are not asking a question that can be answered because our sources for the Yanofsky article don't employ the terms "ethnicity" or "faith".

Do you feel that the sources are thereby invalidated for the purposes of supporting that the individual is Jewish? Should we throw out the information that we derive from those sources, such as that Nikki Yanofsky is Jewish, because an editor has further questions?

Wikipedia is said to be not finished. We don't throw up our hands in despair because someone has further questions.

An additional problem with your "question" is that sources don't use the term "ethnicity" by-and-large in relation to Jews. When used, it has a specific purpose. (There's no reason to go into that now.) More common terms are "religious", "secular", "observant", "nonobservant". There are others too. But you won't find "ethnic" used very often. If you doubt this, please bring me some instances of this use. Bus stop (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The blind unexplained statement that whoever is Jewish is completely valueless in a BLP. She is a Canadian. Born in Canada to Canadian parents goes to a Canadian school. If you think her genetic ancestry is notable then please provide some details as to why that requires us to go beyond what we already have in the article. Where was her mother born? and her father? what about her grandparents.... when did her ancestors last live in Israel or which of them are religious believers, is the subject herself interested in the Jewishness of her ancestors? Does the user follow the Jewish religious faith? What percentage of her ancestry is Jewish? and ultimately why is any of it notable beyond what we have already in the article? Here in the were opening of the article is the reason she is notable and who she basically is, read it and accept it , Nicole "Nikki" Yanofsky (born February 8, 1994) is a Canadian jazz-pop singer from Hampstead, Quebec.Off2riorob (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

So Bus Stop,in other words if a source says that someone is 'Jewish', the reliability of the statement has to be determined according to its meaning to Jews, who can then decide exactly what it means, or apply it arbitrarily to 'mean' anything? Wrong, just wrong. Scientologists could claim (indeed, they probably would) that Yanofsky is an an immortal spiritual being - a Thetan - currently reincarnated in in Yanofsky's "meat body". We don't apply the rules (or opinions) of particular ethno-religious groups to determine identity, for obvious reasons. Instead, we determine the reliability of statements from their context, and the meaning given to them. On this basis, a statement that Yanofsky is 'Jewish' that does not expand on this to indicate in what sense the term is used cannot be cited except as opinion - and even as that, it isn't much of a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

So Bus Stop,in other words if a source says that someone is 'Jewish', the reliability of the statement has to be determined according to its meaning to Jews, who can then decide exactly what it means, or apply it arbitrarily to 'mean' anything? Wrong, just wrong. Scientologists could claim (indeed, they probably would) that Yanofsky is an an immortal spiritual being - a Thetan - currently reincarnated in in Yanofsky's "meat body". We don't apply the rules (or opinions) of particular ethno-religious groups to determine identity, for obvious reasons. Instead, we determine the reliability of statements from their context, and the meaning given to them. On this basis, a statement that Yanofsky is 'Jewish' that does not expand on this to indicate in what sense the term is used cannot be cited except as opinion - and even as that, it isn't much of a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me Off2riorob, but are you saying that it is notable that she's a Canadian? How is it notable that ANYONE is Canadian? Is she notable because she's Canadian? If you say we can't put she's Jewish (if she really is) then it should apply equally to her being Canadian. A reliable source that happens to state she's Jewish is good enough. Frankly a reliable source stating her mother is Jewish is also good enough, because she would be considered a Jew. Of course I wont press that last part anywhere because technically if my cat ever becomes famous then a Wikipedia article could concievably be written claiming that my cat is a Muslim (in the Islamic religion all animals are by default Muslim, regardless of their owner's religion).

We need to realize that Wikipedia can NOT treat the Jews the same as a religion, it is not the same as being Catholic where you can through your life be or not be a Catholic on any given day. You ARE Jewish or you are not. With exception of converts. You can not change being Jewish any more than a person can decide "Oh, I'm not an Australian Aborigine, I'm now a Scandinavian". No, you're not a Scandinavian, and Wikipedia at best could only state "XY is an Australian Aborigine who declares themselves to be a Scandinavian". Also Jewishness IS a nationality ON EQUAL TERMS with being a Canadian, and has nothing to do with the State of Israel.Camelbinky (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion on this is of no relevance - I note that this 'Jews are always Jews, and their nationality is of limited consequence' has been used before. Can you please find a less inappropriate place to push this bigoted nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, its commen practice at wikipedia that someones place of birth and their nationality is mentioned and worthwhile descriptive in the lede. Genetic ancestry is only notable if it is notable and has a specific value. If Jews are not from Israel then .... Off2riorob (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Andy if you cant give me an apology for 1- calling me a bigot (I AM A JEW, so how am I being bigoted against Jews?) and 2- saying my opinion is of no relevance. ALL OPINIONS are relevant in Wikipedia, I have just as much right to state my opinion as forcefully as the rest of you who have been quite arrogant in trying to cut off each other and state that YOUR opinion is the only one relevant; then I will have to bring this to the wikiquette noticeboard and further if so be. You were rude and uncalled for in dismissing my opinions and stating that I was pushing bigoted beliefs.

Off2riorob- Jews are not from Israel as the State of Israel has only existed since 1948, being of the nationality in regards to Israel makes one an Israeli and there are Israeli's who are ethnically Arabs, religiously of any religion, and racially African for example. Being the nationality of Jewish implies you are of the nation of Judah, which regardless of not existing for several thousands of years does not matter. You are basically saying when you say ethnic or genetic declarations do not exist that then- no Palestinian can be declared in their Wikipedia entry as such, no Scotish person either (must be declared as British I suppose), no Sami (must be declared Finnish or Russian depending on nation of birth), no Crimean (which many of them regardless of being born in Ukraine would say they are Russian, which ethnically they are). You would end up classifying people by arbitrarily by birthplace. My sister must be a Filipino then, and not an American Jew. My mother may be a bit disappointed.Camelbinky (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, at wikipedia such issues also include weight to self declarations.Ed Miliband has citable strong Jewish history and ancestry and has commented about his own Jewishness so although he is British by birth we came to the situation through lengthy discussion that his ethnicity is included in the infobox as Jewish. We don't have any of that here with Yanofsky.Off2riorob (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

So Jews are not even from Israel, they are originating from somewhere around that area though aren't they? Are Palestinians from Palestine? Is there such a thing as a Palestinian nation? This nation thing, we have that here, Danish and Roman genetic British people from invaders and suchlike. So your assertion is that Nicky Yanofsky is part of the Jewish Nation? Or do we have a citation that states she self declares as a member of the nation of Judah? One of my issues with all of this is that you can't have a whole section of articles and an extremely complicated description and understanding of who is a Jew and yet on the other hand insist on adding Nicky is a Jew when all you have is a couple of blind unexplained comments in externals. Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Jews, although known as a nation, are in fact a racial group. Similar to blacks, hispanics and asians. That's why anti-semitic legislation is governed under the Race Relations Act. It also happened that people who practice Judaism are also call Jewish, not "Judaics". The same term for two different things. It is confusing. Chesdovi (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"Jews, although known as a nation, are in fact a racial group". Utter garbage I strongly disagree. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Andy please don't be so attacking, Chesdovi's comment is not garbage at all and you would do well to strike that comment. Its a difficult enough subject to discuss calmly at the best of times - thanks to all for the input with Andy's comment I am out of here. Off2riorob (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's deal with the facts. Even 'scientific racism' in it's heyday didn't consider Jews as a 'race' - they were seen as part of the Semitic peoples, along with other people of Middle-Eastern descent. Likewise, 'hispanics' has never been a 'racial' category, and 'asians' wasn't normally used as a category ether. I can think of one obvious example where Jews have been identified as a race, but I hardly think it is necessary to point out, nor indicate why it is of dubious merit. In any case, since the diaspora, intermarriage with other populations have made any 'racial' aspect of Jewishness of less significance. From an external perspective (the appropriate one for Wikipedia), 'Jewishness' combines elements of ethnicity (which isn't the same thing as 'race'), and faith. These are the facts - though facts relating to social constructs, rather than biology, 'racial' or otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it has to be said that we have to respect the primacy of Wikipedia policy. This isn't about the nature of Judaism in relation to Christianity or Islam—to mention a couple of somewhat related identities. It doesn't matter how being Jewish might be different than being Christian for instance. What matters is what reliable sources say. We can weigh reliable sources against one another if they present contradictory assertions as to whether someone is a Jew. But in the absence of countervailing indications emanating from reliable sources, and in the presence of some reliable sources saying that someone is Jewish, we should be stating straightforwardly that so-and-so is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

How can we assess whether a source is reliable for a statement if we don't know what the statement means? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Andy, if you can not stop with the "utter garbage" and such comments towards editors AND now apologize for your rudeness, as I asked before, you will indeed be brought to AN/I for such rude behavior. Being a Jew is a racial/ethnic designation whether or not you find it "offensive", it is fact.Camelbinky (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Camelbinky, given that you made disparaging remarks about Canadians and Moslems, as well as repeating a particularly questionable stereotype about Jews - that their ties to 'Jewishness' are always stronger than any national allegiance - I see no reason to withdraw my remarks about you. That you yourself are Jewish (as you informed me on my talk page) is irrelevant - you are still propounding a stereotype which has done agreat deal of harm in the past. Yeu might also do well to learn a little more about nationality as a subject, and why 'the Jews' cannot be 'a nation' in any sense comparable to 'Canadians' - not because of who they are, but because 'nationality' is a much more recent concept than Judaism, the Diaspora, and much of Jewish history, amongst other reasons. I've struck out the comment I made regarding Chesdovi however - I suspect it was made largely as a result of fighting with edit conflicts, though that doesn't excuse my rudeness, and I offer him my apologies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Your comments continue to be insultive, not just to me but to Jews in general. Jews are a nationality, YOUR OPINION may differ. All I asked for was an apology. But apparently you continue to feel that your opinions on Jews are "law" around here. I have brought you to AN/I and you may respond there. I however will not discuss this topic here anymore with someone who does not know about Jews and will continue to insult them and their culture and community.Camelbinky (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)