Category talk:Orthodox rabbis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] contemporary?

My first impression is that "contemporary" is just not the right title for 'living rabbis'. Where is the line drawn between R Yitzhak kaduri and R Moshe Feinstein. One is hip, the other from another generation? Look up contemporary in wikitionary. --Shuki 20:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Neither Rav Yitzhak Kaduri nor Rav Feinstein are on the contemporary Rabbis list. My personal opinion is that contemporary Rabbis can include dead (but recent) Rabbis - but for now and to be safe I have only added dead Rabbis. Otherwise, where does one draw the line? We need to stick to facts and not wikipedians differing ideas of what constitutes timeframes. Also I think that "contemporary" sounds a lot more exciting than "living". I'm not into this whole fad where every living person is listed on wiipedia. This new category was made for one reason only: to improve efficiency and shorten the main list of Orthodox Rabbis, many of which can fit into the Middle Ages Rabbis category as well. Other categories should also be created. PS: I think THIS discussion should be moved to Category talk:Contemporary Orthodox rabbis. Nesher 21:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the 'living' cats. Actually I can't stand that "living people cat", which is perhaps why I am particularly uneasy with this additional subcat. I got to tell you that the first time I found out about and visited this Ortho Rab cat, was a moment of bliss, and continued to be until now. Where else would so many rabbis be lumped together in one place. Until now, only here, but I suppose that we must continue with divisions... Maybe a cat with the century would be better - 1900s rabbis, 2000s rabbis? --Shuki 21:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with your concern - but consider this: when you click on the Orthodox Rabbi category, all the info will still be there and availible in the same central location - I actually directed at least 20 articles to Orthodox Rabbi today. Moreover, it was getting far too long. Although it needed to be subdivided (also you cant compare the Jewish greats to some YU grads) the crucial point is that the info is centralised and easily accessible, in fact more so now in my opinion Nesher 21:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Frankly I'm of the opinion that the orthodox rabbis cat was getting a little large and unweildly. The Rashash doesn't really belong in the same cat as Gil Student. --Bachrach44 22:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I propose moving the contemporary rabbis to living (orthodox) rabbis, as the latter is npov. It is also more compatible with the existing categories. The orthodox part is never a problem for me. We can have living orthodox rabbis and put it under living rabbis and orthodox rabbis. gidonb 21:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, how's this for a proposal: let's do it by eras of halachah. We can have tannaim, amoraim, geonim, savoraim, rishonim, achronim, and contemporary. (The last cat would be for anyone who is essentially too late to be an acharon). It requires a bit of recategorization on our part (which can be helped by WP:AWB), but I think it's best. --Bachrach44 22:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Bachrach: What you are saying has already been done in acceptable terminology: "tannaim" --> Category:Mishnah rabbis; "amoraim" --> Category:Talmud rabbis; "geonim" --> Category:Geonim; ("savoraim" no category yet); "rishonim" --> Category:Middle Ages rabbis; "achronim" is connected with "contemporary" in Category:Orthodox rabbis. These category names were chosen VERY c a r e f u l l y to keep to a NPOV so as not to offend anyone who is non-Orthodox yet at the same time stick to historical accuracy so that in fact we can please Orthodox perspectives as well. Please do not jump to make changes as many editors here have been working on these subjects and categories for MANY years and have dealt with many of the problems that will come up. Do not try to "re-invent the wheel" and please be aware that you cannot expect to have a Yeshivish POV in everything. Remember: "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure!" and "Look before you leap!" (do you know what they mean?) Shabbat Shalom and best wishes, IZAK 10:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I would like to point out that the Hebrew wiki has cats for both achronim and rishonim. I'm not sure how this categorization supports a yeshivish POV though - it's simply the way these rabbis are organizaed into groups based on time. At the very least, the terms "middle ages rabbis" and "talmud rabbis" are fairly ambiguous. Middle ages rabbis could encompass both rishonim and achronim, and the term "talmud rabbis" could rfer to tannaim as well since the mishnah is included in the gemarah. (I made this mistake when I started writing articles on some early tannaim when I was new). However, if there is a consensus agreement that we should keep English equivalents, I will certainly abide by the majority decision. --Bachrach44 19:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Bachrach: What you can do on the Hebrew Wiki is not always possible to do on the English Wikipedia. In Israel there is no challenge from Reform and Conservative scholars on the same level as you have it in English in the United States. The Conservatives very seriously believe that Orthodoxy is a "false continuation" of Judaism and that it is they, the Conservatives, who are continuing the "tradition" of the Rishonim. These type of discussions have been held on Wikipedia many times. Now the problem is that the Reform and Conservatives do not recoginze the authority of the Achronim so here at Wikipedia we called the Achronim Orthodox rabbis. However, the Middle Ages (look it up) ends by the 1500s --- from the 1500s to the mid-1750s is considered to be the Early Modern Times --- and the fact is that by the 1500s there are no longer any more Rishonim. When you say: "talmud rabbis" could rfer to tannaim as well since the mishnah is included in the gemarah." While it is true that the Tannaim (of the Mishnah) are also in the Talmud, but you forget that what we are dealing with here is Wikipedia's system of categorization and in that system it would be correct to have a Talmud rabbis category function as the super-category and Mishnah rabbis as a sub-category. Thus Mishnah rabbis are those identified with the Mishnah only but Talmud rabbis includes all the rest. Please remember that there is always a struggle between keeping terminology easy for English readers whereas Hebrew terms and the Hebrew Wiki is for Hebrew speakers and mostly read by Jews only. IZAK 04:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, although I agree that the cat "orthodox rabbis" must be split somehow, I don't think I like the idea of moving Category:Mishnah rabbis and Category:Talmud rabbis to the orthodox rabbis cat. There was no formal movement called "orthodoxy" (or for that matter "conservative" or "reform"). Also, although I'm not too familiar with their principles, that both Reform and Conservative claim to follow some sort of version of the oral law, so labelling the tannaim and amoraim as orthodox doesn't feel right to me. --Bachrach44 22:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modern Orthodox rabbis and more

The latest changes are no good. The word "contemporary" is meaningles and should be abolished. Rabbis are not "measured" by their state of life or when they died. I was planning a new category called Category:Modern Orthodox rabbis which should cut down the category somewhat. Category:Middle Ages rabbis was created with that name to avoid clashes with Conservative Judaism editors, and because the word "Orthodox" is of modern vintage only. There is no need to "to improve efficiency and shorten the main list of Orthodox Rabbis" because the lists are going to be long as time goes by no matter what you do. While User:Nesher means well, and knows about the subject, he has not taken the time to learn about Wikipedia and the those who edit and have seen these categories for the last few years. He needs to slow down and learn the ropes BEFORE making major changes, which will probably be nominated for deletion at the rate he has done things. There is still more to say. (See below!) IZAK 01:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm messing things up? I had tried to post this earlier but the server was down:
So you came along and made another unilateral move?! I went to sleep very late last night and came home from Shachrit to discover that a consensus has already been decided by one person? Why is there now two categories for Haredi Rabbis by country? Why are modern orhtodox 'American' but religious zionist only 'Israeli'? Now who decides if someone is hasidic or haredi, modern ortho or religious zionist? YOU? Why is Amnon Yitzhak 'haredi' but Mordechai Eliyahu 'religious zionist'. Please open a new category Category:Sephardic haredi rabbis. I respect your opinion, but no one made you cheif-rabbi of wp. SO some people are new here, they came to fix what the veterans had apparently ignored. Please don't be condescending. Another thing, Why are hasids beneath Haredi, but Chabad not? You might claim that hasids are hareds, but then we need to define what the non-hasids haredis are too. I'm all for subcats, but in this case, I'd like to hear how we are going to sincerely categorize the remaining rabbis as well as correct the current injustices? You claim to defend the non-Orthodox, yet have no problem with leaving 167 Rabbis in that cat? There are more inconsistances now than when the first change was made yesterday. That should have been reverted and a proper consensus discussed over a longer period of time. --Shuki 12:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Shuki: From your exasperated questions it's obvious that you are not familiar with the way these terms are used in English and the English-speaking world. You also reveal that you do not understand how categories are strucured and how they function. Let me answer all your questions in detail:

  1. You ask: "Why is there now two categories for Haredi Rabbis by country?" The answer is that there are TWO types of Haredi rabbis, non-Hasidic (known as Lithuanians) and Hasidic. Hasidic rabbis are a sub-category of Haredi rabbis, and are thus included. Hasidic Judaism came later in history. Also the name "Mitnagdim" is outmoded and some people consider it to be offensive. Furthermore in present-day Israeli politics, Agudat Israel mainly represents the Hasidic rabbis and their followers and Degel HaTorah mainly represents the non-Hasidim, which proves my point.
  2. You ask: "Why are modern orhtodox 'American' but religious zionist only 'Israeli'?" The answer is that they are NOT mutually exclusive. A rabbi can be part of BOTH if he is both Modern Orthdox and an Orthodox Religious Zionist. This is only the beginning of the categorization and there is more to come.
  3. You ask: "Now who decides if someone is hasidic or haredi, modern ortho or religious zionist?" The answer to this question is very simple: Read the articles themselves and you will read for yourself that in almost all cases the articles about rabbis will state that they are part of this or that group. Your question here is filled with confusion since if someone is Hasidic they are Haredi, but to be Haredi does NOT mean they are Hasidic!
  4. You ask: "Why is Amnon Yitzhak 'haredi' but Mordechai Eliyahu 'religious zionist'." That is because Mordechai Eliyahu was the Chief Rabbi of the State of Israel, and is known to be pro-Zionist (read the article about him and his views), but Amnon Yitzchak is not pro Zionist as far as anyone knows he is identified with the Haredi camp in Israel.
  5. Your suggestion: "Category:Sephardic haredi rabbis" is a good one, but your spelling is bad. This should be more correct: Category:Sephardic Haredi rabbis in Israel and it will be added.
  6. You say: "Why are hasids beneath Haredi, but Chabad not?" and you are correct. This is just a matter of catching up with the categorization. However I must warn you that the term "hasids" is offensive. While the correct singular is Hasid in English, the accepted plural in English (yes, taken from Hebrew and Yiddish usage) is Hasidim or Hasidic Jews.
  7. You say: "I respect your opinion, but no one made you cheif-rabbi of wp. SO some people are new here, they came to fix what the veterans had apparently ignored." And I say that everyone is welcome to add their views and edits but new editors need to familiarize themselves with what has been done before they can make substantial changes. On the other hand, if you have been around a while and understand the system, then you will see that all my changes make perfect sense and follow the guidelines for categorization on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Category schemes#Category system.
  8. You say: "You claim to defend the non-Orthodox, yet have no problem with leaving 167 Rabbis in that cat?" and my reponse is that can you please be more specific and show where the problem is instead of yelling about it, and I did not place those rabbis there because many articles are written or copied from the old Jewish Encyclopedia all the time and get added into the simple "rabbi" category until someone with some patience and time (hopefully like you) re-reads the article/s and then places them into the (correct) Orthodox categories.

Thanks for your serious responses. I look forward to more discussions with you. IZAK 04:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

A clarification: when you say "modern orthodox rabbis" are you referring to rabbis who are modern, or rabbis who identify as Modern Orthodox? --Bachrach44 19:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Bachrach: This is not about word games. This is about well-known and used definitions in the world of English speaking Judaism. It is well-known that Modern Orthodox rabbis are those who are KNOWN to be identified with Modern Orthodox Judaism. Almost always, the articles themselves about those rabbis will state that those rabbis belong to, or, are connected to Modern Orthodox Judaism, which then makes them Modern Orthodox rabbis. Obviously, all and any rabbis and people living on "modern times" are "modern" but that is another "discussion" or "debate", it's not a criterian. 03:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)IZAK
There's no need to get hostile - I was just trying to clarify your suggestion since you used an ambiguous term which could have been read in two ways. Thank you for your clarification. --Bachrach44 22:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More precise system based on recognized names

Category:Contemporary Orthodox rabbis is now redundant and should be deleted. In place, there are now more precise categories (which this episode has revealed to be overdue) and into which the so-called "contemporary" rabbis have been placed. If anyone would like to indicate that a rabbi is presently ALIVE then just put in the Category:Living people and automatically the reader knows that the rabbi is with us!

Thus under Category:Orthodox rabbis there is now some new sub-categories using KNOWN and accepted non-controversial academic and ecyclopedic nomenclature:

  • If there is any doubt, or if a rabbi cannot be clearly placed into one of the above, he should remain in Category:Orthodox rabbis.

The above should go a long way towards sorting out the ever-growing list of Orthodox rabbis of all shades and parties etc. IZAK 07:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unilaterism

IZAK - what have you gone and done? I created one new category called "contemporary Orthodox Rabbis (the name might have been a mistake - so you could have changed it to "living rabbis" - big deal), gained at least the partial acceptance of Bachrach and Shuki and was completely uncontroversial - living rabbis are alive, there's no doubt about that.

While I accept that I acted hastily and should have consulted other "wikipedians", a consensus on this issue is elusive and we've been bogged down by similar debates for eons. That being the case and with all my rushing - you've acted completely unilaterally and created upwards of ten new categories! I was trying to clean up the situation while you've come along and fragmented things.

Please explain to me: who can define whether X Rabbi is "haredi" and Y is "Modern Orthodox"? What in the world is "Religious Zionist Orthodox"! Are "hassidim" not "Haredi"? You've brought in some major POV issues. Also, I regard it as a grave injustice to the memories of many, many holy religous Rabbis since the Middle Ages and beyond to lump them in the Category:rabbis section with modern Reform "Rabbis". They are acknowledged today as Orthodox - even if that term is new it is clearly definable and any Jew can answer a straight yes or no - one cant say the same about "Modern Orthodox" or "haredi" - religious people study their works - yet they are considerd in the same league as Geiger and Medelsohn! I fail to see the logic.

While I may have overdone it, you have in my opinion exacerbated the situation. Please take note - we both need concensus. Nesher 17:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Nesher: To repeat: Just read the articles about those rabbis and you will know what they are. The categories are based on the articles, nothing more and nothing less. We are not "playing God" here. If there is ABSOLUTE doubt then just leave them as "plain" Orthodox rabbis. I think that I have replied to most of your objections in other parts of this talk page. As for the categories I created they were long over-due (I have been working on these categories and issues for almost two years now, perhaps longer... so I am well aware of all the pit-falls and took any future problems into consideration) they are all logical and clear and avoid ambiguity, as well as avoid conflicts which you do NOT know about since you have only arrived here recenly. Thank you for inspiring me to move the super-category Category:Orthodox rabbis in the right direction (i.e. following Wikipedia's articles about those rabbis and the movements they are associated with in the articles about them). On the other hand, to repeat, the words "contemporary" or "living" or "20th Century" is meaningless for an Orthodox rabbi and it would place together rabbis who do not belong together... (and this is where and why I suspect you may have your own agenda for doing something like that.) At any rate, it is far better to have the rabbis placed into the movements that they themselves identify with in speech, writing, and by their political actions. Once again, I repeat, that judging from your comments here and elsewhere, you simply do not understand how the system of categories works. See Wikipedia:Categorization. IZAK 05:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
IZAK, I am truly sorry that you are in the galut. --Shuki 19:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Shuki: Me too, but what can we do, we can only work within the time and place that H-shem places us into. Hopefully I can get out the galut soon, but please also remember, that the galut is not just a "place" it is also a mindset and far too many Israeli Jews are in a worse "galut" because they do not live within the world of Torah. Thanks for your brachah though, I loved it! IZAK 06:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
When talking about unilaterism, I have to add that I unilaterally removed all pov and cfd messages from these categories, as no rationale for them was given on talk pages and on project pages for the deletion. This does not necessarily mean that I disagree with all of these tags (my opinions are at the bottom of the talk page - I am interested in feedback), but the procedures should be followed as they were designed. In the meantime we have a little more time to discuss things and perhaps reach a consensus. I hope it can be done. Regards, gidonb 12:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Important Message for Izak:

Wikipedia guidelines: "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." Nesher 17:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Nesher's statement here. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Whose arguing? Not me! IZAK 04:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Breathe

breathing - it's more than just a good idea. :-) Serously, everyone relax and cool it on the name calling. (and yes, I mean everyone). Not everyone is happy with what everyone else has done, but I've dealt with all of you in the past, and know you all to be mature adults. I know that while we may all have our own opinions, and may be stubborn at times, I have no doubts that we can all work together to try and find a workable solution. Keep the communication lines open because that's the only way to move forward. --Bachrach44 19:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Bachrach: I agree, thank you. IZAK 05:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] time lines

This is only tangentially related to the previous discussions, but while taking a look at the Hebrew wiki I noticed something very cool. They have timelines at the top of each rabbi's page showing when they lived in comparison to the periods of halakha. Take rashi, the Maharal, and rabbeinu tam for examples of what I mean. For us visual learners, this is a wonderful little tool. I'm curious to know what other people think of it. It appears that they did it by having one image for each rabbi (assumably with a generic template which we can borrow and then just overlaying red bars). Should we try to copy this feature? --Bachrach44 19:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm all open to creative innovations... Nesher 21:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Bachrach: I am not sure what you want to do. It is a bad idea to add this kind of "timeline info" onto category pages which are kept clear of information which belongs in articles themselves. A category page is NOT an article page. IZAK 05:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, while it is rare, I do not believe that it is 'illegal' to place minimal information on a cat page where no article is directly rlated to it. --Shuki 19:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Shuki: Only robbing banks and such-like is illegal, but on Wikipedia it's best to avoid confusion, so that is why timelines will do more harm than good on a category page, because timelines belong in articles, not in category pages. IZAK 06:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Apparently I wasn't clear enough in my initial post, so let me clarify: If you look at the examples I provided, you'll notice that they're the pages for the individual rabbis themselves. That's what I was hoping to immitate. I mentioned it here simply because this talk page was getting some attention, and I wanted to see what other people thought of the idea. I agree that a minimal amount of text should go on cat pages, so I was talking about putting them on the rabbis page, much like the Hebrew wiki has done, not putting a timeline on the cat page. --Bachrach44 15:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
In that case I agree with you 100%, the timelines on the Hebrew pages are very nice and if anyone can do it, it would enhance the English articles about those rabbis. Category pages should be left uncluttered, they serve a focused purpose: To CATEGORIZE a subject only. IZAK 08:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 20th Century Rabbis

What do you say to creating a category called "20th Century Orthodox Rabbis" (or something to that effect). Also, to clear up the unwieldy array of new categories describing rabbis as "Modern Orthodox", "Religious Zionist Orthodox(?)" and "Haredi/Hassidic", who supports lumping these together - with a few exceptions - into a "Living Orthodox Rabbis" category? Nesher 16:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Nesher: You are reverting to the problem you started. There was nothing wrong with Category:Orthodox rabbis. Why are you so obsessed by wanting a category for "living rabbis" of any sort? Do you have an agenda? The words Orthodox rabbis should be identified by the known and recognized ideological and official movements that they are identified with and not by casual names like "contemporary" or "living" or even "20th century" (living Orthodox rabbis probably would prefer not being identified with the Christian centuries in any case.) The following is all correct and should be retained as an important guide: Category:Modern Orthodox rabbis is not "unwieldy" it is for rabbis associated with Modern Orthodox Judaism. Similarly Category:Religious Zionist Orthodox rabbis is for rabbis associated with the Religious Zionist Movement. The super-category Category:Haredi rabbis and its sub-categories will help to categorize those rabbis who are not just associated with Haredi Judaism but with one of its main sub-divisions Hasidic Judaism. All these categorizations are logical and clear. IZAK 05:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
It simply seems like good practice to seperate out rabbis from different halachic eras. In this case, some dividing line should be drawn around WWII. (How about if we say Ortho rabbis from before WWII, and then another cat for Ortho rabbis post WWII, and we can also have seperate cats for "orientation" (modern, haredi, etc.)). There's nothing wrong with dual categorization. --Bachrach44 22:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rabbis with contemporary directions in Judaism

IZAK: I sense a very fine line between the two categories above. True, there are many Religious Zionist Rabbis that are in fact Haredi - but virtually all of the Modern Orthodox Rabbis in their category are religious zionist. Thus, I beleive that Rabbis should be categorised based on their RELIGIOUS beliefs and not their POLITICAL beliefes, the latter being far more subjective, with a far greater spectrum and also defying logical categorisation.

The effect would be that Rabbis in the Religious Zionist Category (essentially a fickle political division) would be moved to either MO or Haredi. This further unifies and consolidates the existing structures and in my view is something that should be considered. Also, Bachrachs's idea of timelines on category pages may not be practical, but it most certainly should be a welcome addition to the articles themselves. Thank you, Nesher 12:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Nesher: Let me address your last point first: (1) "Timelines" will not help anyone understand the differences about rabbis who are complicated in many ways. Timelines are for history articles. (2) "Religious Zionism" is NOT, as you call it: "essentially a fickle political division", on the contary, it's a very clearly demarcated field as most people familiar with this subject know (sure people who don't know will be confused, but Wikipedia is here to help them learn...) (3) Thus, only those rabbis who are identified with, and have nearly universal connection to, Religious Zionist Movement should be in that category. (4) All movements have left and right wings within them but that does not mean that known right wing rabbis identified with Religious Zionism (and not much else in many cases) should be categorized with "Haredi" rabbis (it would be futile to make Shlomo Goren and Meir Kahane into "Haredi" rabbis for their right wing views, they were ultra-Zionists which Haredim are NOT!) (5) Nor should predominantly left-wing Religious Zionist rabbis suddenly be called "Modern Orthodox" rabbis which they are not (what's so "Modern Orthodox" about Yehuda Amital or Yona Metzger?) (6) It would be almost impossible to categorize rabbis of recent times on their "religious beliefs" alone because almost all of them always have known political views and parties they belong to, especially in Israel. IZAK 08:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Nesher, get with it. MO is for foreign rabbis, RZ is for Israeli rabbis who are identified with knitted kipas, even though they aren't similar at all. Agreed, these categories are very poor. I'd rather do without both. --Shuki 22:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Shuki: you say "MO is for foreign rabbis, RZ is for Israeli rabbis who are identified with knitted kipas, even though they aren't similar at all.". First of all, many in the RZ category ARE M.O. - and for the many who are not (as you rightly point out), well they can surely be moved to "Haredi" with RZ being scrapped. Second of all, why is "MO...for foreign rabbis"? Surely there are MO in Israel too and by extension, RZ outside of Israel? Hence, "I'd rather do without both" is a statement I'd heartily endorse - although if we had to keep one, as Gidon says, it would be MO. RZ is definately redundant. Nesher 16:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Nesher: Shuki is being too rigid when he splits the two categories between Israeli and and foreign rabbis. But it is true, in the United States most of Modern Orthodox Judaism's rabbis are identified and known as "Modern Orthodox rabbis" and are not known as "Religious Zionist rabbis" who are based mostly in Israel. It is important for everyone to note that by definition Modern Orthodox Judaism means that its adherents have a POSITIVE connection and love for Israel and Zionism (most have belonged to the Mizrachi movement in the USA), it's part of the definition of what makes them "Modern Orthodox", unlike Haredi rabbis who do NOT have a positive connection to Zionism (they belong to Agudah or some independent Hasidic group). It is understood and accepted that the rabbis associated with present-day Religious Zionism are also almost always positive about modernity in the same ways that Modern Orthodox rabbis are, so it is true that they are "part of" Modern Orthdoxy but it is NOT in a primary sense, and this is where Shuki's observations have some truth (but it's not a "split" as he states). Thus the categories are accurate, they describe their rabbis precisely as those familiar with this subject will attest. Again, if a rabbi is very well known for being prominent in both worlds and is identified and known as such then that places him in both categories of "Religious Zionist" and "Modern Orthodox". If there is doubt, then simply leave him as an "Orthodox rabbi" which is NPOV. IZAK 08:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I truly expect the rest of the non-sephardic haredi rabbis to be placed into a new cat Category:Ashkenazic Haredi rabbis in Israel. Anything less than that is demeaning. --Shuki 21:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Shuki: Actually, you are being unreasonable because this is not a case of creating random splits and categories. It was positive about your suggestion that a Sephardic category be created. Fine. Now it looks like you are out to just "play games" which is a waste of time. At this point, while it is true that we can divide rabbis up according to ethnic, national, and chronological lines, there is no point in rushing into even more categories when these are taking time to be digested. No-one is "demeaning" anything. We are striving for accuracy, but I do believe that at this time, on the English Wikipedia at least, the vast majority of articles about rabbis happen to be about Ashkenazim. The super-category Haredi rabbis is also all-inclusive and only when a new category is created are articles placed into it. Thus the Haredi rabbis category works fine as including all Asheknazi Haredi rabbis and is fine for now as it stands, awaiting more discussion. IZAK 08:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I have doubts about:

because they seem ill-defined and combining two to four dimensions together: the religious movement, the political movement and in the case of Separdic Haredi rabbis in Israel also a sub-ethnicity with the locale of Israel. Category:Modern Orthodox rabbis on the other hand seems rabbis with a better defined religious movement. It is a-political and non-ethnic, as it combines right and some left, and Ashkenazi with some Sephardic. I propose to keep it. gidonb 22:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gidon: Thank you for your input. What is "ill-defined"? Are you saying that the Religious Zionist Movement is "ill-defined"? Where did you get that notion from? It's as "well-defined" as any other movement within Judaism, in fact it's much better defined because to belong to it one must have a POSITIVE connection with the State of Israel and modern Zionism in all its dimensions (political, ideological, religious), unlike the Haredi groups or the Reform movement that was one of Zionism's earliest opponents. As for the Sephardic rabbis in Israel category I do think it is more than justified (and that is why I had initially agreed with User:Shuki) that because the Sephardim make up almost half of Israel's population (in an ethnic sense), BUT they ALSO have their own unique religious heritage (after all, even the Shulkhan Arukh [Jewish Code of law] is split 50/50 between Sephardim and Ashkenazim). Thus, they denote MORE than just an "ethnicity" because in fact the word "Sephardic" denotes an entire system in Halachah with its own long and indepenedent rabbis (Maimonides being the greatest of them -- yet Ashkenazim do not follow his Halacha ruling, even thoough they study his works.) Thus, "Sephardic rabbis" (and they are today most prominent in Israel) are as UNIQUE and recognizable in their way of Torah life and accurately deserving of their unique category as well. IZAK 08:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just browsing around the Rabbis category today and...

I'm growing tired of this hideous maze of rabbis categories. Hence I've put forward a couple of Cfd's so there can be a fair vote and debate about this matter open to everyone. I will hopefully add the Haredi rabbis category and MO categories to the list of those being considered, I repeat only considered for deletion. If they're worthy, of course they'll get voted to be kept, and if not... Nesher 15:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see here. --Shuki 21:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orthodox rabbis categories for deletion

Cross-posted from: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism:

Hi: I disagree with the above CfD votes nominated by User:Shuki and User:Nesher. The categories are clear and precise, and it seems that Nesher and Shuki are not fully familar with the way categories are set up and constructed with super-categories first and a number of extending sub-categories. The numbers of rabbis in Category:Orthodox rabbis was growing and some changes were introduced to create accurate sub-categories, and sub-sub-categories, something that is done all the time on Wikipedia. The new categories and sub-categories were created based on fact, logic, and reality. If they had problems with it, Nesher and Shuki could have brought the subject over here for some discussion if they had more to say and wanted to bring others in and share their views. However, now that there is a formal vote, it becomes a broader issue, and it can be opened up further here as well.

The votes are presently taking place at:

  1. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 23#Category:Haredi rabbis
  2. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 23#Category:Religious Zionist Orthodox rabbis
  3. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 23#Category:Contemporary Orthodox rabbis
  4. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 24#Category:Modern Orthodox rabbis

Thank you and Shabbat Shalom! IZAK 13:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Better ways of organising Rabbis

The above is a seemingly far better approach. Telzer 07:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Unlike "the French" -- in the English speaking world, especially in the United States, the majority of Jews belong to Conservative Judaism and Reform Judaism and all editors must take into account their reactions to editing (just as you would expect them to be sensitive to your positions) that will make all the "Sages d'Israël" appear as a subset of Category:Orthodox rabbis only. Your kano'es is all very nice, but it may serve to inevitably ignite a tinderbox either in the present or down the line. IZAK 09:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/r/t/Category_talk%7EOrthodox_rabbis_9ba9.html"