Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jewish history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Shortcut:
WT:JH
WikiProjects related to


Jewish topics
WP:Judaism
To-do

Discussion board
Collaboration OTW
Orthodox Rabbi bio COTW
Weekly Torah portion
New articles • Deletions
Portal:Judaism • Portal talk
WP:Jewish history
To-do

Discussion board
Jewish Encyclopedia
New articles
WP:Jewish culture
To-do

Discussion board
WP:Israel
To-do

Discussion board
Notice board
New articles • Deletions
Portal:Israel • Portal talk
WP:Hebrew
To-do

Discussion board
v • d • e

Contents

[edit] Announcements

[edit] Votes for deletion

Consider monitoring:

[edit] Other votes

[edit] To do

Edit Reload Watch


[edit] Perpetual problem articles

[edit] Discussions

[edit] Participant template

This may seem a little like the four sixteen year olds who think that finding a good name for their band is the key to success, but I started thinking about the right iconography for our participant template. The Magen David is already "taken" by the Wikiproject on Judaism, so I have some options for discussion. It seems to me that we should find an image that is characteristically Jewish but has more to do with history than religion. Here are some ideas - feel free to add:

  • A dreidel
  • A (seven armed) menorah
  • A mezuzah holder
  • A Hebrew character, probably an Alef, though perhaps Chet-Yod (Chai, "life") might be uplifting
  • A scroll

I'm partial to the Chai, as it reflects vitality, surely the most important characteristic of Jewish history. --Leifern 11:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the chai idea myself. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
from a historical perspective the menorah is more of a symbol of the Jewish people. In fact when archeologists find a magen david their first thought is that the site is fake. This is why on ancient coin you see many menorot but no magen davids. Jon513 19:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
חי would be lovely. Alternatively, we could use this famous "clover leaf" map of the world with center in Jerusalem. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't feel strongly either way; my only concern about the Menorah is that it has a strong religious connotation - in fact, I would have preferred it rather than the Magen David in the Judaism wikiproject, but that issue is resolved. I think the clover leaf map is awesome and has just the right element of chutzpah to fill me with a little bit of glee. So, how should we decide? --Leifern 23:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey, why not choose Chutzpa? A couple of arguments for the map: it is a map of the world (signifying the series History of the Jews in ... ), with center in Jerusalem. Its icon was adopted by [2]. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Done. And it looks pretty groovy. --Leifern 23:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Great! ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the Jewish-Christian category because it's religious. I was thinking it would be good to steer this project away from religion, but please feel free to revert me. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree. While I sifted through the Cats, I found that we have Category:Anarchism and Judaism and Category:Jewish anarchists. Thoughts? ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that map looks pretty cool, but I was under the impression it was made and used by the Christian world, so it seems like it is only partially related to Judaism. Am I wrong?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

No idea who used it, it seems unusable as a map. My POV: to me, Jerusalem as the center of the world is the most important here. If JCPA uses its outline as their logo, it works for me as well. Feel free to make a better offer, we can even decide to combine a couple of icons. ←Humus sapiens ну? 19:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I didn't really mean they used it as a map or anything, I meant that it was mainly a Christian Medieval practice of including Jerusalem at the center of all maps.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm open for anything better. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I think I'm actually fine with anything, I don't even know why I even argued.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Moshe, I believe you are correct. Given the orgin (time and judenrein place) of the woodcut, one can easily conclude that it was made by antisemites for antisemites. I pointed out as much [here] last month. Please read it. I think it's as appropriate a logo for this project as the Palestinian Authority logo would be for the Israel project. Of course, this is just my opinion. What's yours?Doright 19:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Did you see the JCPA logo? In general, I am against retreating every time we meet (or suspect) antisemities. Why should they own our symbols? Anyway, here's an alternative
This user is a member of the Jewish History Wikiproject.

Feel free to replace if you like it. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Humus, there is no retreat. The Woodcut made by and for Christian Antisemites would be a great art object logo for Christian History. Admittedly, it's a small point, but Jerusalem is important to Christians too and has an entirely different meaning than to Jews. See Crusades This is no more a retreat than refusing to call The Torah the Old Testament. It seems what you call not retreating, I call assimilating. Perhaps you can find a map of Jerusalem that relates to Jewish History rather than Christian History. Yes, I Did see the JCPA logo. Interesting, huh? Doright 05:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, since seems less controversial, I took the liberty to switch the template image. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Humus. Of the options I've seen, I agree that it's best.Doright 07:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hasidic history artciles on AFD

Many articles, particularly on Hasidic rebbes have been proposed for deletion by User:PZFUN. See [log]. jnothman talk 12:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Why PZFUN chose to discredit himself by going after those 36 rabbis (coincindence with lamed vav?) is beyond me. --Shuki 23:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] all Jewish summer camps on AFD

Can anyone tell me if wp isn't otherwise lenient on parochial enitities like the entire content of Category: Jewish summer camps he wants deleted? Should the camps he nominated for afd be relegated to a 'list of'? I disagree. --Shuki 23:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dual Jewish History/Judaism wikiproject userbox

Is anyone opposed to creating a userbox that says something like "This user is is a member of the Judaism/Jewish History Wikiproject"?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that there is also Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish culture. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Query on voting (was: Introducing myself... )

I've done some lite editing of the article noted above, International response to the Holocaust -- though as I haven't anything substantive to add at present, it remains in need of attention.
This is my modest offering by way of introducing myself to the Jewish history project... Deborahjay 15:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome, feel yourself at home! Please review the announcements above and consider voting. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! For affiliation's sake (and as a handy link), I've added the Jewish History WikiProject userbox to my User Page  :-)
Holocaust topics will continue to be my main focus, but others in this Project will no doubt come in time.
As I'm a rookie at Wikipedia editing, I find the prospect of voting a bit daunting -- though I'm certainly willing to participate and exercise my good judgment. How might you suggest I familiarize myself with the process? (e.g. guidelines, previous examples, etc.) Deborahjay 05:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Ignore if this feels overwhelming. I meant #Announcements at the top of this page. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Gotcha -- thanks.
As it happens, the particular pair of articles noted there now are terms in the contemporary Israeli lexicon that are particular bêtes noires of mine, as an editor and human rights activist. Having glanced at the discussion, I'm giving some hard thought about what, if anything, I may have to contribute there. :-/
Deborahjay 16:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nominations for v0.5

Let's think of other important well written articles worthy of Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Nominations. The Template:Jew is a good starting point. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concentration camp Theresienstadt [sic]

Regarding Concentration camp Theresienstadt, I've raised some issues about the article's name and the language used therein (concentration camp vs. ghetto).
Would appreciate your input on the discussion page there. Thanks, Deborahjay 05:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorting stubs (in List of...): bio or not?

I've just discovered the "List of " Jewish history and biography stubs. These are indeed handy tools for me, as I'm seeking articles for expansion in my subject fields of expertise (Holocaust and Israel).

Am just wondering, though: were these lists created by manual insertion of the topics? It seems to me that quite a few individuals' names appear in the "history" list rather than the "bio"... and if this isn't due to some factors I fail to appreciate, might it be worthwhile to move them, for the sake of enhanced utility let alone consistency?

NB: I did note that what's called the "Jewish biography" stubs list is for "people notable in connection with Judaism" [sic]. If that wording is to indicate the Jewish religion in particular, rather than Jewish history in general (i.e. the other list of stubs), I wouldn't have expected to find Mordechai Gebirtig there. Essentially, I don't get it!  :-/

If this is simply a matter of reviewing the two lists and manually placing people > bios, all other topics > history, I'll volunteer to undertake the task -- but shall wait for feedback here lest I tamper inadvertently with an existing mechanism as yet unfamiliar to me.
:-) Deborahjay 19:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JE citation format

I've been working on converting a lot of Jewish Encyclopedia articles to Wikipedia and I've developed what I think is a good citation format for the reference section that incorporates both the JE article itself and the sources for that article. For example:

  • H. P. Chajes, Beiträge zur Nordsemitischen Onomatologie, p. 23, Vienna, 1900 (on the name);
  • Herzfeld, Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael, i. 185-189, 201-206;
  • Grätz, Gesch. 2d ed., ii. 236;
  • Schürer, Gesch. 3d ed., i. 182, 194-196; iii. 97-100;
  • Niese, in Hermes, xxxv. 509;
  • Wellhausen, I. J. G. 4th ed., p. 248, Berlin, 1901;
  • Willrich, Juden und Griechen vor der Makkabäischen Erhebung, pp. 77, 109, Göttingen, 1895;
  • A. Büchler, Die Tobiaden und die Oniaden, pp. 166, 240, 275, 353, Vienna, 1899;
  • J. P. Mahaffy, The Empire of the Ptolemies, pp. 217, 353, London, 1895;
  • Gelzer, Sextus Julius Africanus, ii. 170-176, Leipsic, 1885;
  • Weiss, Dor, i. 130 (on the halakic view of the temple of Onias).

My reasoning is that if you're going to take a public domain article wholesale from some source you should identify the sources cited in that article (saying "this article came from JE" when the article is a verbatim repetition of the JE text doesn't seem very helpful).

I'd like to try and get this accepted as a standard, but obviously not without some consensus on the issue. Does anyone have any thoughts on the issue? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 12:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a great idea! Jayjg (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Some relevant discussion from my talk page, where I discuss the citation issues with User:Nesher in relation to Jose ben Yochanan:
Hi Briangotts, I removed citations from the article as it was taken from the Jewish Encyclopedia. Thats fine. However, does wikipedia need the citations given by the JE? I'd contend not. As it is, the JE has been credited and anyone seeking further info can go there. Wikipedia has its sources (i.e. here the J.E.), while further down the line wikipedia's sources have their own sources (i.e. the JE's numerous sources). I believe I've conformed to WP:CITE. It clutters up the article and I've seen many other removals of such citations from other JE-based articles. See here.
Would you not agree that it would be impractical and bordering on the ridiculous if, apart from every source quoted on wikipedia (e.g. Britannica, Encarta), those sources own sources were quoted? Many thanks, Nesher 16:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Your point is well-taken but I think the example you give is inapplicable. An article might be written that cites to or quotes from an Encarta, Britannica, or other encyclopedia article. I totally agree with you that in such a case, it would be silly to list separately all the sources cited in that article (unless, of course, the source itself was also used in the WP article).
I think the situation with JE articles is somewhat different. In many cases, due to the public domain status of the JE, JE articles are copied in their entirety and reproduced verbatim on Wikipedia. So what usually ends up happening is that the article on Wikipedia is in fact the JE article. In such a case you can't really say that the JE article was a "source", because in fact the WP article IS the JE article- because of this, I think it's appropriate to cite both the JE and the JE sources in these situations. But I'm open for further discussion and willing to be convinced that I'm wrong.
--Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I completely accept the point that many JE articles are copied verbatim - but my point still stands. Do "Heilprin, Seder ha-Dorot, ii" or "Schürer, Gesch. 3d ed., ii. 202, 352, 357" mean anything to anyone but the erstwhile scholar? A resounding NO. However, many users understand the link to the JE below - and if they want to continue in greater depth (and know where to find these dusty volumes!) then they can easily see the citations there. Only every millionth person or so knows what these sources mean (and even less will look them up).
Even if the "WP article IS the JE" - which is true at article inception but the archaic language and tedious formats are generally fiddled with and added to over time - why does that necessitate keeping unnecessary text that can be accessed a click away? Many thanks, Nesher 17:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I would welcome listing old sources in Notes section - in hope that outdated claims would be either replaced or updated with newer sources & evidence. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"[T]he erstwhile scholar"? Meaning that current scholars have no use for references? If so then, in my view, they are not scholars.

I certainly agree with Briangotts that adding a references section in Wikipedia's format is useful. When we bring over an article like this, we are essentially using it as a first draft. It should then evolve, just like any other Wikipedia article. This means we need to know what is sourced from where, and the fact that it is sourced from the JE is only occationally as relevant as what the JE cited. We should absolutely make it clear what the JE used for sources. In particular, the specific Talmudic references seem to me to be an inherent part of the article, and simply saying that something is Talmudic is no substitute at all.

I also would preserve the inline source notes (or convert them to another format), retaining specificity as to what is cited from where. Remember that one of the main uses of an encyclopedia article is as a starting point for serious research, so these are highly relevant. I do, however, encourage that these be clarified: e.g. REJ should become Revue des Études Juifs, "San. 38a" should become "Sanhedrin 38a", etc. In the Schürer example above, "Gesch…ii" should certainly be lengthened to "Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi…vol. 2". In my view, people who are bringing these articles into Wikipedia ought generally to know enough to work that out; contributors should seek help from this project or similar projects if they can't work it out (I've certainly had to ask for help on some Talmudic abbreviations); for most of these (relatively abstruse) topics, we should expect a readership who can understand the long form of that reference, but perhaps not the short form. Your average high school student is not going to look up Exilarch; few people but scholars, of one sort or another, will. - Jmabel | Talk 21:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Offline?

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com seems not to be reachable this last few days. Does anyone know what's up? I tried emailing them, no answer, at least not yet. - Jmabel | Talk 18:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yiddish language

FAC vote underway. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rudolf Vrba

Current FAC nominee: Rudolf Vrba, who escaped from Auschwitz and brought the first credible information about it to the world. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romania during WWII

Dahn has called my attention to the fact that the information about the Romania and the Jews during WWII is scattered over several articles: in History of the Jews in Romania, Romania during World War II, Ion Antonescu, and, for all I know, elsewhere. There really is no main article on the topic, but each of these goes on about it for 4-8 paragraphs. The information in them is in some cases identical, and in others complementary.

(There is also a separate, extensive if somewhat problematic, article on the Iaşi pogrom, which includes background information that is really background to the whole situation of the Jews in that country at that time, but some of which may not be accurate; I've fixed a lot there, but doubt it's all fixed; anyway, the part of that article that is not about the pogrom as such would be at least a fourth location of material.)

I think there should be on central article, and the first three I've mentioned should each have short summaries relevant to their respective topics, with a link to a common main article. I hesitate to call it The Holocaust in Romania because there is more to the story than that (in particular, the remarkably high survival rate of Bucharest's Jews). Maybe Romania and the Jews during World War II? What do others on this project think? - Jmabel | Talk 06:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it is time for Category:Holocaust by country. There is Holocaust in Poland, why not Holocaust in Romania, Holocaust in Hungary, Holocaust in France, etc. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, Dahn points out that in Romania the Roma were also a significant percentage of the victims. So I think Holocaust in Romania or The Holocaust in Romania would be the possible titles. Shouldn't it be "The", because that is how our main article The Holocaust is titled? - Jmabel | Talk 18:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project Banners?

Is there no project banner for WP:Jewish History? If there is, please let me know, as I think it'd be nice to have on pages such as Fugu Plan and Tzippori. LordAmeth 22:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Easy enough to make one and start using it. See {{Ethnic groups}} for a model. - Jmabel | Talk 18:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I have made a new Project Banner template for the project. I'm not sure how to make it add articles it is placed on to a category automatically; but I think it should serve its main purpose - giving the project some visibility and publicity. I realize I'm a brand new member of this project, and I don't want to horn in on others' business; I hope you all find this useful. LordAmeth 00:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
In addition, I have evidently mussed up the coding somewhere - anything placed after the template box doesn't appear on the page. If anyone knows more about coding, please help me out with this. B'vakasha. LordAmeth 00:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I just noticed you're saying that's a problem. I thought you had done it intentionally. Do you see that you can show/hide the talk page? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
It looks good. I added it to Talk:Rudolf Vrba. I like how it makes the talk page contents appear and disappear, although I wonder if others might object to that, because new editors might not realize there are comments there if they're hidden. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Good job at {{WikiProject Jewish history}}. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
It's been fixed by Kirill Lokshin. Should work fine now. LordAmeth 10:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Night (book)

Night (book), Elie Wiesel's story, is up for featured article status. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hasidic dynasties

Hi. I wish to ask for your expertise and help in cleaning up Hasidic dynasties articles, specifically those curently listed in the last section of History of the Jews in Romania. I am not knowledgable in Hasidism, and, although I have improved one of the articles which seemed more approachable, I cannot contribute much to rendering them in proper format (except, perhaps, add proper and relevant links for names of Roamanian localities and events in Romania's history). I have done some major work on the History of the Jews in Romania, and am aiming to make articles in connection to it look the best they can - currently, they are merely chaotic. Many thanks. Dahn 19:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merchant of Venice

Jtpaladin (talk • contribs) recently removed from the article Merchant of Venice the statement that "English society in the 1600s was undeniably anti-Semitic," complaining that it was uncited for. As I remarked on the talk page, I'm not sure what one could cite to further show that a country where Jews could not legally dwell (a statement already in the selfsame paragraph) was anti-Semitic.

This had me look at his edits. Other recent work from this charmer includes Talk:Bar Kokhba's revolt#Correction on numbers regarding people murdered by revolting Jews. Judging by his edit history, I suspect he took great pleasure in writing the phrase "revolting Jews".

Anyway: does someone have a citation for the should-be obvious in this matter of England circa 1600 being anti-Semitic? - Jmabel | Talk 06:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a book here called Nazi Anti-Semitism: From Prejudice to Holocaust by Philippe Burrin, The New Press, 2005, ISBN 1565849698, which says (p. 17):

It was not until the twelfth century that in northern Europe (England, Germany, and France), a region until then peripheral but at this point expanding fast, a form of Judeophobia developed that was considerably more violent because of a new dimension of imagined behaviors, including accusations that Jews engaged in ritual murder, profanation of the host, and the poisoning of wells."

He then talks a bit about the reasons, and says the situation didn't change again until the Enlightenment. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! - Jmabel | Talk 05:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pogrom

I'm adding Pogrom to the project; the article is in serious need of review. --M@rēino 16:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animal rights and schechita

In Animal rights - should a section on "Animal rights and anti-Semitism" make a reference to recent campaigns by animal rights activists to ban kosher slaughter? One editor says this is not an animal rights issue because it has to do with "but to the best way to kill animals for food"[3] however there are numerous sources that assert animal rights activists are involved in these campaigns - see Talk:Animal rights. Farnsworth J 02:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish WIKIVERSITY

NEW: On Wikiversity there is now a "Jewish Studies School." Will it become a "duplication" of many things on Wikipedia? What should it's goals and functions be? Please add your learned views. Thank you. IZAK 09:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by User:Fduffy to Hebrew Bible articles and topics

For anyone with an interest in all the articles about the Hebrew Bible; Tanakh, Torah and related subjects, User:FDuffy, who is very serious and devoted to the Biblical criticism POV (by his own admission he is a "third year theology student"), has recently resumed serious editing of Hebrew Bible articles and subjects. Please see the extensive edits via Contributions/FDuffy Your involvement, responses and edits would be important at this juncture, especially if you are capable of adding material from classical Judaic sources since most of these articles are lacking the teachings of Judaism, their obvious true source. Thank you. IZAK 11:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conflicting names with Christian and Jewish Orthodoxy

Hi: I posted the following at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy#"Orthodoxy" alone is ambiguous. Thank you. IZAK 03:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello: This message deals with a number of issues stemming from the unclear use of the word "Orthodox" and "Orthodoxy." In the past Wikipedia has tried to avoid confusion between the names of Orthodox Judaism and Eastern Orthodox Christianity by not using the word "Orthodox" or "Orthodoxy" alone in titles when other qualifying words, such as "Church" or "Christian" (in the case of Eastern Christian Orthodoxy) or words such as "Synagogue" or "Jewish" (in the case of Orthodox Judaism, would help to qualify the usage of the name "Orthodox" or "Orthodoxy" so that any reader or editor on Wikipedia should not be confused by a title and should know from an article's or category's name whether that subject deals with either Orthodox Judaism or Eastern Orthodox Christianity (also called Orthodox Christianity). In the past there has been no objection to inserting either "church" or "Christian/ity" where the Eastern Orthodox Church articles or categories are concerned and I have tried to move in this direction. It is for this reason that I have made the nominations to rename the ambiguous categories at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 14#Orthodox Christian categories. Yet it seems that some editors are not aware of this and I am bringing this to your attention. I will cross-post this message to Wikipedia:WikiProject Orthodox Judaism and to Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism for further discussion. The implications for Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy is that it too should be renamed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodox Church or Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodox Christianity to avoid any confusion with Wikipedia:WikiProject Orthodox Judaism. Sincerely, IZAK 02:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Destruction of the Temple

Currently, the content of the article Siege of Jerusalem (70) is leaning a bit towards Christian relevance, prophecy, etc. If anyone is familiar with the Talmudic commentary on the destruction of the temple, prophecy of the destruction within the Torah, or the (undoubtedly major) effects it has had on Jewish history and culture, please contribute to this page. Thank you. LordAmeth 08:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Host desecration

Any takers for some expansion and sourcing at Host desecration, IMHO preferably to a point where splitting of a separate article Accusations of host desecration against Jews would be justified (just as we have Blood libel against Jews split off Blood libel). Please see Talk:Host desecration#Recent disagreements over article introduction. --Pjacobi 20:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old biblical accounts

I have some concerns about User:FDuffy who seems to be knowledgeable and makes longs contributions, but bases too much undue weight on the work of "Finkelstein" unearthing the bible, which he uses as a ref for repeated claims "most modern archelogists" and basically sometimes it contradicts notions of King David, Joshua and other events or persons. I'd be glad if people with high knowledge looked around and tried to balance his edits on these subjects [4] as with United Monarchy, Mount Gerizim etc. Amoruso 00:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

unbelievably, I didn't see that IZAK had exactly the same concerns and same comment (!) above. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jewish history#Edits by User:Fduffy to Hebrew Bible articles and topics Amoruso 00:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Era notation (AD vs. CE) in articles related to Jewish history

Please take a look at Talk:Josephus#The AD CE thing (again). Relevant guidelines are WP:MOSDATE#Eras. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish history in Eretz Yisrael after Bar Kochva

My dream is to make a really good article detailing everything that went through on the Jewish community, stats, wars and so on. My request is that someone that has knowledge in the area, plesae expand on this section Jewish history#Eretz Yisrael which I think is extremely important, or even start the article yourself and let me know... some information already exists in Category:Jewish-Roman wars and History of the Jews and the Crusades as well as a lot in the Timeline of Jewish history. Thanks. Amoruso 20:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't there an article History of Jews in Eretz Yisrael? Beit Or 21:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, good question. Perhaps it should be History of the Jews in the Land of Israel, as we have whole series on "History of the Jews in X", including even History of the Jews in Japan (which I have nothing against). ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The reason that such an article doesn't exist is just because no-body, unfortunately, has written it yet :) The thing is the history before Bar Kochva is depicted in here History of ancient Israel and Judah . According to the template it's indeed missing : [5] and stuck in the history. it's complicated, there should probably be History of the Jews in the Land of Israel from which the first section will deal with History of ancient Israel and Judah and redirect there. Amoruso 23:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I started an article on the subject. I ask and invite everyone to make it a really good article. I've put a draft version at User:Amoruso/History of the Jews in the Land of Israel where we can then move it to the page when it's completed, so it won't be attacked by anyone until then... Please help improve and make this page valuable. :) Amoruso 18:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moriah

Needs total re-write not from the Finkelstein-Fduffy Point of View.... Amoruso 05:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jews in apostasy

Jews in apostasy article needs attention. IZAK 10:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Persian Jews

The article Persian Jews is coming under fire by a lot of trolls who are trying to subvert and deny the Jewish history in Persia and Iran. We need to mobilize there and be prepared to confirm the information there. Valley2city 20:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hayim Greenberg

The article Hayim Greenberg generally needs improvement and expansion, as well as proof of notability. Perhaps someone could add some of the material from the corresponding article he:חיים גרינברג in the Hebrew Wikipedia. (I was mistaken. There does not seem to be a corresponding article in the Hebrew Wikipedia, although there probably should be.) The article was created by User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg, who is now banned. Some of the other articles listed at Special:Contributions/Sheynhertz-Unbayg may also require work. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 16:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming issue: Bar Kohkba

In Simon bar Kokhba, the very first mention of the name was recently changed to Shimon bar Kochva. I suppose "Shimon" is technically more correct, and I'm not at all sure about "Kochva", but "Simon bar Kokhba" is a much more normal designation in English. We don't start off the Moses article by writing Moishe. Anyway, I imagine there are conventions for what we do with ancient Hebrew names, I don't know those conventions, and I figure someone on this WikiProject will. - Jmabel | Talk 06:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree. There is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) and there was/is/should be some effort to add it to WP:MOS. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jewry

Recently, without (as far as I can tell) any clear consensus, numerous articles have been renamed to get the word "Jewry" into the title. I don't like it. For starters, a "Jewry" suggests a single community under a rabbinate. For another, the word is somewhat archaic. A recent example is that for some unknown reason the talk page of American Jews was at Talk:American Jewry. I moved it back.

I would like to see a consensus on this in this WikiProject. I myself would like to see the consensus be against this term, but most important there should be a consensus. - Jmabel | Talk 09:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Even though I don't think there is something wrong with the word itself, I don't like it either. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CfD Anti-Semitic people

Hi: See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 23#Category:Anti-Semitic people. Thank you. IZAK 10:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Auschwitz

Hi; I am not Jewish; I am in fact Roman Catholic. But I have a deep and abiding loathing of the Nazi regime in Germany, and have made a large number of edits to both the Auschwitz article and to its talk page; and I have been to the camp. Am I welcome? --Anthony.bradbury 00:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure you are welcome! As WP:JH#Members says, "Our membership is informal. One doesn't have to be Jewish to join." ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The explicitly numbered, alphabetized list of members does not exactly underline a message of openness, since unless your name happens to be Zweibel, you have to renumber several people to add yourself correctly to the list. - Jmabel | Talk 16:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I agreed and fixed. That was changed recently by a new user. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Messianic "Halakha" etc?

On 25 October 2006 [6], User:Inigmatus moved Messianic religious practices to Messianic Halakha with the lame excuse "moved Messianic religious practices to Messianic Halakha: As discussed in prior archives, with the creation of the new Messianic Judaism template, this page can now be targeted for clean up: This entire page is better split into two articles" [7] thus opening up a whole new can of worms. This fits into this new pattern of vigorous pro-Messianic Judaism POV edits, moves, categories, projects and articles, basically without warning and ignoring the consensus that has been maintained for some time. The main problem is that the over-all thrust of the recent pro-Messianic Judaism activity is to mimic and and get as close as possible to any and all Judaism, particularly Orthodox Judaism, articles and efforts, so that anyone looking at the one will arrive at the other by sheer proximity and similarity. And I repeat this again, because of its relevance: *User:Inigmatus (contributions), self-described as "A mystery user with a point to be made" (wouldn't that make anything he does as automatically POV?), has added a number of features to Messianic Judaism. A month ago he evidently plagiarized [8] the Template:Judaism and created Template Messianic Judaism based on it. He also created Wikipedia:WikiProject Messianic Judaism also obviously plagiarizing the Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism page. This may mislead unsuspecting readers and there ought to be some warning or guidance about this. I would suggest that a new template be develpoed that would be placed on Messianic Judaism pages with a "Note: This article deals with Messianic Judaism. It does not represent normative Judaism and does not have any connection with, or official recognition from, any Jewish denominations." IZAK 03:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome the NotJudaism template

Hi: In view of the above, please see the new {{NotJudaism}} template:

Note: The subject of this article or section does not represent normative Judaism and does not have any connection with, or official recognition from, any Jewish denominations.

Feel free to use it where applicable. Thanks. IZAK 05:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Judas Maccabeus and Judah Maccabee

I have found myself in a funny situation of creating an unintentional content fork (stuff happens), so now we have two article about the same person. Everybody is very welcome to discuss the issue on the relevant talk pages so that we could decide on the appropriate title for the article and proceed with the merger. Beit Or 21:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I have further proposed to move Judas Maccabeus to Judah Maccabee. Comments on the talk page will be much appreciated. Beit Or 20:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marc Bloch

There is some disagreement if it should be mentioned that Marc Bloch was Jewish in the lead section of his Biography article. I created a straw poll here. -- Stbalbach 18:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like this has been amicably resolved. - Jmabel | Talk 00:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goa Inquisition

An editor has raised neutrality issues with the article. The subject is part of Jewish history, particularly the section Goa_Inquisition#Persecution_of_Jews, regarding the persecution of Indian Jews during the Christian inquisition in India. I would greatly appreciate perusal and input regarding any neutrality issues. Hkelkar 04:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Second - The page has been blanked by users wishing to whitewash the horrific atrocities performed on Jews.Bakaman 00:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Looking for contributors to the Holocaust wikibook

I have started working on a wikibook on the events of the Holocaust. So far ideas have been that: The book will look at the situation in which the Holocaust was able to take place. It will look into those involved and where and when important events took place, to try and establish a clear picture of the extend of what has happened. What happened after the war and what ongoing impact will the events of the Holocaust have now? The idea is to write a book that is suitable for learning at a 'college' level. I have set up a basic structure and now looking for people to start discussing, writing and shaping the book. If you're interested, you can contact me: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User_talk:WietsE or leave a message on the books talk page: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Talk:The_Holocaust/Content. O yeah, and have a look at the Wikibook: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/The_Holocaust. WietsE 20:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Examination of Holocaust denial

This article is currently up for Afd. Perhaps some here would like to read the article and debate, and state their opinions about its proposed deletion. Jeffpw 21:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Zionism

This article is currently tagged POV and I am hoping to find a few people to debate issues on that page, both existing text and citations that I think are important to add. If you are interested, please review and comment at the bottom of the [ZIONISM] discussion page. Pco 16:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yasue Norihiro

Hello all. I've just written an article on Norihiro Yasue, one of the Japanese army officers involved in formulating the Fugu Plan, which, while quite misguided in the reasoning behind it, did save many Jewish lives during the war. The article on him on the Japanese Wikipedia indicates that he was involved in founding Israel, which is impossible since he was in a Soviet labor camp from 1945 until his death in 1950. However, he did meet with Chaim Weizmann and David Ben-Gurion in 1926. Does anyone know anything more about this, and what role he may have had? The Japanese Wikipedia article also indicates that he was inscribed in "The Golden Book" as a person who helped make humanity great or something to that effect. A quick cursory search reveals nothing about this Golden Book at all, on the English Wikipedia. Any thoughts? Thanks. LordAmeth 01:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion

Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion FYI: Hi Tomer! A Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion has asserted itself in the Korban article. The project indicates that it is an umbrella project for all of religion and that the current religion projects are subprojects of it, yet its member directory lists only six members. Where is the project coming from? Is it a broadbased project, a very small group with a very big reach, or what? If you know some background or some of its people, would be much appreciated. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi Shira: I noticed this comment. Their assertion is outrageous and false and should be rejected and disputed to the full. There is no "supreme council of religion" on Wikipedia and there never will be. Each religion has its experts and contributors on Wikipedia and none of them will ever tolerate interference from outside busy-bodies. Judging by their user pages, the members of this "religion" project are obviously coming from a Christian POV and seems they now wish to "double dip," pretty funny actually. See my notice on that page, below. Thanks, and may the Lights of Chanukah dispel all ignorance and darkness. IZAK 10:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NOTICE and OBJECTIONS to WikiProject Religion vs. Judaism

Hi: Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Judaism. Thanks, IZAK 10:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

NOTICE and OBJECTIONS:

  1. No-one has the right to take upon themselves to be the controlling "project" for every religion on Earth!
  2. Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism has been, and shall remain an independent project and will not accept interference in its work based on the assertion that editors not familiar with Judaism's traditions have a self-appointed "right" to interfere with Judaism-related articles by mere dint of being members of a "religion" project.
  3. So far, as of 12/21/06 the mere six members of this project, are mostly Christian, (as self-described on their user pages) and raises the question, why don't they do their work in Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity (81 members as of 12/21/06)? How can a project with six members "pass judgment" on other projects with one hundred and twenty four members?
  4. What will members of other projects, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam (64 members as of 12/21/06) think and react when "religion project" editors will advise what's best for Islam-related articles or not?
  5. Note: Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism adheres to WP:NPOV and is one of the oldest Wikipedia projects with over one hundred and twenty members (as of 12/21/06), a number of whom are respected sysops as well, highly knowledgeable about many matters relating to Category:Jews and Judaism.
  6. It would not be advisable for anyone to interfere with Judaism-related articles or Hebrew Bible-related topics that ignores the broad based consensus and general agreement that exists between Jewishly-oriented editors of Judaic articles, many of which touch upon Jews because being Jewish includes being both a part of Judaism as well as being part of an ethnicity, and a project on "religion" alone cannot and does not have the scope to touch upon issues that effects not just Jews and Judaism, but also Israel and Jewish history, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history (with 33 members as of 12/21/06) and a broad range of related issues and projects, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish culture (19 members as of 12/21/06) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel (23 members as of 12/21/06).
  7. Finally, Wikipedia is not the forum to create a de facto neo-"ecumenical project" which is only bound to cause confusion and resentment and will result in confusion and chaos and inevitabley violate Wikipedia:No original research; Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought; and Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms.

Thank you for taking this matter seriously. IZAK 09:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to NOTICE and OBJECTIONS to WikiProject Religion vs. Judaism

Hi: It is very important that you see the points and the response from User:Badbilltucker about his aims at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#NOTICE and OBJECTIONS to WikiProject Religion vs. Judaism ASAP. Have a Happy Chanukah! IZAK 15:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish state

I strongly disagree with a recent anonymous edit to Jewish state. I reverted a few pieces of it that were clearly sheer liabilities, and I've commented on the other matters at Talk:Jewish state#Dubious recent edits. Trying to assume good faith & all that, so before any unilateral revert I want to allow some time for comment. However, I wouldn't object to anyone else reverting all or part of the edit in question, and I would welcome discussion (criticism is, of course, welcome, but also endorsement of my remarks so that I am not placed in the position of acting unilaterally if and when I revert).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmabel (talk • contribs).

[edit] Hasmonean dynasty

Hi, I'd love a little help with Hasmonean. I've been editing alone for a while and need a second opinion. It probably needs cuts, my intros are always too long, I can't find anywhere that states how this Kingdom referred to itself, and the sourcing needs major improvement. Just to get started.  :) Best, Kaisershatner 18:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 20:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mala Zimetbaum and millions of Holocaust victims and survivors

How notable is this person Mala Zimetbaum, and does she deserve an article of her own? There were millions of Holocaust so should they all get their own articles now? Doesn't that trivialize the event? Seems that if someone gets to write a book or gets mentioned somewhere, they then "automatically" become notable. What do you think? IZAK 16:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adolf Hitler's contacts with Jewish people

Have you ever had a close look at this strange article: Adolf Hitler's contacts with Jewish people? It's full of red links for the supposed Jews he had contact with (do they deserve articles just because they were Hitler's alleged dentist/shoe-shine-boy/chimney-sweep/whatnots etc?) It's weirdly prurient. The heading stinks. Do all the Jews killed in the Holocaust get to be in it? How about all the theories about Hitler having a Jewish ancestor, does that also count as him having "contact" with Jewish people? I doubt that the originators of this article and those who worked on it have rational objectives. It should be merged with something else involving Adolf Hitler or even deleted for its stupidity. (If not, how about Adolf Hitler's contacts with gypsies, Adolf Hitler's contacts with Italian people, Adolf Hitler's contacts with Russian people, Adolf Hitler's contacts with retarded people, Adolf Hitler's contacts with murderers this can go on forever, and then we can even create Category:Adolf Hitler's contacts with people. IZAK 02:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anecdotal, Greece

I received the following emails. I can't think what to do with these anecdotal remarks without a lot of further dialogue, and I'm not going to be doing that. I'm posting the contact here. If someone wants to engage in dialogue with this person, email me (through Wikipedia) and I will pass along the contact address. - Jmabel | Talk 19:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[Content of emails follows]

I'm not well informed enough to post directly, but I'd like to point you to Josephus mentioning Jews in the Ionian Islands.

Now, this is controversial: a Greek diplomat who wasn't oarticularly (sic) pro-Jewish once told me the foundations of Athenian democracy resulted as a reaction to the mistreatement of two Jewish Athenians. I don't know what to make of that.

Keep up the good work.

My dad & my mom's dad hid Jews. Both my parents lost many Jewish friends.

Vasos Panagiotopoulos

[postscript in second email:] I think I read recently that Jews of Southern Italy and Egypt also spoke Greek
[End content of emails]

[edit] Is promotion of Holocaust denial and ZOG compatible with this project?

I propose to kick out User:.V. from the list of WP:JH members. The user is a promoter of Holocaust denial [9], see his other edits there and at the talk, and antisemitic conspiracy theories [10], see also its talk page. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm a very logical person. And as such, I don't spend much time on arguments that are not based in logic. As you can expect, baseless accusations are annoying to me. So I'm going to forgo any commentary on this subject for now and actually examine the edits provided which supposedly show that I promote Holocaust Denial and antisemitic conspiracy theories. I think that if someone actually read the edits, they'd surely see that this is a completely inappropriate accusation.
Edit #1 (Holocaust Denial): I found that saying that only supporters refer to "Holocaust denial" as "Holocaust revisionism" was inappropriate for several reasons. For one, it's basically impossible to know that fact. The way that the current revision makes it sound is that, unless someone is a Holocaust denier, they won't call it revisionism. I don't see how this could be stated as true. Secondly, great lengths were taken in the article to differentiate between Holocaust deniers and Holocaust revisionists. An article can't say that two names are the same thing and then contradict itself later. There are other reasons, and you can find them at the Talk page for this issue.
I also fail to see how this somehow makes me a Holocaust denial supporter. Unless David Irving really likes the phraseology "also known as"... well, that must be the case. :P
Edit #2 (ZOG): This is about how I removed the category "Antisemitic Canard" from the ZOG article. This is because "Canard" means a "deliberately false or baseless story". It runs contrary to WP:NPOV to be calling such an accusation false and baseless. NPOV says we specifically cannot take a stand on contentious issues; and calling something "deliberately false" is taking a stand in the most direct way possible. It also violates WP:CAT. It's furthermore made redundant by the category of "Antisemitism". What Humus didn't tell you is that currently, there are more editors favoring removing the category than keeping it in. It seems that after not being able to have a majority on the talk page, he's moved on to smear attacks elsewhere. I have to say, that's pretty sad. You can read more about the issue, including in-depth reasoning behind the policy applied, here I think one user said it best when he said:
"So far as a canard is defined as a "deliberately false story", I can only believe it to be a huge leap of faith to assume all individuals who, for reasons ranging from paranoia to a plainer misinterpretation of historical facts, espouse a belief in this so called ZOG do so only to consciously mislead others and promote hatred. You'd have to interview all people who accept those ideas (and possibly make sure they give a truthful reply) in order to assess the true reasons behind their beliefs." - User: Ishikawa Minoru
I find it really disappointing that Humus has to pull the Holocaust denial card. I also find it very interesting that Humus decides to post this less than 12 hours (actually, I checked specifically: approximately one hour) since I removed that category from the ZOG article as per the Request for Comment discussion. (Of course, the removal was then reverted immediately as a minor edit, which contradicts the minor edit policy.) Coincidence? Maybe, but it doesn't seem like it. Seems more like some kind of harassment to me, which has arisen out of a content dispute. I don't know if this is sincere, WP:POINT, or what, but I'm going to keep assuming good faith. .V. (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
This charge is completely unfair and I find it very disappointing that you should make it. .V.'s stated concern is with censorship. If you look at user:.V.#The Principles I Edit By, this should be perfectly clear. .V.'s conduct as an editor, as far as I can see, has been entirely consistent with this stated concern and there is no particular reason to believe that .V. believes in ZOGs, David Irving and all the rest of it.
However, even if my personal judgement of .V.'s beliefs and character is wrong, I consider .V.'s actions as an editor to be consistent with the stated aims and values of Wikipedia and therefore I broadly support them. I can assure you that I emphatically do not believe in Holocaust denial, ZOGs, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or the rest of it, and that I personally consider David Irving and his like to be a cruel and devious demagogues. Equally strongly, I believe that if phenomena such as the Holocaust are treated as historical events, rather than as unquestionable myths, they may yield useful insights. Bruno Bettelheim understood this, even though he had himself been interned in a Nazi concentration camp, when he questioned aspects of the Anne Frank story. Hannah Arendt also understood this when she wrote Eichmann in Jerusalem.
Many editors of Wikipedia have chosen to be contactable be email. Sometimes contacting an editor off-wiki is a good way to resolve misunderstandings before they escalate. I think that if you had followed this route in this case we might all (including you of course) be feeling a lot less angry and upset right now. I'm not asking you to be any less passionate and adamant in your opinions about the Holocaust, ZOGs or anything else of that kind. I'm simply asking you to be more aware of how easy it is, when we feel passionately about something, to jump to unjustified conclusions.
As I understand it, your fear is, in essence, that if views that are false and objectionable are fairly represented in Wikipedia they are likely to be more widely believed. I sincerely believe this view to be mistaken because I believe that a well-balanced article will encourage the kind of critical reading that will enable people to disinguish what is true from what is not. I cannot speak for .V. of course, but I would be surprised if .V. would disagree with my point of view on this. If you and .V. are prepared to do the hard work of dialogue then you will definitely be able to find the common ground between you and to find a more amicable way to live with your differences. And Wikipedia will be much the better for it. Ireneshusband 18:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Ireneshusband, you can't compare the work of Bettelheim and Arendt with the posturing of Holocaust deniers. There's no intellectual content to the latter.
My main encounter with .V. was on Template_talk:The_Holocaust#Controvery_Section, where he argued for adding Holocaust denial to the Holocaust template. The problem is not so much that he argued for it, as the way he did it; he was trolling, in my view, and we'd be at it still if we hadn't stopped feeding him. Out of 724 edits he's made overall, only 148 of them have been to the encyclopedia. Most of his talk page comments have been to (from the top) Holocaust denial, Zionist Occupation Government, Criticism of Holocaust denial, International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust, and 9/11 conspiracy theories. He's also turning up at other articles related to Jews to help revert on behalf of known troublemakers.
.V.'s first edit after he'd set up his user page was to add the citation needed template, so he's not a new user. His first edit to a talk page as .V. was to Talk:Minstrel show, where he argued that slaves in the U.S. should not be referred to as Americans. A previous user arguing the same position was Velocicaptor (talk • contribs) who has also edited as 71.240.17.138 (talk • contribs) [11]; the latter's sole edit was "What a crock! Free negroes could not vote or own land, therefore they weren't "Americans," with the header "Shoot from the lip articles." Velocicaptor restored a reference to Hitler in the New International Encyclopedia (an article he created in July 2005 as 71.240.7.68 (talk • contribs)) calling him "the most influential person of the 20th century," [12] then argued on talk that Hitler was "charismatic." [13] User:Velocicaptor was set up on August 22, 2006 and edited until September 24. User:.V. was set up on August 31, 2006 and edited sporadically until the beginning of November, then stepped it up a bit. Perhaps .V. could say whether he's Velocicaptor, and which other accounts/IP addresses he has edited as. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
This is my only account ever on Wikipedia, although I was editing off and on (mostly vandalism reverts) for about a month before I made my account. I had an account on Wikiquote which I forget the username of. As I recall, I started a quote page. Hmm, I wonder why most of my talk page discussion has been on controversial topics... maybe because the topic is controversial and requires more discussion? No, it couldn't be that, too obvious...
Anyway, I find this absurd. Your comments seem to be directed at this "Velocicaptor" user, not me. If you think I'm him, why don't you submit a request for Checkuser instead of bringing out baseless accusations? It seems in your extensive investigation, you forgot to look for any evidence that would actually prove your claims. Dates for joining and such is neat and all, but let's see some actual proof here.
As for this Velocicaptor, I don't know the user. I do recall the discussion however, and I believe my logic was that, until given freedom, the slaves were captured people from Africa. Would you say that American POWs in the Vietnam War were Vietnamese? No way. However, if the POW was given freedom and decided to stay in Vietnam... that's a different story.
So please, go do a Checkuser before bringing these unsubstantiated claims against me. .V. (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
All you had to say was "no", yet you launched into a lengthy reply. Why are you a member of this project? Where have you contributed positively to the project, and where can I find discussion about Jewish history on your end? I'm a little confused as to why you are a member. What do you have to offer? —Viriditas | Talk 00:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
All I had to say was "no"... when someone is going around calling me a Holocaust denier and trying to get me booted from Wikiprojects, I think I'm entitled to a response.
Anyway, I'm a member of this project because one of the fields I'm interested in is Jewish history. I find it interesting, and as such, it's always been a hobby of mine. I'm particularly knowledgeable in the subject, although not in a professional sense. I was under the impression that when you join a Wikiproject, you make an effort to improve articles related to Jewish History. However, I was not aware of any kind of time limit or required rate of edits. I have a busy life, so it's not always easy for me to take time out of my day to edit everything I want to edit. Might I ask, what's the required rate of edits (per month, week, whatever) to remain in the project? .V. (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
You are indeed entitled to respond, but you replied to only some of my concerns. I'm also concerned about the edits you admit to, and that most of your editing has been to the talk pages of Holocaust denial, Zionist Occupation Government, Criticism of Holocaust denial, and International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust. These are not articles about Jewish history, but about attempts to corrupt and deny Jewish history. It's therefore understandable that members of the project should be confused by your involvment here, and replying to our concerns by asking "Might I ask, what's the required rate of edits (per month, week, whatever) to remain in the project?" isn't helping to dispel the sense that you're trolling. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. Because I am in this WikiProject, I can't edit those articles for some reason? I've noticed you've made edits to several of those articles as well. The people responding to me on those talk pages (well, some of them, including you) are part of this project also. So why the double-standard? .V. (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
We don't only edit those pages. Can you give any examples of articles you've edited that scholars of Jewish history might see as part of the study of Jewish history? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why that should be a concern. Do I have to edit certain articles now? .V. (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
You're being asked for evidence of interests in areas that this project covers. If you have no such interests, it's not clear why you want to join. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Given that most (I think most, maybe all) of the edits you're citing are within the examples of categories given by the project, I think that counts (as I said below.) If that's not enough for you, I'm afraid you'll have to take my word for it. .V. (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to note that on the front page of this project, it says examples of categories which are included. The articles you cite seem to be within those categories. So what's the problem here? .V. (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
You said you were interested in Jewish history and had knowledge of the subject. I'm curious, putting the 20th and 21st century aside, what particular aspect of Jewish history interests you? —Viriditas | Talk 02:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm particularly interested in ancient Jewish history. I first stumbled upon it when I was learning Latin. I remember translating a bunch of information about the topic during that course. At the time I wasn't familiar with the ancient history behind the Jews, and as a result, I decided to look into it further. I found it very interesting. .V. (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Can you give concrete examples of your interests? And if you're interested in ancient Jewish history, why the focus on Holocaust denial and ZOG? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Which aspects of ancient Jewish history would you have translated from Latin? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Can you give me an example of what you're looking for? I'm not quite sure what you want. As for the translations, I'll see what I can do about remembering specifics. It's been a while since I did those translations. Probably about... 7 or 8 years? Anyway, several were about Jewish people. I'm pretty sure they may have been based on actual events, but I believe they were created by the publisher of the textbook for the sake of providing a translation. There was also a first-hand account of the events of Masada, as I recall. .V. (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
People beginning Latin usually translate Roman texts about Roman society, for obvious reasons. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the program I did was a series of books consisting of stories which read like a novel in that it had chapters and an overarching plot. For example, one of the books was about a philosopher who lived in Pompeii before the eruption. As the books progressed, the Latin got harder and harder. More historical material became interspersed through as time went on, such as the Masada piece. Eventually we ended up translating Latin texts like the Aeneid.
But, it seems I forgot to answer your question about ZOG/Denial. When I search Wikipedia, I tend to surf from similar article to similar article. For example, I did a bit of restructuring on New World Order (Conspiracy), and followed a link to the VeriChip article and reverted vandalism, then followed another link elsewhere. As I recall, I came across the ZOG/Denial articles after I reverted vandalism on a page and then found these (as you can see, most of my early edits are vandalism reverts. I'm quite an avid recent changes patroller.) Because I have open discussions on the talk pages, I've been hovering around those articles recently. .V. (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, since your interest is in Category:Ancient Jewish Roman history, you could help the project by going through those articles and categories, adding assessment or project tags, adding critical comments for improvement, determine image and move requests, and check naming convetions. You could then report back to the project on your findings. —Viriditas | Talk 04:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I'll check that category out when I have the chance. .V. (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is an example of .V.'s "assessment" related to Jewish history: [14]. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
That's an excellent example of the problem with Humus' allegations. It seems that neutrality is being interpreted as favoring a side. Changing an article to have more neutral language does not mean I support a particular viewpoint. I think the edit speaks for itself. Saying "widely criticized" without a source is inherently weasely, as per WP:WEASEL. It's inherently vague; widely criticized in academic circles? With historians? With the general public? It also is very similar to the "Some/Few/All" section of WP:WEASEL. Also, it's true that the IHR covers topics other than Holocaust Denial/Revisionism. The revision before my edit made it seem as if this was all they did. If you don't believe me, go check out their website. .V. (talk) 05:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd also like to note that no editor other than Humus had a problem with this statement for about 2 months. It was in the article since 20 November and was removed about 25 minutes ago by Humus. Other editors even fixed corrections within the statement, showing that obviously people noticed it was there. So it seems it was an acceptable edit for months... odd that it would suddenly become objectionable now. .V. (talk) 05:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
May I recommend making some kind of contribution to the project sooner rather than later? Otherwise, some people will question your Holocaust-related edits in light of your membership. As it stands, working on assessing articles in the above category will both help this project and show your good faith. If you go back to making contentious ZOG and Holocaust denial-related edits prior to doing this, I don't see why your name should continue to be listed as a member of this project. Feel free to remove it if you want. —Viriditas | Talk 04:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd love to, but I'm preparing for a trip out of town. I probably won't have time to do any major editing very much until I return. As for continuing my current discussions, I hardly think that discussing contentious issues merits anyone from getting booted out of a WikiProject. I'd like to reach a conclusion to those discussions before starting anything new, anyway. .V. (talk) 05:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
What are your arrival and departure dates? You seem to have plenty of time for discussion, but little for helping the project. You've declared your topic of interest, and I've pointed you in the direction of contributing constructively to the project. Now, you say you have to go out of town. I would like to bring your attention to the nature of Wikipedia editing patterns. Editors who have been here for any length of time recognize contribution patterns that emerge out of seemingly random data. Geogre's Law is but one example found in AfD, while others may be found in topic-oriented discussions and article contributions. In your case, a pattern is emerging which is diametrically opposed to the goals of this project. If you can't find the time to contribute in your area of interest, again I ask, why are you a member? —Viriditas | Talk 05:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
As I said, I like to finish things I start before moving on to new things. As for going out of town, I'll be leaving Wednesday and getting back Monday. I may have internet access, but I'm not sure. But before I respond further, might I ask why my edits are "diametrically opposed"? .V. (talk) 05:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I've removed your name from the membership listing of this project. Your contribution history as well as your comments on this page, make it clear that you have no interest in this project. Have a good trip. —Viriditas | Talk 13:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow... you won't even explain why my edits are diametrically opposed to the group. Why's that? Maybe because you can't? It seems like baseless assertions have won the day. Well, I guess that's all-too-common on the Internet, and I shouldn't have expected anything different here. Maybe I'm just used to people using reason instead of just doing things when they feel like it.
Well, good luck in your project (because it really seems to be "your" project, as you have this amazing power to remove people from it because you feel like doing so.) .V. (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

(L-shift) And here is .V.'s attempt to remove Category:Anti-Semitic canards: [15]. All in the interest of NPOV, of course. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

A Canard: "a false and baseless claim."
NPOV: We can't take a stance on controversial subjects.
There's no way that calling an allegation "false and baseless" is NPOV. This was the issue we were discussing on the talk page of ZOG. There's a majority of opinions in the RfC that say it should be removed from the article, do you care to comment? We can go to mediation if you like, as I noted on your talk page.
The CfD passed with a "no consensus" vote, not a keep. Enough said. .V. (talk) 05:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I suggest the reader to take a look at the category in question. A certain pattern of .V.'s view of Jewish history emerges. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason why you never respond to anything I say, but rather keep talking as if no reply was given? I do encourage the reader to take a look at the category in question, along with the NPOV policy and a dictionary definition of canard. Simple enough. The reader should also examine the discussion on the ZOG article about this category, and how a majority of users are in favor of removing it. .V. (talk) 06:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The basic rules would be:

  • Is the editor compatible with Wikipedia. If so, they are compatible with the project, if not they are not.
  • Their personal views are not important. Remember that original research isn't allowed, so it doesn't matter what their views are, as they aren't going in.
  • Don't be prejudiced about someone's editing, just because of the views they hold; they may still very well be capable of editing without prejudice. I dare say that anti-holocaust-denial supporters also have a view they would like to push, but many still edit neutrally.
  • No-one has a right to expel anyone else from a WikiProject.
  • If they are trying to bias wikipedia articles, that's a matter for RFC, not discussion here.

--User talk:FDuffy 20:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC) If you are a holocaust denier then you should be BANNED from a jewish project!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree with you entirely, FDuffy. But if someone's going to hassle me this much so they can WP:OWN a Wikiproject, they can have it for all I care. .V. [Talk|Email] 04:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Location of the Jewish quarter in old Kaifeng

Does anyone on here know where the original Jewish quarter was in comparison to other famous land marks in 12th century Kaifeng City, Henan province, China? This was the home of the Kaifeng Jews. (Ghostexorcist 19:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Raoul Wallenberg

Raoul Wallenberg is up for a featured article. Please read the article and leave critical comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Raoul Wallenberg. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 14:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carter's Peace not Apartheid

I'm hoping some of you might take a look at a dispute between myself and NYScholar at the bottom of the Palestine Peace not Apartheid discussion page (Section 19: "Criticism vs. Carter's response") and weigh in. To me it seems that the main article is very much not neutral and skewed toward's Carter's POV, but NYScholar is trying to reject my proposed changes. Any input would be appreciated. Gni 16:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Music of the holocaust

A question at the reference desk demonstrated WP's lack of content regarding Music of the holocaust. (See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Music_of_the_holocaust_and_other). Some red links brought to our attention by Antandrus (whose answer at the link posted above includes more relevant information): Dawid Ajzensztadt, Dawid Beigelman, Vladimir Durmashkin, Israel Glatstein, Jakub Glatstein, Jósef Koffler, Joachim Mendelson, Marian Neuteich, Nochem Shternheim, and Izrael Szajewicz. I didn't find a more suitable project for posting this observation. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this here! Yes indeed; important topic, and it does not yet seem to have much coverage. I may be able to help some in this area myself. Antandrus (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I have started an article: List of composers associated with the holocaust. While it is in construction it will be here [16] Feel free to add to it now. I know this won’t help fix the red links, but I hope it will help consolidate the information. S.dedalus 06:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Argentina

Apparently we have a major discrepancy on the Jewish population of Argentina. - Jmabel | Talk 20:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review for Jerusalem

Some input from members of WikiProject Jewish history is requested in regards to a peer review for the Jerusalem article:

[edit] Jerusalem

I have been working on this article for the past three months and I'm hoping to put this up for featured article status sometime in the near future. Essentially, I'm looking for a critique of the article and suggestions for things that might need to be rectified prior to submitting it for a featured article candidacy.

  • I was a bit worried about the length of the article, but I personally feel it is okay since much of the kilobyte-age comes from the large number of sources rather than from over-the-top text. However, if you disagree, please do offer up suggestions for shortening the article.
  • Because I know the Jerusalem article is (somewhat) controversial, I want to make sure any issues with neutrality (especially in regards to the capital issue) are squared away before making a final submittal. I believe I did a good job, but perhaps something is subtly biased that I did not notice.
  • A good look at the prose would be great. I just finished writing the last section, so I haven't gotten the chance to do a thorough proofread; I'll proceed to do that this week while this peer review takes place, but by all means chip in.
  • I want to ensure the facts are correct. I have never been to Jerusalem, so my writing comes exclusively from extensive research. If something looks factually incorrect, please fix it or make a note of it (although please use caution if the change will conflict with a source). If a source was misinterpreted, please please fix it or make a note of it.
  • I want to ensure foreign-language words are used and/or translated properly, since I'm not knowledgeable in Hebrew or Arabic.
  • I'm not sure what to say about local, city, or municipal government in Jerusalem. I may have to keep it short, but if anyone can think of any ideas, that would be great.

You are, of course, welcome to assist in other areas as well. Thanks in advance for any help you may provide. -- tariqabjotu 16:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Any chance of more citations from the Holy Scriptures? WikiNew 16:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Where do you believe additional citations from religious texts would be useful? -- tariqabjotu 17:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


  • Looks great overall; I have a few POV issues, but I'm sure these are just oversights, and I certainly do not make any accusations as to your opinions or anything like that; we must work together to make these sorts of things as objective as possible, and it's a tough business. I just have a few minor stylistic questions. Rather than go in and mess with your wording myself, I thought I should let you work on your own project.
    1. "and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre among different sects of Christians." -- different from what? would this be better as "some sects" or "various sects"?
    2. "while majority Palestinian areas dominate the north, east and south of the Old City" I think I get what you mean - "areas where there is a Palestinian majority" rather than "the majority of areas which are Palestinian/ majority of Palestinian areas" - but this is a bit ambiguous as it reads now.
    3. The section on The Temple Periods ends by saying that for over 18 centuries Jerusalem was not the capital of any independent state; I like this. It's accurate, it's dramatic, and it's an interesting historical fact. But I think that as this could be taken as a political (i.e. POV biased) statement, it should perhaps be balanced by a brief description of the fact that no independent state called Palestine has ever existed and/or of the Greco-Roman origins of the word.
    4. The last few sentences of the State of Israel section in the history also seems to be a bit tilted. Perhaps a slight expansion would be pertinent on the problems with the city being split, and the causes of the Six-Day War. As it stands right now, I feel it reads as though Israel's capture of East Jerusalem was entirely selfish and vicious, and that its rule/sovereignty over the united city is somehow unfair or unjust.
    5. A more explicit mention of the Three Hills (Mount of Olives, Mount Zion, and Temple Mount) and Three Valleys might be good in the geography section.
    6. In the Capital section, "only two members of the United Nations — Costa Rica and El Salvador — have their embassies located within the city limits of Jerusalem...and several consulates within the city itself." Are these consulates of Costa Rica and Ecuador, or consulates of other nations? Seems unclear from the wording.

Thanks for your hard work. I truly do apologize for introducing POV issues into this, but I think a few minor changes here and there would be good to ensure the objectivity of the article's message. LordAmeth 19:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I'll get back to you on a couple of these points, but it may be best for you to address a few yourself because I don't see the ambiguity with some of them, particularly with your second point. I added the number of consulates in regards to your second point, but I didn't specifically mention that those consulates did not include Costa Rica and El Salvador (since it wouldn't make sense for a country to have an embassy and a consulate in the same city). I fixed the first point, but take issue with doing something about the third point (because mentioning Palestine rather superfluously might sound like a subtle desire for a nation-state by the name of Palestine). -- tariqabjotu 15:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've eliminated the ambiguity I had perceived in the "majority areas" phrase. As for the thing about Jerusalem not being the capital for 18 centuries, all I'm saying is that inclusion of this fact could be interpreted as an argument against the legitimacy of Jewish/Israeli claims on it as their capital. By explaining that there has never been an independent state called Palestine, you discount their claims on it as well, balancing the POV. That's my thought. LordAmeth 12:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I would shorten the religious significance section. The sub pages should be sufficient for most of what is there. That would help with the length issue. I might also link to category: neighborhoods of Jerusalem somewhere. --יהושועEric 03:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree on the point regarding shortening the Religious Significance section. In comparison to the five articles on the religious significance of Jerusalem, the section is quite short, only touching upon the most basic facts about the significance of the city in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. I'm thinking that perhaps the History section could be cut down, but Jerusalem does indeed have a very long history; the summary in the Jerusalem article is much shorter than the full piece at History of Jerusalem. However, I encourage you to make whatever changes you feel are necessary to cut down on the length. At some later date, I'll calculate how much readable prose is in the article (so we can compare the article with WP:LENGTH), but I'm rather confident there won't be a tremendous issues since there are a heck of a lot of sources that do not count toward the readable prose total. For comparison, this is 63kB of prose. As long as this article is less than 50-55kB of prose (WP:LENGTH actually says less than 60kB), any objection based on length alone would not be warranted. -- tariqabjotu 15:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I determined that the article in its current state is 34 kB of readable prose, well within the limits of WP:LENGTH. See User:Tariqabjotu/Jerusalem. -- tariqabjotu 04:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kraków pogrom

Hi, could someone please take a look at the Kraków pogrom article? I've recently tagged it as part of this project, and there has been some discussion regarding sources and its status as a pogrom due to the confirmed number of deaths being one. I would appreciate if someone could stick their head in for a look? Thanks SGGH 08:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jerusalem on WP:FAC

Jerusalem is currently undergoing a featured article candidacy. The FAC page is transcluded below (feel free to remove it from this page if the FAC gets too long):

[edit] Jerusalem

Peer review

The Jerusalem article is comprehensive and very well-referenced, fulfilling all of the featured article criteria. Although there has been some controversy in the past about the idea of Jerusalem being the capital of Israel, the article has remained relatively quiet and stable, with objections being very rare. The article presents the city of Jerusalem in a neutral light with "brilliant" prose. The article does not use any fair-use images and it does not appear to violate any standards set forth by WikiProjects and Wikipedia in general. Before anyone gawks at the length shown when hitting the edit this page link, I would like to note that there are only about thirty-four kilobytes of readable prose; that is well within the "rule of thumb" established by Wikipedia:Article size. -- tariqabjotu 04:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. The reference for it being the largest city seems very strange indeed. Don't they have a census?--Pharos 08:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, I know; I agree there are too many sources for that one fact (there is a census) and for the fact regarding Jerusalem being a Jewish center since the 10th century BCE. Take a look at #Sources (January 2007) from the talk page. -- tariqabjotu 11:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I have shortened the references in question accordingly. -- tariqabjotu 13:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I've re-lengthened them. Unfortunately, this claim was the subject of a lengthy debate and edit war that lasted almost two months, until sufficient high-quality sources were provided so that it was indisputable. Sadly, certain topics are going to be disputed ad nauseam until they are proven to death, and the coffin nailed and chained shut with a giant padlock. This happens to be one of them. Jayjg (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
        • A response to Jayjg has been provided on the talk page of the article. -- tariqabjotu 20:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Jewish_history_4271.html"