Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut:
WT:JEW
Archive 1 Archive 2
Archive 3 Archive 4
Archive 5 Archive 6
Archive 7 Archive 8
Archive 9 Archive 10
Archive 11 Archive 12
Archive 13
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] Template:Messianic Judaism renominated for deletion here

The last tfd, the closing admin must have been on crack when he said lean towards keep. So I'm going to nominate it again. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 09:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Support --יהושועEric 18:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

34-8 consensus for deletion, with the deletion going through properly this time. A deletion review has been opened here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_13#Template:Messianic_Judaism DanielC/T+ 18:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see I wasn't notified of this deletion review on my talk page, even though I was mentioned by name on it, AND I was the person to recreated the TFD. -_- Oh well. Lol, someone accused "accused" me of being Jewish. That is SO going on my userpage.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 03:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Tetragrammaton

There is currently a dispute over whether the word "Adonai" is singular or plural for the purposes of the Tetragrammaton article. Any and all commentary is welcome. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 22:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I just posted a rather lengthy post on that talk page explaining my understanding of the issue. The gist is that A––nai is literally plural, but when used by the Bible is nearly always acribed with singular nouns and adjectives. In my opinion the translation "my Lord" is most appropriate when used in context; "my Lord(s)" may be appropriate for a literal translation, but should be used with an explanation because of its heretical and obviously inaccurate implication of polytheism. —Rafi Neal 17:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It is ludicrous to suggest that the Tetragrammaton (which we pronounce A––nai) refers to multiple deities. Have you ever heard of pluralis majestatis? JFW | T@lk 18:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MJ AMA Request

Inigmatus has opened an AMA request for advocacy against "Jewish editors" who he believes have "have bandwagoned many good, properly sourced Messianic Judaism articles to VfD death", also stating that "Jewish admins enforce the deletions." Normally this wouldn't concern me - if advocacy is what he feels is needed, I believe we all would be quite happy to work with an advocate. What's distressing is that he states in the request that "death threats have been issued to MJ editors." If this is true and it's come from Judaism project members it's a major problem that we need to examine here. I haven't personally seen these threats, but I don't get around as much as many here do. Can anyone help verify this? I've asked inigmatus to comment here regarding these threats. DanielC/T+ 10:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Without evidence to back this up Inigmatus will have some difficulty explaining himself. MJ editors need to stop pushing their nefarious agenda on Wikipedia. They can have their own articles about their own beliefs which we should mercilessly fact-check. They cannot claim that they are a branch of Judaism, because no single mainstream Jewish branch recognises MJ as such. Therefore, to suggest otherwise would be WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and potentially trolling. JFW | T@lk 12:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It was this edit by (now banned) User:Daniel575, I think. — coelacan talk — 12:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the editor from the memberlist. We should have no desire to associate with such people. DanielC/T+ 17:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That is indeed a horrible thing to say. This kind of ghastly verbal terrorism feeds online antisemitism. I agree that this editor should be seen as unwelcome on this project. I will also make it abundantly clear that this was one individual editor, and that these were not specific death threats but simply deeply disgusting generalisations.

It always bears quoting Rabbi Meir: "May sins disappear from the land (Psalm 104) - G'd doesn't want sinners removed, he simply wants them to stop sinning." It is with this in mind one should go about dealing with MJ/JFJ people. It is obvious that Jewish editors on Wikipedia will not tolerate MJ staking claims of legitimacy within historical Judaism. How about WP:NPOV? JFW | T@lk 21:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish feminism

Please see the discussion at Talk:Jewish feminism#Does Jewish feminism really exist?. Thanks, IZAK 12:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blue in Judaism

Could someone take a look? I think ancient Egyptians can be safely moved out of Judaism section, but I've never heard of Jews who "painted their... heads, and other parts of their bodies with blue dyes". The same text is repeated in Blue#Religion:Blue in Judaism. ←Humus sapiens ну? 12:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Messianic Judaism/Memorandum of Understanding

This is something we should take some interest in, because the whole issue has been causing a lot of trouble. From their POV, what they are asking for on this page sounds quite reasonable. Rather than ignore it, because guidelines will eventually be established for this dispute, I think an alternative policy that respects WP values should be formulated.

Here is an alternative suggestion:

The sect that calls itself Messianic Judaism considers itself Jewish, and at the same time incorporates ideas that are central to Christian theology. There should be articles discussing what the group believes, and anything unique about them should be described. That is what Wikipedia is all about. This is true despite the fact that no Jewish denomination considers what the group practices to be Judaism, nor do many Christian denominations regard them as Christian.
As a sect that combines elements from the two religions, there is no reason to add specific references to "Messianic Judaism" in articles dealing with general Jewish practices, any more than there is for doing so in articles dealing with Christianity. For instance, there is no justification or need for links or references to Messianic Judaism in the articles on Tefillin or the Gospel of Mark. Whatever is unique and notable about the sect, and not identical to either Judaism or Christianity, bears description in its own space.
Furthermore, Judaism's long shared history with Christianity forced it to clarify its own positions in opposition to Christian doctrine, positions are central to Jewish belief. The relatively new sect calling itself Messianic Judaism currently rejects these historic positions, and that rejection should be described in its own space, because it exists. Such rejection is not, however, of importance to the description of either historic Judaism or Christianity, nor to mainstream Judaism or Christianity today.

I urge people to refer to this statement of principles when the issue comes up, which it often does. Also to give feedback and improve them, of course.

Lastly, these people seem to have a kind of persecution complex, as if "the Jews on Wikipedia are out to get them." Let's not feed that complex. Keep the argument principled, don't attack or malign, and also enlist the help of educated, mainstream Christian Wikipedians who can help keep these things in a reasonable perspective. Dovi 20:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"This is true despite the fact that most Christian denominations and no Jewish denomination considers what the group practices to be Judaism . . ."
Actually, are there RS showing that any non-MJ Christian denomination considers MJ to be Judaism? Important point. DanielC/T+ 15:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No halakhic support for egalitarian innovations in Orthodoxy

Centralized discussion at Talk:Partnership minyan#No halakhic support for egalitarian innovations in Orthodoxy. Thank you, IZAK 10:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charity

Someone ought to fix Alms#Judaism, which presently contains only the sentence: In the Jewish tradition, charity is secondary to tzedakah, or redistributive justice. --Smack (talk) 05:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bigotry

I'm being accused of bigotry over suppression an external link to a non-notable article on Talk:Ten Commandments. Could others please comment whether this is a reasonable accusation? JFW | T@lk 22:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about story...

I have a question about the following story:

"The shochet must be a learned and pious man. A story I once read about a shochet goes something like this: The old shochet had retured and the rabbi had to help choose a new one. When one of the people in the town, a friend of the rabbi's asked about the candidate the rabbi had seen today, asked about the new potential shochet. The rabbi shook his head. "Did he check the knife for sharpness and nicks?" The rabbi nodded. "Did he slaugter with one smooth, clean stroke?" The rabbi nodded again. "Did he say the proper blessing?" The rabbi nodded. "Did he drain the blood and check the lungs?" The rabbi again nodded. "So, what is the problem?" asked his friend. "The old shochet used to cry afterwards" replied the rabbi. That is the ideal shochet, one who not only follows the proper proceedures in slaugtering the animal, but whom is sensitive and not blood thirsty, who knows that the eating of flesh is a consession. (source of the story is unknown, if you know, please e-mail me so I can properly credit the source)." [2]

I didn't write this, I found it on a random Jewish website. Has anyone else on here ever heard this and know the touching story's source? I would really like to know. Thanks. (Ghostexorcist 01:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC))

I do not know a source for that story, but is sounds hasidic. The view expressed in the story is not universally accepted. Jon513 19:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Is it the "crying" thing that is not accepted? You are right about it sounding Hasidic. The only reason I say that now is because I ran across another story, after posting this, that dealt with the Baal Shem Tov telling a new shochet that the old one wet his honing stone with tears and not spit. I'm assuming this is a Hasidic tale since it mentions the Baal shem tov. What would be a universally accepted view?(Ghostexorcist 20:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC))
I didn't say that the view was not accepted, I said it is not universally accepted. Some say that indeed eating meat is a concession (for which there are a variety of Aggadahic sources for), others focus on the strict halakha that eating meat is permitted and therefore impossible that one should feel bad about it (ie morality is defined by halakha). Jon513 20:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate your insight. (Ghostexorcist 20:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Book

Does anyone know of an English language book that focuses on the history, training (i.e. sharpening of his knife, recognition of disease, recital of prayers, etc.) and day-to-day job of the Shochet for all forms of Judaism? I can only look so much stuff up on the internet. (Ghostexorcist 07:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC))

There is a book by Rabbi Levinger from Zurich (Shehita in the year 2000 or something like that) which is slightly apologetic but has much relevant information. JFW | T@lk 08:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I found the book online, it's called Schechita in The Light of The Year 2000. (Ghostexorcist 18:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC))
In my search for a book on the Shochet, I ran across one called the Dinim de Sehita y Bedica written for Aaron Mendoza. It was a 48-page spanish language book, with accompanying text and illustrations, that was published in London in 1733. If you would like to see it click here (PDF format only). I’m afraid my Spanish isn’t very good, so if there are any spanish-speaking Jews out there, this might be of some interest to you. (Ghostexorcist 19:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)).

[edit] V'Imru

I submitted V'Imru for proposed deletion on the grounds that the article was basically just a dictionary definition and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The article creator removed the proposed deletion tag on the grounds that the religious significance of the word "v'imru" is that when one hears it, that is the signal to say "amen". My question is whether that is enough to constitute religious significance. After all, standing up is part of a religious service as well, but we don't have an article titled Please rise. --Metropolitan90 07:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should have one for "and we rise"? :-p Tomertalk 03:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
PROD was removed. It's on AFD now: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V'Imru. JFW | T@lk 10:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How?

How can I be a part of the WikiProject Judaism? Jonathan Haack ... Oemb1905 19:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Click on the link "project page" on top, scroll down to Members, and click edit. Or simply click here. Welcome! ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category for discussion: Antisemitic canards

Category:Antisemitic canards has been proposed for deletion here. Some input from people familiar with the topic would be appreciated. I personally would like to know if "Antisemitic canards" is the term used in reference works to describe this topic, or if there is another, more common, term. - Jwillbur 01:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] eh... Jewish music is too red...

Someone looking for something to do, that doesn't involve much in the way of controversy, might consider tackling some of the redlinks in the article on Jewish music (the article itself could use some help as well)... It's a pretty sad day when we've got an article on V'Imru but not on, e.g., Abie Rotenberg and the Miami Boys Choir... Tomertalk 03:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding "matrilineal descent"

I moved the following post from the top to the bottom (Ghostexorcist 06:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC))

Why is it so commonly accepted for articles to be edited according to Orthodox Judaism's stance on what determines Jewish status? Even a few long-time Wikipedians seem to experience a bit of difficulty differentiating between what is a religious belief (i.e., applicable only to those who actually hold it as true), and material suitable for an encyclopedic website. An overwhelmingly significant number of Jews (not only in the Reform movement, but also in the Conservative movement[citation needed]) make no distinction between gender in the case of interfaith parentage. I think there are quite a few articles in need of a revert when it comes to this particular subject, so long as Wikipedia hold its neutrality policy in place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.215.6.89 (talk • contribs).

I added the citation request to "in the Conservative movement" above, because the C "movt" is, despite its various other halakhic "problems", unequivocal in its rejection of the notion of "matrilineal descent". C Jews accept children of mixed marriages as Jewish iff they're raised as Jews and upon reaching the age of ascent declare themselves to be Jewish. Technically, although it doesn't necessarily carry the weight of a halakhic giyur (and, esp. according to the C movt, needn't), this is regarded as analogous to a conversion w/o judgment regarding the status of the parents [because the sins of the parents aren't imputed onto the child]. That viewpoint is very different from that of the R "movt", which says as long as a child asserts claim to Jewishness (regardless of commitment to keeping the mitzvoth), that child is Jewish, "halakhically valid" parentage notwithstanding (a perspective that's completely understandable, given the R movt's rejection of halakha as "binding" upon the movt as a whole, or upon its membership as individuals).
What the above anonymous commentator seems to be griping about primarily, is the fact that lots of Jews don't follow halakha, and that therefore Judaism shouldn't be defined by the parameters of halakha. This is not only incredibly flimsy logic, it's completely antithetical to what makes Judaism Judaism. By extension of this messed-up illogic, just because a lot of Jews decided to believe Jesus was mashiach, suddenly Christianity could easily become the ultimate arbiter of who is/n't Jewish. In other highly localized areas (which I think is the primary flaw of the anon's argument...hir experience is exclusively "local", completely ignorant of Judaism [which most American secular Jews believe to consist primarily of "Holocaust lamentation coupled with leftist political activism"] outside hir experience), this logic would lead one to believe that Sabbateans, Frankists, Karaites and/or Dönmeh should be the arbiters of who is/n't a Jew, or "enough of a Jew", or "the right kind of Jew". "Even a few long-time Wikipedians" aren't experiencing difficulty differentiating between religious belief and material suitable for an encyclopedic website, what's actually going on is that "a few long-time Wikipedians" are adept at discerning between sectarian POV-pushing agenda-driven editorializing and the encyclopedic presentation of dry citable facts. Tomertalk 09:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I would recommend a read of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, which requires the inclusion of religious beliefs relevant to a subject -- particularly when the subject is religion. If you believe the views of particular Jewish denominations are underrepresented in particular articles, feel free to add additional content on them. Please be sure to supply reliable sources for any content added. However, a claim that the views of Orthodox Judaism are not "encyclopedic material" or are inappropriate for an article on a Jewish subject is inconsistent with Wikipedia's core policies. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I would add the caveat that it needs to be made clear that the views are those of Orthodox Judaism in particular (I'd hope that this is how the article in question presents the view at the moment). --User talk:FDuffy 00:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Isaiah 53

Would members of this project mind glancing at Isaiah 53? I just want to make sure that the Jews and Christian POVs are being accurately represented, and that we aren't giving any undue weight. Thanks for your help.-Andrew c 15:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks OK. Do the JFJ articles have any sources that we could quote directly? JFW | T@lk 20:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dov Ber Pinson

I was going to nominate this for speedy deletion until I found that he actually has authored several books. I'm not sure what should be done with it now. --DLandTALK 16:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Many people have written books. That does not equal notability, especially if the books are in Hebrew/Aramaic and the readership is a rather select group. JFW | T@lk 20:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAC on a Jewish topic

Hello, the article Trembling Before G-d is currently a featured article candidate. Anyone who's interested is welcome to cast an eye over the article and discuss its FA candidacy. Thanks! —Angr 18:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Surprisingly balanced article. Naturally makes uncomfortable reading for many. I wonder how Dubowski's film about muslims will fare. People have been fatwa'ed for less. JFW | T@lk 20:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] help needed with Nudity in Judaism

Help is needed for the Nudity in Judaism article, as it is, it's an exact copy of the christian nudity article, and is full of incorrect information - or I should say information that has no jewish source, even though (some) christians might believe it (naked prophets for example).

I'm leaning toward just asking to have it deleted, but perhaps it can be fixed, or made to be a counter to the christian article. It does list a bunch of sources but I have a feeling they are being mistranslated, or that the commentary explanations are being ignored - which is fine for a christian article but not for a jewish one. 71.206.197.105 02:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Nominated for AfD. --Shirahadasha 07:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] here's a strange article

Commentaries on the Bible: Jewish. Don't really know what to do with that one, so I'm passing it on here. — coelacan — 13:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems to have been created to be a counterpart to the Commentaries on the Bible: Christian article. I say delete, as we already have pages about Jewish exegesis of the TaNaKh.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 08:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirected to Rabbinic literature. JFW | T@lk 22:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I've moved the Commentaries on the Bible:Christian article, because the first section is oxymoronically entitled Jewish Commentaries. --User talk:FDuffy 00:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Sons of Jacob

IMHO, this template should be renamed Template:Children of Jacob, since Dina is clearly not a "son", and is mentioned in the header as well as the body of the template. Thoughts? Tomertalk 05:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I support either a move to children of Jacob, or just removing her from the list. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 18:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heeeellp fellow Jewish Wikipedians!

I have no idea how to to file the right kind of request for comment or mediation or arbitration, or whatever. I have a determined troll following me around "proceduring" me to death. He has been following me around through a series of articles that I have been working on, constantly editing things while I am in the process of editing them too, demending changes, moving things around.

One of the big problems, frankly, is that the topics I am working on require some knowledge of Hebrew and a lot of knowledge of Jewish philosophy and theology. This editor, who knows nothing about these matters, is simply creating one stumbling block after another, always citing some wikipedia procedure. He appears to be going to my contributions file to see what I am working on, and then going there to mess something up. He appears to try to be in the article at the same time that I am there.

I frankly don't want to know all the Wikipedia policies and procedures. I want to write. I've been doing so for about a year, and so far, I've been very happy with it. I've asked him to back away. I asked him to come back and edit the article later in the day, or in the evening. I've offered for both of us to leave and come back in a week, to allow some other writer a chance to work.

Wikipedia needs contributors who are writers, who know a subject well, who do careful research work in the subject and write well balanced and thoroughly sourced articles. I am such a person. I don't claim authority in any field, like an advanced degree. (I do have a degree, I just don't claim that it matters here on Wikipedia.)

What I can do is easy to see from what I have done. I have started dozens of articles, and never had one deleted, working some of them through to completion. Many of them are on serious scholarly topics. I enjoy writing. I don't claim to "own" these articles. If I wanted that, I would write somewhere under my own name.

What happened to me over the last few days was an incident of procedural harassment. I have never experienced anything like it. User:ZayZayEM has been following me around through a group of articles that I have been working on, creating a long series of procedural problems. Each time, he cites some Wikipedia policy for why he is right.

I'm not interested in arguing about Wikipedia policy X or Y. I am interested in writing. I am not interested in going thourgh some kind of elaborate Wikipedia arbitration determination procedure, in which we somehow determine who was right.

It's very simple. There are 1,697,300 articles on Wikipedia that this person could be working on, and most of them do need work. User:ZayZayEM could be working on any one of them, but instead, he chooses to harass me.

Looking at his recent logs, his last RfC was a few days ago. I've never had one. I didn't even know what an RfC was until a few days ago. This user is simply looking for fights.

If I'm supposed to go to some kind of arbitration panel and write some kind of elaborate defense or request, I'm outta here. I'm not interested in spending time doing that. I've never bothered to figure out how to cite logs, and I don't want to. User:ZayZayEM has presented an endless series of procedural hurdles, and such a process would be more of the same, and a complete waste of time. I'm sure that once the process was finished, he would be back to more of the same.

He knows nothing about the topics that I am trying to write about. I would welcome a collaborator or two who does, but this fellow isn't that collaborator. He simply creates endless headaches. Each time, he cites the wikipedia policy under which he is of course "right," but if I then try the same thing back, or try to suggest something else, there is some other Wikipedia policy under which he is also right.

I've read that Wikipedia is interested in the product, not the process. Well this user is obsessed with the process, and presents endless hurdles to improving the product.

If your answer is that I'm supposed to file wiki-dot-colon-xxxcite-procedure and wait for a wiki-xxxxarb-med-committee to volunteer to handle the case, my answer is no. That's his game, not mine. I'm sure he is good at it too. --Metzenberg 05:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Calm down. You're taking Wikipedia way too seriously at the moment. Sit back, take a deep breath, and relax. If you actually read their messages to you, he makes a lot of sense. Yes, Wikipedia is about writing, but it is also about policy. If you want to write and disregard policy, you should discontinue editing and create your own website. That user is simply trying to help you do both at once by giving you policies that will help you with your writing.
You have taken all of his messages way too seriously and have gotten to the point where you said he was a stalker who was harassing you, which is a stretch at best. I've taken a look at his contributions and he's editing everywhere, not just on these pages and he's been an established editor, not administrator, for several years. This user now feels like they are being harassed and personally attacked by you. I hope you understand that he was just trying to help you to get it right the first time. I know from your talk page you said you would disappear, but hopefully you still read this message and maybe gain something from it. --pIrish 17:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Israel?

Project Judaism is now a part of Project Israel? Really? DanielC/T+ 18:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it. Seemed ridiculous, but I thought I was the only one who felt that way. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 18:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holy Land and Holy Land (Biblical)

Please comment here on a proposed merger or restructuring of these two articles. They currently contain a large amount of common content. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree. Identical premise. JFW | T@lk 22:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Racial Program for the Twentieth Century

I've never heard of this book before, but it would seem from the content of the article, and of the talk page, that the article's editors are heavily weighed towards an anti-Semitic view. The article says that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are an "allegedly" false document, and attempts to prove the validity of a global Jewish conspiracy, stating that the Racial Program is widely believed because "these documents accurately describe collective Jewish behavior that Jews work very hard to either conceal or deny attention to through their ownership of much of the white world's mass media."

Admittedly, the article is categorized under forgeries, and contains some other portions that are quite neutral and objective in their phrasing. Nevertheless, I think it would be a good idea if someone knowledgeable and/or interested in the subject would take a look at the article, see what can be changed and fixed, and keep an eye on it for a bit. Thanks. LordAmeth 09:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] House ARI needs help

- NYC JD (interrogatories) 19:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review for Jerusalem

Some input from members of WikiProject Judaism 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] Please see the deletion discussion for List of people who went to heaven alive

This article's name isn't the best (replacement suggestions are welcome), but the concept of ascension into heaven is important in a number of religions. But the article is inadequate without a better, fuller description of Jewish scholarship on this. Several editors in the deletion discussion apparently think the idea of ascension into heaven is "a joke." It seems to me that the best response to that is to improve the article and show the concept is not treated as a joke by those who take religious questions seriously. Please take a look at the article and the deletion discussion and consider contributing to both.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who went to heaven alive

Noroton 19:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Racism in Talmud

Could someone take a look at Talk:Criticism of Judaism#Racism in Talmud section? Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 19:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for Wikipedia:Vital articles

Copying the message below from my talk page, please add your suggestions. Thanks ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Do you notice to WP:VA. This page does have a problem with being Eurocentric. I proposed some notable persons and other things. But I'm not knowledgeable in the case of Judaism. Also there is a debate about religious leaders and scholars in Wikipedia talk:Vital articles#Religious scholars and leaders. Please participate in the discussions or invite other knowledgeable wikipedians in this case.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 15:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question on NPOV in an article describing Halachah

I am planning on expanding the article on chametz, maybe translating the Hebrew version or writing my own from scratch. I have a question about NPOV: it seems that Wikipedia articles on Jewish tradition tend to qualify with "Observant Jews traditionally do such-and-such." This seems cumbersome in an article where every practice mentioned is only maintained by observant Jews. It's much more comfortable for me to write "Chametz should be destroyed..." and it will be obvious to readers that I'm describing the Halachah's POV, which is the topic of the article. Another possibility I have considered is "Chametz is destroyed," which sounds more objective. Any suggestions? —Rafi Neal 17:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

As long as the intro makes it clear that the article describes a traditional Jewish practice as codified by Halacha no further weasel words are necessary. JFW | T@lk 18:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
There are a number of notable variations within observant Jewish practice, for example on the status of kitniyot; Ashkenazic Jews don't eat them but Sephardic Jews do. I would suggest starting out by identifying the practices of Orthodox Judaism including variants, then presenting any varying views by Conservative Judaism. I'm not sure if they have any official differences but can research. Perhaps they may have decided to permit kitniyot or some such. My understanding is that the view of Reform Judaism is that all these practices are optional but some of them might be of spiritual benefit. --Shirahadasha 19:25, 8 April 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):

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jerusalem

Tariqabjotu (talk • contribs), 05:20, 2 April 2007

Please avoid transclusion. These pages can snowball, especially with topics that are potentially political. JFW | T@lk 07:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FDuffy, a chronic problem

I discovered today, not for the first time, the extensive damage caused by the single user FDuffy (talk • contribs). I suspect the main problem is that most members of this WikiProject are not familiar with either this user's agenda, the poverty of his sources, the untenability of his POV, and the Jewish sources necessary to debunk his waffle.

Many users have had difficulty with Francis Duffy. It started with Sons of Noah, which was moved back and forth to Table of Nations at Duffy's insistence. Codex Sinaiticus (talk • contribs) spent a lot of time working this out. Months later, the article still has tags on it.

I ran into the same Duffy on Ten Commandments. He unilaterally changed it into a disambiguation page to the Ritual and the Ethical Decalogue, reflecting his POV that Ex 34 contains the "real, original" Ten Commandments - something only Bible critics believe and has not gained popular acceptance. Duffy spawned Wife-sister narratives in Genesis (not originally titled that way). This is part of a long series of articles with unencyclopedic titles retelling the Book of Genesis according to his God-King, Richard Elliott Friedman.

Shirahadasha has done battle with Duffy too. I'm unsure of the particulars, but it must have been bad.

I need some help from other users going through Francis Duffy's contributions and making highly necessary improvements. A lot of it can go to AFD, cleanup, NPOV, NOR and {{fact}}. JFW | T@lk 12:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently dealing with FDuffy's edits to the various tithes -- Maaser Rishon, Maaser Sheni, etc. A good deal of the material he added was properly sourced to the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia and will eventually be restored. However, he simply wiped out all the material on current Jewish practice, halachic decisions, made in the 20th century regarding the status of obligations with respect to them, etc., creating an article that gave an impression this was a biblical thing with no modern counterpart. He also presented as fact an opinion by the JE editors that tithing was folklore as distinct from a mainstream part of the religion. I don't mind the biblical criticism parts that he added (principally to the effect that there was only one tithe and the different tithes we know today represent different claims about "the" tithe by different sources) as long as they are properly sourced, don't go beyond what these sources say, are put in an appropriately designated section, and are not presented as fact. Best, --Shirahadasha 15:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think JE should be officially deprecated as a reliable source. Actually, it is just an encyclopedia. And it's as biased as hell towards the so-called scholarship. In Francis Duffy's case, it prevents the really important sources from being presented.

I'm also not opposed to a mention of biblical criticism, but it should be mentioned in context, in parallel with the traditional views, and with problems clearly outlined. JFW | T@lk 16:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment on the JE. I have not found any source as complete as the JE on a wide variety of Jewish topics. It is old, true, but since when do we "deprecate" sources for that reason? Also, I have no problem with articles such as "wife-sister parallels" or whatever. This sounds like it might prove to be an interesting resource to people, though possibly it should fall under a broader heading, such as "parallel stories in the Bible" or something like that. (Which could then be accompanied by an [huge] article called "parallel aggadah in the Midrash and Talmud". That would be a fun one to write!) My own perspective is that a JE article which is brought up-to-date and de-biased is about a million times more valuable than what 99.999% of Wikipedians could ever compose given infinite time. (And I include myself in the first 1%). —Dfass 14:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Shirahadasha, please read this article in the Jewish Encyclopedia. Then please read the dates that Maaser Rishon and Levite Tithe were created. Now that this has rendered you more informed, please consider whether you are so certain where the article came from, and which one is the POV fork (I was rather bemused when I found out who had created the Maaser Rishon article).

The only objection to the Jewish Encyclopedia that I can see you having is that it sometimes goes presents evidence against your beliefs. Asking for a document to be 100% true is statistically unrealistic, it is far more likely that not all of it is (try checking the odds down at a bookmakers for a non-zero number of things in it being wrong). And as for calling the Jewish Encyclopedia just an encyclopedia, and therefore unreliable, this is just an encyclopedia too, so are Easton's, Catholic Encyclopedia, and the Encyclopedia Brittanica, all of which already form the basis of a very large number of wikipedia articles; to discount one of the most respected of these for just being an encyclopedia, means that you also need to discount the rest, and that you must scrap the huge chunk of wikipedia which is based on them. It throws your bias into sharp contrast for some of you to call the Jewish Encyclopedia biased as hell against Judaism; has it escaped you that the people writing it were Jewish?

And calling my edits extensive damage, when all I am doing is adding in content concerning the views of respected and notable Biblical scholars, archaeologists, historians, and classical rabbinical sources, is really quite suggestive that you want to keep out any view that deviates in any substantive way from your own views. I suspect the main problem is that some members of this WikiProject are not familiar with WP:NPOV, WP:AGF, and WP:OWN. And of course, pointing out WP:STALK goes without saying. --User talk:FDuffy 22:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know what the argument is about since I haven't been following it at all. All I've gotten from what little I've read seems to be that you think an encyclopedia is a reliable source. You might want to read the section about primary, secondary, and tertiary sources here. It specifically talks about why encyclopedias are not reliable and then goes on to say exactly why certain ones are reliable so long as they meet certain criteria (such as the Encyclopedia Brittanica). --pIrish 00:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
It says articles signed by experts in Encyclopaedia Britannica and encyclopedias of similar quality can be regarded as reliable secondary sources (emphasis added). The Jewish Encyclopedia article states Jenny Mendelsohn, of University of Toronto Libraries, in an online guide to major sources of information about Jews and Judaism says of this work, "Although published in the early 1900s, this was a work highly regarded for its scholarship. Putting these two together .... --User talk:FDuffy 00:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
You're reading what you want to, but not what you need to. The Encyclopedia Britannica is updated every year to reflect changes that have happened during that time, that's what makes it so valuable and high quality. Even then, the day it is published, it is already out of date. Information does not stay the same in the span of year, let alone the span of an entire century, thus, encyclopedias must be updated to reflect that. The Jewish Encyclopedia was a work highly regarded for its scholarship. The very Wikipedia page for the encyclopedia also has quotes that say "Much of the material is still of value to researchers in Jewish History" (not all) and "For events prior to 1900, it is considered to offer a level of scholarship superior..." (not events or discoveries of new information after that time, and there have been a lot). It's a great source for general information and events that occured before it was published, but it cannot be relied upon heavily due to the simple fact that it hasn't been updated in a century and time does not stand still. Even the page you quoted says that. --pIrish 17:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I also consider FDuffy a chronic problem, with edits like this: [3]. JE is one of important historic resources, let's keep in mind that it was published in 1906. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Unless you can evidence from Reliable sources that the academic position has changed since it was published, and in which details and directions it has changed, then it really doesn't matter whether it was published in 2007 or 1702. Oh, and that's an edit to a talk page, not to an article, and its about whether the bible says that all Canaanites should be killed, and their culture destroyed, or not, if it does, that's clearly advocating genocide (but whether it does or not isn't a matter that really merits discussion on this talk page). --User talk:FDuffy 00:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You are not citing academic sources. You are using a 100-year old Encyclopedia as a reference without even providing access to the lemmas you are citing. This is bad practice, continuously unacceptable, and repeated exhortations have not made you change your habits. I feel it is my duty to alert others, and I will not enter into direct discussions with you anymore. Your agenda is blinding you, and your bias is showing. JFW | T@lk 21:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This user behaves very arrogantly without any edit comment or discussion he removed large amount of information from Levite and replaced the page with his own version [4]. Forbear 21:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me be clearer about the difficulties with the Jewish Encyclopedia in this area. A critical difficulty is simply that it's a century out of date. One area of Jewish religious law that has developed extensively since it was written involves religious obligations related to the Land of Israel, and particularly those involved in agriculture. Jewish religious law developed extensively in these areas during the 20th century as large numbers of religious Jews became involved in agriculture in the Holy Land and responsa by rabbinic authorities were developed to address questions regarding the applicability of ancient Jewish agricultural laws to modern situations. One example is the Maaser Rishon. The Jewish Encyclopedia article discusses only the Bible and ancient times, but subsequent to its publication views on the applicability of these obligations in modern times, and how to satisfy them, were published and became notable. Thus, relying on the Jewish Encyclopedia here would be a bit like deleting all references to the United States and insisting on referring to Massachusetts as a colony based on an article in a 1750 encyclopedia. Problems of anachronism are inevitable in a source this old. A second problem is that the Jewish encyclopedia takes a particular editorial position -- one User:FDuffy appears to share, as he is entitled to do, but only one position among others. Classical Reform Judaism generally took the view that much of religious ritual is nothing more than unmitigated superstition to be denigrated and done away with. The Jewish Encyclopedia editors shared and wrote from this view. In the subsequent century, however, Reform Judaism backed away from its former virulent anti-ritual stance and adopted a more tolerant view of ritual, as a legitimate option to consider and a source of potential spiritual benefit. Thus, the Encyclopedia's characterization of belief in tithing as "Jewish folklore" does not represent a current Jewish position, and should not be presented as fact in any event. That said, much of the Jewish Encyclopedia material is legitimate and can be incorporated in the article, as long as existing content isn't simply erased and written over with content wholly derived from that source, and as long as Jewish encyclopedia content is properly attributed, and when editorial views are presented, they are presented as its editors' views and not as fact. --Shirahadasha 18:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to Levite

I agree that the rewrite to Levite by FDuffy happened without discussion and for no good reason. JFW | T@lk 22:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Other pages that have received the same treatment recently are Tribe of Reuben, Tribe of Simeon, Tribe of Naphtali, Tribe of Zebulun, etc. While there is nothing wrong with that in principle, it seems these rewrites are being prepared offline and then copied & pasted into existing namespace content. Surely that will make collaborating a lot harder. Naturally, all articles listed simply refer to JE and Friedman's book without citing the lemma or page number. How is one meant to verify the content, let alone have a reasonable discussion about the suitability of the source in question? JFW | T@lk 23:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I think we are going to have to insist on footnote-style sourcing for these articles given the need to present different views and to attribute each view. In my view, if a user simply erases existing content and rewrites an article to present only one view in a way that prevents sourcing the multiple views separately, a revert is warranted. However, if a user adds new content to an existing article without erasing the existing content, sourcing problems can be addressed by adding {{fact}} tags to each contested sentence or paragraph added to represent a request for footnote-style sourcing where needed. I believe this would address the sourcing issues and a revert would not be appropriate. --Shirahadasha 19:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate text of the haggadah

I would appreciate community input at Talk:Haggadah of Pesach#set text of the haggadah in regards to a dispute I am having with user:Rickyrab whether the text of the traditional haggadah should be presented as the text with modern alternate versions presented as a minority view, or that the traditional should be presented as one of many alternate versions. Jon513 17:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] new wikiproject and template

Heads up Wikipedia:WikiProject Kabbalah, Template:Kabbalah --Shuki 19:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

To misconstrue the entire Kabbalah as "occult" is more than just slightly radical. Unfortunately, Kabbalah means a lot of things to different people. JFW | T@lk 23:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Would hope we would have some Kabbalah experts who could join and keep an eye on the project -- there appears to be some danger of the project being taken over by occult/popularization/Kabbala lite types not grounded in serious scholarship. --Shirahadasha 03:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the aims of that WikiProject are quite genuine, e.g. they want to write about the Chasidei Ashkenaz. Do we actually have any "Kabbalah experts" on Wikipedia? JFW | T@lk 06:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Judaism_1a41.html"