User talk:IZAK/Archive 25

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IZAK (talk · contribs · count · email)

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 →

Contents

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006

The December 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Birthright Israel

Hey, I thought I has posted here to ask for your help, but I guess not. Anyways, there's an anon user at the Birthright page adding an extremely PoV "Controversy" section making totally outlandish claims. I came up with a compromise section, but the anon refuses to budget. Would you please weigh in on the issue? Thanks. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 21:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry I have not been able to follow up with this. IZAK 18:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Category:Shot-down aviators

Well, it's a sub-category of Category:Killed in action, so I'm guessing it was intended only for those who were killed; but it's a pretty bad name for a category either way. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 21:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

What happened to WP e-mail?

Hi Doron: Hope all is well with you and yours. You have not enabled your Wikipedia Email feature in your "tool box" on the left hand side of your user page. Sometimes editors overlook that when it's a useful way of staying in touch with other editors. Best wishes. Lehitraot, IZAK 14:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I attempted to enable my WP e-mail but it never happened. Doron has been here much longer than me, but it could be that critics of Zionism (even ones living in Israel!) find it difficult to make this feature work. PalestineRemembered 22:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Tell me more about the "critics of Zionism" IZAK 07:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Cat vs. :Cat

Hey IZAK, what did you mean here when you added ":"? Shabbat shalom. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi Humus: The ":" is used just to show a category and not to put an article into a category. The problem here was that whoever put this feature into {{Judaism}} template created a problem whereby any article that had the {{Judaism}} on it was then automatically dumping those articles helter-skelter into Category:Judaism so therefore I placed the ":" into it to stop that. I hope I have managed to explain myself. Shavua Tov, IZAK
Hmm. The colon (:) puts "Category:Judaism" wherever the template is transcluded, usually at top page. Perhaps the best is to remove it altogether from the template or have another cat, Category:Part of Judaism series? ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Humus: A "Part of Judaism series" sounds like an awfull waste of time and would be a complete duplication of everying to do with Judaism. IZAK 18:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

australian synagogues

This seems to be from August but my guess is that it wasn't empty before, i probably stumbled upon an article about an Australian synagogue and created the list, then that article was removed from the category/deleted. Amoruso 20:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi Amuruso: Ok. IZAK 03:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Korban article

Hi IZAK, Shavuah Tov, and have an easy fast. The intro you added to the Korban article contains some general statements that may not be strictly true in some cases and perhaps should be qualified. In particular:

Korban (Hebrew: "sacrifice" קרבן) (plural: Korbanot קרבנות) refers to any one of a variety of sacrificial offerings described and commanded in the Torah (Hebrew Bible) that were offered in a variety of settings by the ancient Israelites, and then by the Kohanim (the Jewish "priest/s" only) in the Temple in Jerusalem. The system of offering any kind of korban ended with the destruction of the Second Jewish Temple.

a. there were free-will (non-"commanded") offerings, so perhaps "specified" or "described" might be better language. b. About the "only" in "Jewish priest/s only". For non-communal offerings ordinary Yisraelim brought them, could perform shechitah, etc. Perhaps "and then through the Kohanim (Jewish priests)"... might be better language, since "through" may be a little bit less exclusive than "by" and the "only" isn't needed. c. There were occassional attempts at reviving korbanot after the destruction, e.g. during the Bar Kochba Revolt. Perhaps "Despite occassional isolated attempts at revival, the offering of any kind of korbanot ended..."

Best, --Shirahadasha 03:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi Shira: Shavua Tov. Seems to me you are mentioning very minor tangents. And while we are on this topic, perhaps it would be best to say "Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionists do not accept the notion of Korbanot" and leave it at that instead of going on and on about why, how, what they laadeedaa do or don't "hold", and I am very puzzled why you cut out the teachings of Chazal and the classical rabbis about the meaning of Yitzchak's near-sacrifice and how human suffering is viewed as a substitue for Korbanot, even though there is no Beit Hamikdash. IZAK 03:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Central Asian Jews

Hi, I recently saw your edits to Jews and Judaism in Kazakhstan and Jews in Tajikistan. Per the naming used on Islam in country articles, and Christianity in country articles, shouldnt these be titled "Judaism in Kazakhstan" and "Judaism in Tajikistan"? Also, I see the categories seem to be Jews and Judaism, so the question also applies to them. KazakhPol 05:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

    • Hi Kazakh: Your question is a good one. The important thing to know is that "Jews" and "Judaism" are not always the same thing. Judaism is a religion, BUT most Jews do not practice it, but they are still nevertheless Jews by ethnicity because a Jew, unlike any other person person, is a member of an ethnicity ("Jewish") and may or may not also be part of, practice, or believe in, the religion of Judaism at the same time. See the Jew and Judaism articles to explain the key differences between these two notions and you may also want to read the Who is a Jew? article. The problem with the articles you mention is that they incorporate information about Jews in those countries in general (that has nothing to do with their religious life) with information that relates to Judaism (a very specific religion and clearly defined religion). Thus, it is best and most accurate that the title/s of the article/s reflect that they are about Jews and Judaism. If the article/s were devoted to Judaism primarily (meaning the religion of the Jews) then it would be correct to call them "Judaism in _____" but that is not the case and it is false and misleading to call them by that name, regardless that many general readers not familiar with this information assume that Jews are also part of the subject of Judaism which they are not. (Think of all those Jewish communists in Russia who were outright atheists who hated allreligion, including Judaism, yet they are still called and correctly regarded as Jews because ethnically that's what they are, part of the Jewish people, regardless of religious beliefs or affiliations.) I hope I have clarified, feel free to ask. (P.S. Being Muslim is not an ethnicity, but being Jewish is.) Thanks. IZAK 05:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:IDF_badge.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:IDF_badge.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Done. See {{Military-Insignia}}. IZAK 15:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It's okay, I know.

I used to be a member of the jewsforjudaism.org forums. So relax. Funnily enough, I didn't see your complaint about the new wikiproject, and I created a separate section myself! In any case, hope to work together in producing a better Wikipedia, free of propaganda by fringe groups.


דברים 6:4 שְׁמַ֖ע יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ יְהוָ֥ה ׀ אֶחָֽד
--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 12:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi Kirby: Oh, I'm very relaxed. Behatzlachah with your efforts. Feel free to call on me at any time. Kol Tuv, IZAK 15:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Inigmatus's comments

User:Inigmatus had posted [1] the following:

Oh awesome, IZAK, you have a friend in your crusade against Messianics. Best of luck. If you like, I can volunteer to help design a user page banner and barnstar, and maybe even a wikiproject called "Anti-Messianic Police" - I mean, with 20+ pages and templates related to the category, I think just the two of you will have your hands full. I can help with recruitment. However, if you guys ever really want to talk about theology and issues (assuming you alone don't have the corner on truth), feel free to email me sometime. Shalom! inigmatus 17:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

but then backpedaled and deleted it [2], claiming that: "sorry didnt mean to post that. i was being a jerk. it's not very Yeshua-like. erased" I was nevertheless going to post before he did so, and here it is:

  • Inig: A Jew cannot be on any "crusade" (something that happened against Jews, but perhaps that is part of your confusion on this subject.) At any rate, I am not against the Messianics in the way that you think, What I am against, is the way you and some other editors have taken the liberty to "adopt" articles and subjects and twist information on Wikipedia related Jews and Judaism alone to popularize Messianic Judaism. By all means write as many articles about Messianic Judaism, that is your right as a Wikipedian, but to create a MJ presence on Wikipedia on the back of Jewish and Judaism-related articles is supersessionism, plagiarism, and original research of the highest order. IZAK 18:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't confused about my using the term "crusade" in my deleted message to you. I think it served as quite appropriate reminder of how the tables seem to be turned here. Messianic Judaism does not ride on the back of Judaism. Messianic Judaism exposits, and then points to Judaism and Christianity and lets the reader decide for themselves between the three. I can't believe you seem to want us to create our own pages such as "Messianic Halakha" or "Messianic Tefillin" or "Messianic Gartel." Even you would admit that such contributions would be redundant. If you want us to create more pages for you to police, then so be it. inigmatus 18:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  • "Messianic Gartel" ???????????? (watch out, don't say that to a Lubavitcher!) Anyhow, now I think I have heard the absurdest of the absurd! Hahahahahahahahahahahaha etc ! 20:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)~
    • Technically, you can't "plagiarize" anything on Wikipedia...but the Messianics' messyantics will have sunk to a new extreme low if this gartel business goes anywhere. There is no such thing as "messianic halakha", at least not as distinct from any brand of Christian dogma, anywhere in a range between Seventh-day Adventism through Apostolic Faith and various sorts of Pentecostalism to Baptistism. Even our article Messianic religious practice, to which Messianic Halakha is a redirect, deals with superficial beliefs of a cross-section of messianic groups...it certainly doesn't detail anything that might properly be described as halakha. As far as I'm aware, there is no such thing as Messianic Tefillin, and a google search agrees with me. All of that aside, however, there are a few things that justifiably could have messianic-version articles (justifiably because the messianics have their own versions, not because there's any legitimate justification for their versions). Pesach seder (Messianic) comes to mind, although on further reflection, I think most such articles would most likely be better-described as "Christian-version" than "Messianic-version", since the kinda stuff I'm thinking of is done by a lot of Christians, especially by some groups of American Evangelicals, who make no pretense whatsoever of being Jewish. (I.e, blowing shofar on rosh hashana and even on the rashe chodashim, making `aliya to yershalayim for sukoth, lighting urim during chanuka, having seders, eating matza during pesach, holding tiqune lel-shavu`oth, etc.) I forgot where I was going with this, so I'll stop for now. Tomertalk 23:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
inigmatus, this is so self-defeating of you that I honestly am not sure what to say. Do you think I am that obtuse as to not understand that you could view this talk page? Nay, this was a test, to see if you are looking at those which disagree with your views. (I could have very easily sent a private email to this user) Hell, I bet this page is on your watchlist by now. I mean seriously, putting the New Testament as Jewish Scripture under the guise of apostolic? inigmatus, please stop making it an Us vs them situation. Wikipedia is not a battleground. We have to set aside our differences and work together. I'm not even Jewish. However, I have EVERY right to edit Judaism-related articles as anyone else. So do you. And this means, I can undo your edits, albeit with good reason. The bottom line is, I don't want to have to fight with anyone. Please, drop the persecution complex and start being helpful to Wikipedia. Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 01:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It would be helpful if instead of poisoning the well that everyone that has responded in IZAK's talk page in this section, would instead be more constructive by actually listing out specifics that are in dispute, rather than outright being destructive and bandwagoning a senseless VfD to a Messianic Judaism (article/template/bio/u name it) crucifixion. Kirby, with fellow editors like these who try to improve articles by deleting them, it's hard not to have a persecution complex. I will continue to discuss your comments in the Messianci Judaism template in the talk page. I think you have some valid concerns. inigmatus 06:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • If anything is senseless and destructive, it's the subject of this discussion... Tomertalk 18:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Mala Zimetbaum

Based on the sources at the bottom, she seems somewhat notable; first woman to escape Auschwitz etc. I think the article just needs a little cleaning up and footnoting. Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Ok, but was she, who really knows that? IZAK 20:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[3] Jayjg (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey IZAK...From what I'm seeing, I have to agree with Jay, in part...I would disagree with his "a little cleaning up", as I believe it needs a lot of cleaning up. For starters, the article opens with "Malka Zimetbaum, also known as Mala Zimetbaum, is considered by many Jews as a great Jewish heroine." I, for one, had never heard of her until just now. I realize that whether or not I've heard of something or someone is not the beginning and ending of any discussion about notability, so I'm not sure that's particularly relevant...but I'd like to think it counts for something... As for who's going to fix it up, I lack the expertise [and the interest]... Biographies and Holocaust studies come a long way down my list of interests. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to ask Mperel and SV if they'd be interested in pouring half an hour of collaboration into it? Cheers, and hopes for a warm Silvester, Tomertalk 22:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, as long as some people can verify this. IZAK 18:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Trollwatch on Catalanic

Keep an eye on this...an anon went through the article on Christmas and again sometime today, and added a bunch of "skeptic's rubbish". Viz. [4] Cheers, Tomertalk 23:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry I haven't been able to follow up with this. IZAK 18:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for the welcome

Only just now getting back to you Izak to say thanks, it was my first human contact on Wikipedia. You might like to visit my own personal page which is shaping up in response to the challenges of people who come in on the line of "I'm entitled to edit just as much as you, sucks to you". I shall remember your quote about Wikipedia being like yeshivot. I'm not even Jewish myself (not in this lifetime anyway!! - I say this because so much of it, esp. Moses at present, seems so close and familiar...). Keep up the good work! Lucy Skywalker 14:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Lucy: Thanks for contacting me. If I can be of help with articles relating to Jews and Judaism let me know. I am not quite sure what you mean by "[my] quote about Wikipedia being like yeshivot" -- could you clarify this because I am mystified as I do not think that Wikipedia is like any yeshivot (but I had once asked someone who was writing about Judaism articles if he had ever been inside a yeshiva.) Sincerely, IZAK 17:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Jews and Judaism in Uzbekistan

When you get a chance, please take a look at Jews and Judaism in Uzbekistan. Thanks, KazakhPol 19:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Ok, will do so now. IZAK 19:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. You made a good start. Thanks. IZAK 19:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

re: Adolf Hitler's contacts with Jewish people

I've added {{nn}} to the top, we'll see whether anyone can demonstrate that the subject is worthy of its own article. I'd recommend contacting those editors who have worked on the article in the past (it's not exactly a new article), to see what they've got... I can't help but notice that the article doesn't even attempt to bring sources that would indicate how Hitler's contacts with Jews might have influenced him, positively or negatively...which is the only reason I can imagine the article bearing any claim to notability whatsoever. That notwithstanding, even if notability is established, the name needs to be changed to Adolf Hitler's contacts with Jews. "Jewish people" in this case is quite clearly a misguided euphamism by someone who thinks "Jew" is pejorative. Tomertalk 02:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks Tomer, at least that's a start. IZAK 02:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a very strange article. The person who created it created other strange articles as well; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish-Arab conflict. Jayjg (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree, that's why my Wiki-antenae are up... IZAK 02:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I've now also added {{orphan}} to it... It's interesting so many editors could have found the article over such an extended period of time when it isn't linked to anywhence! Tomertalk 02:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Izak, I have AfDd the article. gidonb 03:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Mercifully, it's gone now. IZAK 18:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I rather doubt it will be missed. :-p Tomertalk 21:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Zionism and racism

Another article I had thankfully forgotten. It's mostly original research mixed with a re-hash of other articles; in any event, it has been moved. Jayjg (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Ok, thanks. IZAK 03:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If this comes up again--phone me! <g>

I just happened across Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy/Archive_23#Informing_the_creators_is_being_ignored which went down when I was busy in RL. Applause. If there's an new fight, ... just yell (with a whisper)! <g> Happy New Year! // FrankB 08:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi nkB: The Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#How to use this page has it right. It lays out the three steps ("I,II,III") that must be followed, even providing the useful templates. I am reproducing it in full below. NOTE point III: "Give due notice." -- such a model should be on all VFD pages IZAK 16:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC):

To list a template for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace TemplateName (do not include the namespace identifier "Template:") & template with the name of the template to be deleted)

I
Edit the template.

Enter the following text in the top of the template or inside the box (where applicable):

{{tfd|TemplateName}} or {{tfd-inline|TemplateName}}

Please include "nominated for deletion" or similar in the edit summary, and don't mark the edit as minor. If the page is heavily in use and/or protected, consider putting the notice on its talk page instead. Also, try to minimise page disruption by using the Preview button to check the revised template, as its new look will be visible on all pages that use it. Do not blank the template.
II
Create its TfD subsection.

Click on THIS LINK to edit the section of TfD for today's entries.

Add this text to the section, at the top:

{{subst:tfd2|template name|text=Your reason(s) for nominating the template. --~~~~}}
  • Suggest what action should be taken for the template.
III
Give due notice.

Please consider adding

{{subst:tfdnotice|TemplateName}} --~~~~

on relevant talk pages to inform editors of the deletion discussion. This is especially important if the TFD notice was put on the template's talk page.

Also consider adding to your watchlist any templates you nominate for TfD. This will help ensure that your TfD tag is not removed.

Renaming Zionism and racism

Sounds right to me.--Lance talk 10:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  • It was done already by Jayjg. IZAK 18:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

answer

It should be merged into other such articles and all should be moved under "critism of israel and zionism" similar to islamic apartheid Zeq 16:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  • It was done already by Jayjg. IZAK 18:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Muslim Rambam r"l

Wow... I have not heard of this. Let's check the big encyclopedias and if the Judaica and the Britannica don't have it, then let's remove it. - crz crztalk 18:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess Abu Imran Mussi did permit this, but would he himself have done it? I doubt it. He would probably have gone al kiddush hashem. As for the reasoning behind it: Islam is not avodah zarah. Thus, while this theory cannot apply to Xtianity (which *is* A"Z), it can apply to Islam. In any case, I think the Rambam -and others as well- was more positive regarding Islam than regarding Xtianity. --Chussid 19:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
That's what I said in my message to you. IZAK 19:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually it was on Crz's [5] talk page that I said what you say here. Sorry. IZAK 04:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've sourced the claim. Jayjg (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed your message on some other talk pages. This is a hotly-contested issue. Rambam and his family had to move from place to place within Spain for some time, as the Almohads advanced they may have overtaken the family and forced them to convert. Lewis does popularize the theory that Rambam had to convert to save his life (and later recanted) but other scholars have other opinions. Just off the first two pages of a google search I found the following divergent opinions: [6], [7][8][\

--Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If it's controversial, then the words "alleged" should go into the description, along with some links. Jayjg (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I think another important factor to take into account in this discussion is what the Muslim view is on forced conversions, or conversions under duress... As I recall, the two journalists (their names escape me at the moment Steve Centanni and his photographer from NZ I think?) were forced to convert to Islam before the lunatic fringe that kidnapped them would release them...but afaik, Muslim clerics don't regard their vows as binding bcz of the duress factor. I may be wrong, but it's something that should prolly be checked out... Tomertalk 23:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

See my responses at Talk:List of Muslim converts#Removing Maimonides from the list. Thanks, IZAK 04:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Shirahadasha RfA

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shirahadasha. --Chussid 10:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for flagging this, I have voted. IZAK 12:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Rabbis/Clergy

IZAK-

I noticed that you have been recategorizing some of the Rabbi categories as "religious leaders" instead of "clergy." Aren't rabbis clergy? --Eliyak T·C 00:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Eliyak: Many rabbis would be most offended to be called "clergy" which is strongly associated with Christianity. Times have changed and just as a "shamosh" is no longer referred to as a "reverend" likewise rabbis are no longer called "clergyman" -- when was the last time you heard of, or read in any Jewish newspaper or Torah biography that a major Rebbe, Rov, Rosh yeshiva, posek, or rebbetzin being described as "clergy" or a "clergyman/woman"? Thus, Category:Religious leaders is a far, far better and totally NEUTRAL name and place (and Wikipedia provides it, I did not create that title, so why not make use of it) which denotes exactly what the rabbis are -- Religious LEADERS -- and it also keeps them from confused with Christian clergy like, bishops, monks, nuns and ministers. Hope this explains it clearly. IZAK 21:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I just think that many people will expect Rabbis to be categorized under clergy, since they are the "official" religious leaders of Judaism, and any and all official religious leaders are known as clergy (as in "clergyman"). I think using both categories would be best, as is the case with the parent categories, Category:Religious leaders and Category:Clergy. --Eliyak T·C 22:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Eliyak: I don't get your reasoning. If rabbbis are the official religious leaders of Judaism then it should be correct to classify them as religious leaders without reference to "clergy." Religious leaders is a perfectly neutral term and place. Whereas clergy is loaded down towards a pro-Christian worldview POV. I don't know who you mean by "many people" but it is precisely those misguided people who are thinking "well, probably a rabbi is like a Christian minister who is a clergyman" when nothing could be further from the truth. Within Judaism itself, and in the English-speaking world, nowhere do you find that rabbis are referred to as "clergyman" or "clergy" -- not in Jewish books, not in Jewish newspapers, not in Jewish magazines. When was the last time you heard a Rebbe of Hasidic Judaism called a "clergyman" -- what a joke that would be and what an insult to boot! As it would be insulting them by insinuating that they are like Christian priests (and vice versa.) Words should not be used to gloss over schisms and differences and bridge over lapses in logic and reality and hence in fostering the use of incorrect and probably archaic usage/s, but rather words should strive for greater precison and differentiation and that is what the Wikipedia categories facilitate -- up-to-date usages. Rabbis like to be known as rabbis. Don't make them into what they are not. No self-respecting rabbi I know of or have read about has ever referred to himself as "clergy," have you? Within Judaism rabbis are not called "clergy" and since we are trying to convey "to people" what Judaism is all about and to help maintain clarity, rabbis are Judaism's religious leaders (in Judaism laypeople are not called "religious leaders" at any time either.) IZAK 22:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I understood the difference between the "clergy" and "religious leaders" categories to be to distinguish between people who are simply respected figures within a religion and those who have been officially ordained by the religion. That's the dictionary definition of "clergy" found here, as well as the one used by Wikipedia's clergy article. Regardless of the fact that Rabbis are not usually called clergy by "insiders," they fit the definition of clergy, and I believe they are referred to in this way in non-Jewish discourse (like the clergy article.) Since Rabbis are both officially ordained and act as religious leaders in many various capacities, I think that they should be in both categories. --Eliyak T·C 23:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
How can you decide to call the rabbis by a title ("clergy") they disdain to call themselves by? How do you know that every famous rabbi is "ordained" when in fact it is known that many of them were not known to be officially ordained at all? And how can we know for sure that any rabbis is "ordained" -- there is no "registry" for such things! And since when is "ordination" a requirement for being a leading Jewish rabbi? There are many laymen "balebatim" who have semicha and are officially "ordained" but do not practice as rabbis at all, and there are other Jewish religious leaders who are simply born into families, like the sons of Hasidic Rebbes who become the leading rabbi/s without any formal "ordination" and, indeed, the very notion of the "greatness" of "ordination" in the Western Christian world is non-Jewish, and alien to the classical requirements whereby a Jewish spiritual leader should be first and foremost a very great Talmid Chacham, often one who has published rabbinic literature and an admired Tzadik (hopefully). This is the way rabbis have historically been defined and recognized by Jews and Judaism, and the way all known Jewish books, magazines, and articles write about them. Whoever heard of "ordination" and "clergy" being recognized as anything in the classical Jewish world for thousands of years? Shall we now refer to Moshe Rabbeinu as "Moses our clergy(man)" or to Rebbe Yehuda Hanasi as "Clergy(man) Judah the Prince"? You are not making any sense so far. Thanks for your time. IZAK 04:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe I am making some sense. Semicha is clearly an official ordination, and I have definitely seen it called by exactly that term. Semicha grants Rabbis an official status. The original semicha was the way in which the true carriers of the Torah tradition were offically recognized, as is the current form of semicha. However, as you point out, not all rabbis should be considered "clergy," and many who serve in an official capacity also "lead" in other ways, and so the "religious leader" category applies as well.
The word "clergyman" is not a title, but a general term for any religious leader who is officially recognized, so I would not expect the leaders of any religion to call themselves by that title. Just as stamp collectors or motorcyle builders would not usually call themselves "hobbyists," that is what they are, and that is the category into which they fall. The categories of "clergy" and "religious leaders" were intended I believe, to distinguish between the official leaders who lead congregations and larger religious structures and those who act in a non-official capacity. If you have a better way of making this distinction, please do. --Eliyak T·C 21:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hinduism

Links for Wikipedians interested in Hindu content

--D-Boy 17:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you did a small edit on a Hinduism article. That's why I plastered it.--D-Boy 22:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
So? I didn't ask to join a club. IZAK 23:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Dear IZAK, I'm sorry if you think I have offended you. I did not mean to do so any such way. I was merely thought you might be interested in joining the Hinduism projects since you did a small edit on a Hinduism article.--D-Boy 02:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Dear D-Boy: Hi, really no need for any apology, you did not do anything wrong! So please pardon me for any misunderstanding/s as well. But after I took a good look at the Hinduism greeting template you posted here with that swastika on it, as you know, I was motivated to see if I could stir some debate about it's suitability or not on Wikipedia. Thanks for having the courtesy to contact me and I hope we can continue as friends on Wikipedia. IZAK 05:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Your objection to the swastika

Hi, I saw that you raised an objection to the swastika in hinduism related templates. Although the swastika is widely used in India, I realize that it is inflammatory in Europe and the US, and perhaps other parts of the world. Although the swastika deserves a place in articles related to Hindu symbolism, I don't believe it adds significant informative content to the articles which are likely to include the templates you have identified. --BostonMA talk 23:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

  • So are you agreeing with me that it serves no purpose and should be replaced on the templates in question with something a little more cheerful ? IZAK 23:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Like for example, see the guy who posted one of the templates on my talk page, what the heck did I do to deserve a "welcoming swastika" -- a totally absurd move -- either the guy lacks total perspective and he's clue-less or he is verging on truly "Dangerours" behaviour (note his user name: User:Dangerous-Boy -- obscured with "D-Boy"). Have you ever heard of the Holocaust many people associatete that, and not Hindusim, with the swastika, any swastika, so would it make sense to plaster an image like the one below on Hindu-related pages and templates? Tactless, pointless, and bound to create ill-feeling, right? Or what do you say, swastikas are like cute stickers? IZAK 23:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC):
Benito Mussolini standing next to Adolf Hitler, do you see what Hitler is wearing on his "arm-patch"?
Benito Mussolini standing next to Adolf Hitler, do you see what Hitler is wearing on his "arm-patch"?
As I said, the swastika is widely used in India. Religious books quite often have a swastika in the front pages. Many Hindus are quite naturally proud of their heritage and the thus wish to proudly display the symbolism that is associated with that heritage. Although there is a possibility that placing the swastika on your page was intended to offend, I think it is a stretch to assume that this possibility is what definitely occured. But the intent of the editor who left the template on your page aside, yes, I agree that it would be best to use a symbol which is not so inflammatory. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 23:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh I am not saying that this symbol should be banned, on the contrary, let there be articles about it that explain what it means. Many people recall that it was the symbol of the Nazi Third Reich and all the pain, suffering and trauma that the world suffered under that symbol. Hindus are free to choose many symbols, they believe in many gods, I don't believe the swastika is the symbol of Hinduism and I do not think that it is in their interests to present themselves to the world (to many other non-Hindus) under such a horrible and horrid symbol of modern Fascism. IZAK 23:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say that the swastika was the symbol of Hinduism. However, it is one of the symbols of Hinduism and is widely used. It is unnecessary for us to decide whether "it is in [Hindus] interests to present themselves to the world under under such a horrible and horrid symbol of modern Fascism." It is only necessary to decide whether it is appropriate for Wikipedia to have swastikas which do not contribute to the encyclopedic purpose of providing a source of information. --BostonMA talk 00:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, sounds reasonable. As long as they change it soon on all those templates. IZAK 00:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have placed a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hinduism[9] which is perhaps the best location for a discussion. If there are no responses, I will change the templates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BostonMA (talk • contribs)

  • Very good idea, I should have thought of that myself. But first I thought I'd get some feedback from users I know. Thanks. IZAK 00:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Izak, could we please not fragment the discussion into 20,000 different pieces? If you want to inform people of the change, that's great, but please do so by making a link to the central discussion at WP:HINDU, not by reposting all of your arguments there without any central discussion link. --tjstrf talk 01:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

  • HI, I posted to about ten places, and I am done. I agree that the discussion should be central now. I will let them know. Thanks. IZAK 01:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Hi Izak. I've known about the swastika there for quite some time, and do not find it even mildly offensive. I think, in fact, that it's more than just a little bit disingenuous to decry a religion's symbology, especially one that has enjoyed importance across millennia, as a symbol of life, no less, just because one deranged asshole who was never even remotely associated with that religion, took an adaptation of that symbol as one of the emblems for his diabolical movement. That man, whose name doesn't deserve mention in this discussion, and the movement he led to power, used other symbols as well, notably eagles and crosses. The cross, one of the foremost symbols of Christianity, for what it's worth, is a much more objectionable symbol, given the hundreds of thousands of Jews who were put to death upon them. At the same time, unlike the swastika, the cross is emblematic of death, not life. I think the effort to remove the swastikas as they appear in perfect context in Hinduism-related articles, is in extremely bad taste... the censorship it reeks of is so much more emotionally-based than logically-based that if your recommendation succeeds, I will regard it as far more catastrophic to the intellectual integrity of Wikipedia than proliferation of genital piercing articles. Raq zuzayim sheli... Tomertalk 01:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Hi Tomer: While you may be very relaxed about this, I had not known about the existence of this until today. Imagine my shock when I see a swastika glaring down at me "in warm greeting" on my talk page, what was I being invited to I wondered. And then I see it's "only" Hinduism. Well let me tell you, if I received an invitation in the mail from ANYONE with that symbol on it, I would get VERY upset (putting it mildly) as I am sure many people would, not just Jews, but anyone who lived through or knows anything about World War II would know. I think it's just telling of the times that with the passing of "the bravest/greatest generation" as Tom Brokaw writes about them, people feel "free" to start using symbols and ideas that would never have been allowed a decade or two earlier in this context. Sure for articles it's fine, use any symbol you like, even the cows and snakes that people worship, but a swastika? That throws me big time and I don't think that you should wave it off with an academic excuse. IZAK 01:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Please continue this discussion and post all comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hinduism#Use of Swastika Thank you. IZAK 01:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Talkpage spamming

Dear IZAK. Please do me the favor of never again posting your mass messages on my talk page. Unless it's a request for me, or a message that's somehow meyuchad for my attention, I would rather not receive it. Back when you used to email, it was inobtrusive - because I could easily delete it if I wasn't interested - but on my talk page I have nothing intelligent to do with it. I won't remove it, and I don't like to archive piecemeal. So I am asking to please take me off your marketing list. To be sure, I don't love you any less, but I'd rather not receive the messages. Your friend, - crz crztalk 01:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Sure thing, and I thought by now you were my friend, oh well...I have less than ten people I contact, I hardly use any Email, it's too cumbersome and how am I supposed to reach my true friends on Wikipedia, if not by their talk pages? But retzono shel adam ze kevodo so I will treat you like a non-friend in these matters. See ya. IZAK 01:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Joel C. Rosenberg

Mr. Rosenberg has said in the past, and on his website, that he is a Messianic Jew attending a Messianic synagouge. --DandanxD 12:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Ok, so therefore what is your point? IZAK 04:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Now you're just being a dick

What possible strength do you think this post gives to your argument? From beginning to end, your entire post was just as offensive as you intended it to be. I don't know whom you regard as your spiritual authorities, but if they condone this type of behavior, perhaps you should consider looking elsewhere. If your intent was to commit a chillul Hashem, congratulations on succeeding spectacularly. If not, I await your apology. Shabath shalom. Tomertalk 22:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)\

  • Shavuah Tov Tomer: I had a good cholent, and you? I have re-read my words and I stand by them. In fact I think I should be awarded the next Nobel Prize in Literature for my creative responses (especially for the phrase: "not all of us are ready to willingly opt for early cultural alzheimers and spiritual senility" -- which came to me in a flash of inspiration and which I think is a classic, and I was convinced you would marvel at it's exquisite and unique phraseology, so I am surprized to get this rude communication from you!) to what I see as your willingness to go easy on Hitler (or about his contributions to history or as to how he is remembered -- all the same thing in this case) with the flimsy excuse that you view him as a mere "dickwad": (Your words:) "All the blatherskyte about who might be offended because some unbalanced dickwad from another religion chose to misappropriate an alteration of one of Hinduism's most sacred symbols, is...in a word, 'irrelevant'. Can Wikipedia maintain its integrity allowing a swastika to serve as a symbol of Hinduism? I think the answer is yes." [10] (by the way, what "other religion" did Hitler have? He was not a good Christian [he subscribed to Nietzsche's virulent anti-Christianity, see The Antichrist (book), to its core], and there are many sources that speculate that he was familar with the occult and that he chose the swastika from Hinduism precisely because it was a symbol that would not only evoke and activate evil but also make evil triumph/ant (in other words its connection to evil spirits and real kochot hatuma, see Genesis 25:6 וְלִבְנֵי הַפִּילַגְשִׁים אֲשֶׁר לְאַבְרָהָם, נָתַן אַבְרָהָם מַתָּנֹת; וַיְשַׁלְּחֵם מֵעַל יִצְחָק בְּנוֹ, בְּעוֹדֶנּוּ חַי, קֵדְמָה, אֶל-אֶרֶץ קֶדֶם Abraham sends the sons of his concubines away "kedma" to the "east/wards" [11] and Rashi comments about the מַתָּנֹת that they were NOT physical gifts, but that שם טומאה מסר להם and with this he [Abraham] sent them קֵדְמָה, אֶל-אֶרֶץ קֶדֶם, and Hinduism is all about worshiping one spirit or another and it's not always clear if those spirits are benign or evil [judging by depictions of them in Hindu art, they appear very scary and mostly evil]) and this little piece of moral nonsense: "I empathize w/ IZAK regarding the shock he received getting a swastika plastered on his talk page, and with Mr. Freisling who lost family in the Sho'a. So did I. I feel, however, that it would be a desecration of their memory to give the mastermind of their deaths, may his name, and those of his ardent followers, be rubbed out, power beyond the grave to dictate human expression forevermore. Tom" [12] --- So nice of you to "empathize" who asked for it?: "Human expression"? I had no idea that you thought it possible to "let's 'shrink' Hitler" (as in "Honey, I Shrunk the Kids") into just a little teeny-weeny "dickwad" and then go on to say that if we are too sensitive to swastikas, any swastikas, then we are merely giving old "dickwad" Hitler "power beyond the grave" ...hmm, now assume I went to any of my "spiritual authorities" -- like let's say some who are identical to the hundreds of thousands of rabbis who were killed by old "dickwad" Adolf H's agents (who were wearing swastika emblems and flew swastika flags as they shot, starved, gassed, buried alive, tortured, humiliated, strangled, hanged, experimented on those kindly rabbis, and did things that make the Romans and the Inquisitioners look like a warm-up to the main event), and then if I tried to "read the rabbis' minds" beyond their graves, do you think I would hear cheerful little chimes coming back in the mode of "forgive them Father for they know not what they do" (which sounds to me like a different religion), then sorry, you must be dialing the wrong religion, because I am absolutely certain that I have an excellent and clear understanding of what those Kedoshim (martyrs) would be thinking, and I am certain beyond any shadow of a doubt that they would give me a pat on the back for standing up for their honor and dignity, and for pointing out some grave mistakes to some misguided editors in the Hindu section and their naïveté when they say "oh let's just 're-educate' those dumb 'westerners' that the swastika is really a marvelous symbol for us to adopt, work under, and flash at anyone who breathes near Hinduism articles." You can't say that is smart now, can you? (and I am not sure that they are experts in Hinduism either, as I cannot recall reading or hearing that Hindu leaders have ever insisted that their type of swastika become the official symbol of Hinduism anywhere -- I don't recall ever reading anything about Mahatma Gandhi, the world's most famous Hindu, ever being associated with swastikas or anything that could in any way lead to associating his faith or cause or person with Nazism, you know why, he was smart and would never do something as idiotic as making his religion's or cause's symbol the same as that of the Nazis', (no matter which way the squiggles swerved & swayed on it or you try to rationalize the irrationality of a symbol that is viewed as EVIL by most people I know.) By the way, if anything, my "spiritual authorities" would probably reprimand me for wasting my breath on fools (a lot of them actually say that it's forbidden to be on the Internet, except for business or kiruv reasons.) But I humbly disagree with them (as do a number of other people who do my "line of work" as strange as it is), as you can see, I have great hope that it is possible to enlighten people to what Judaism is about, without caving in to, or worshipping at the modern altars and false gods of moral relativism and moral equivalence. Further than that, I will not respond to the vulgar four-letter word you used against me here so prominently, and I NEVER revert anything on my talk pages (unless it's pure vandalism), so let it stand as a momento of your tasteless over-reaction, which is a clear personal atack that was uncalled for when you could have responded by sticking to the arguments rather than swearing/cursing at me. Forget "spiritual authorities" just wash out your mouth with soap, aka sabon. By the way, I bear no grudge against you and I grant you a full pardon for this act of uncalled-for degrading and dehumanizing language and outburst. IZAK 03:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Yimach shmo v'zichro. --TheOtherBob 05:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Bob, while I appreciate you leaving a message here, kindly specify who you were referring to with this message. Thanks. IZAK 05:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
? The person about whom I've always heard it - Hitler. --TheOtherBob 06:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Bob: ok, that's what I thought you meant, just checking. IZAK 12:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Shavua` tov, IZAK. I will respond to this later, as I think there are some serious issues here that require addressing. Tomertalk 10:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

  • No doubt. No doubt. IZAK 12:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Jayg and Humus vandalizing

Please see Anti-Zionism and Joel Teitelbaum. Jayg and Humus are out to delete all references to jewsagainstzionism.com, claiming WP:RS. --Chussid 10:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Chussid: I haven't looked into this, but Jayjg and Humus are two of the best editors around and they are both very experienced admins, so you need to have well-researched material. Personally, I don't have the stomach for "jewsagainstzionism" -- which godol endorses them by the way? IZAK 04:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)