Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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 13

Contents

Dates

I think that Jewish dates (23 Kislev, etc.) should have pages just like April 23. I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Jewish dates; please continue discussion there.—msh210℠ 00:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Night (book)

In case anyone is interested, Night (book), Elie Wiesel's story, is up for featured article status. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hasidism

Could I ask that at least one religious/observant Jew take a look at my comments at Talk:Hasidic Judaism#Very POV link? The link strikes me as unrepresentative of Hasidism, but perhaps it is all too representative and should stay. In any case, if it stays it should be better captioned. I don't feel qualified to make the judgment on this one. - Jmabel | Talk 02:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The Third Temple and Shekhina articles

Hello, we're getting an influx of what appears to be Messianic Jewish POVs in The Third Temple and Shekhina articles giving what are claimed to be mainstream Christian POVs that -- I don't know for sure -- I suspect aren't very mainstream. Seeems like a repeat of a discussion we had a while back about Passover in which a Jesus-as-Passover-Offering POV was presented (except here we gave Jesus-as-Temple and Holy-Spirit-as-Shekhinah). Can someone with more knowledge of Christianity than myself check these claims out and see if we're getting a representive or a tiny-minority POV here? Also, the relevance of some of the material seems shaky -- there's a discussion going on in the articles' talk pages. Perhaps this could be checked out as well. --Shirahadasha 03:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Award

Has anyone seen the award proposal page? Is there any interest in proposing an award for this wikiproject?

I award this Award to Wikipedian for their great efforts on Wikipoject.
I award this Award to Wikipedian for their great efforts on Wikipoject.

This is a simple sample of what one could look like. If you think it's appropriate, please place a proposal on the page.evrik 18:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Who is "Wikipedian" and what's "Wikipoject"?  :-D Tomertalk 03:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
not such a fan of that one. but something can be done. i may have something to post shortly. --User:Yung Wei 綪永徽 01:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


I award this Award to Wikipedian for their great efforts on Wikiproject.
I award this Award to Wikipedian for their great efforts on Wikiproject.

here's my creation. simple and doesn't ruin the somewhat standardized aesthetic of wikipedia. --User:Yung Wei 綪永徽 01:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I love the third version! Elizmr 18:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Alternate version

Here's an alternate version I just made:

Unfortunately, my Photoshop abilities don't measure up to those of whomever created the original barnstar... --Eliyak T·C 10:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

  • There is a discussion about this going on now here. --evrik 17:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the barnstar I made pending some sort of improvement ideas. Masterhomer 20:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
It would really need to be cleaned up. Perhaps a sheriff's badge colored blue? Valley2city 19:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Aliyah, in the sense of the bimah

There is a vocabulary question at Talk:Aliyah#before and after the reading - Jmabel | Talk 19:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

  • answered. - Jmabel | Talk 04:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0

Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team for Wikipedia 1.0 would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in a small CD release due to their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 0.5 and later versions. Hopefully it will help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please add to the Judaism WikiProject article table any articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one (new) for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist like this one automatically for you, please contact us. Please feel free to post your suggestions right here. Thanks! Walkerma 04:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Judaism's involvement in Wikiversity

Since Wikiversity recently launched, I think there should be a presense of WikiProject Judaism in it. If anyone wants to teach any subject releated on Judaism or wants to help the project in anyway, please let me know. Masterhomer 06:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


CALL TO ARMS: CREATE THE FIRST OPEN JEWISH STUDIES COLLEGE IN THE WORLD

  • Need: Lessons and books
  • Need: Teachers

Wikiversity: School of Jewish Studies

Transcription/Transliteration conventions for Hebrew

I understand there is an official policy for how Hebrew terms should be transliterated, Wikipedia: Naming conventions (Hebrew), which requires modern Sephardic Hebrew as well as apostrophes in certain places. A number of articles -- Chanuyos comes to mind -- are titled in Ashkenazic Hebrew and would need to be renamed, and vast numbers of articles have various words in variant transliterations. There had been a previous discussion about carving out an exception, e.g. for Ashkenazic individual and place names, but this exception doesn't seem to have made its way into the policy. --Shirahadasha 16:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I've moved it. I agree that all pages should be moved to conventional spelling. JFW | T@lk 18:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Clarification: I've been given to understand that this is a draft and that no official policy has been adopted yet. I edited the document to make this clearer. --Shirahadasha 21:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, we're having an interest mix of academics (including folks arguing for Tiberian Hebrew since, being the ancestor of all modern dialects, it's considered philologically representative of them all) and Haredi folks (including folks arguing for Ashkenazic Hebrew on grounds that any other use could lead to apostacy etc.) Perhaps some input from "regular" Hebrew users whose native language is English, and who could represent the interests of the average Jewish-interest Wikipedian, might be helpful. --Shirahadasha 19:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism!!!!

I reverted the Rashi page to a prior edit because of the worst kind of vandalism. <samples removed. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)> (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 20:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC))

We are open to all and unfortunartely, this happens from time to time. I took the liberty to remove examples here: no need to duplicate it. A good place to report ongoing vandalism at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (WP:AIV for short), see also Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress (WP:VIP). Thank you. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Barnstar Award

Please offer your opinion, vote, or whatever about your choice for the image to be used with the Islamic Barnstar Award at the Barnstar proposals page. Although there is consensus for the concept of an Islamic Barnstar Award, some editors would like to change the image for the award. I was just thinking you should be aware of this discussion because you have contributed to Islamic-related articles, received the Islamic Barnstar Award, or have contributed to the Islam-related Wikiprojects, etc.--JuanMuslim 1m 17:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Jews for Jesus#A belief in divinity of Jesus is incompatible with Judaism

Some editors dispute this. Please take a look and express yourself. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Exilarch

This edit claims to correct Exilarch. Since it is an anonymous uncited edit claiming to correct a statement from the Jewish Encyclopedia, I'm pretty skeptical. The issue is whether Jehoiachin (JE) or Zedekiah (anon., uncited) is the last king descended from David. Does anyone know if there is any reason at all to doubt the JE here? If so, please cite; if you are sure there is not, please revert. Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 04:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Transcribed and answered on article's talk section under heading "Which king was it?" --Shirahadasha 05:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC).

New template for articles needing Hebrew script

I have created a new template {{Hebrew script}}, to tag any articles about a place, name, or concept originally written in the Hebrew alphabet, but which does not include that version in the article. It adds these articles automatically to Category:Articles needing Hebrew script, where people knowledgeable in Hebrew can sort them out. The idea was based on {{Arabic}}. Rigadoun (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Member list in alphabetical order

I noticed that the member list off WP:Judaism was not in alphabetical order (though it is supposed to be) and therefore I have taken the initiative to alphabetize it. Valley2city 21:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Masterhomer 22:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the Template section?

Can anyone explain what happened to the template section? I am confused and baffled. Masterhomer 22:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm bewildered...and here I thought we had fixed all the problems with it a coupla months ago... Tomertalk 23:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Typical programming bug- template:tt was missing a "/" --Eliyak T·C 06:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Editor Review

Hi! I've requested an Editor review. If you have time, I'd very much appreciate your thoughts. Best, --Shirahadasha 06:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Defining Halakha LeMoshe MiSinai

Please add your learned comments whether Halakha LeMoshe MiSinai should be part of the Oral Torah article or not. See the discussions at Talk:Oral Torah#Defining Halakha LeMoshe MiSinai. Thank you. IZAK 08:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Jewish WIKIVERSITY

NEW: On Wikiversity there is now a "Jewish Studies School." Will it become a "duplication" of many things on Wikipedia? What should it's goals and functions be? Please add your learned views. Thank you. IZAK 09:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

P'tcha

Rescued from prod. Please improve. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Edits by User:Fduffy to Hebrew Bible articles and topics

For anyone with an interest in all the articles about the Hebrew Bible; Tanakh, Torah and related subjects, User:FDuffy, who is very serious and devoted to the Biblical criticism POV (by his own admission he is a "third year theology student"), has recently resumed serious editing of Hebrew Bible articles and subjects. Please see the extensive edits via FDuffy's contibutions Your involvement, responses and edits would be important at this juncture, especially if you are capable of adding material from classical Judaic sources since most of these articles are lacking the teachings of Judaism, their obvious true source. Thank you. IZAK 11:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

User:FDuffy appears to have identified a single source for his claims that e.g. "most" scholars believe that Samuel in the story of Hannah really refers to Saul. (The source is identified in the King Saul article, although the claim has been added to a number of other articles without copying the source citation). The source indicated is the personal web site of one Rabbi Moshe Reiss, [1], a self-published source. Per WP:RS,

A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

None of the exceptions to self-published sources (e.g. by someone known to be highly regarded in a field) appear to apply here. Accordingly, it appears that all this content is unsourced and should be deleted. I believe this is particularly so since the content makes claims such as "most textual scholars" hold, claims that are clearly so untenable in light of the sources provided as to cast even more doubt on this content. --Shirahadasha 18:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I fought a lot with Francis Duffy last year. He was quite unhelpful in backing up his edits with serious sources, always claiming that his views were those of "the academics" (and presumably were therefore above citation, being obvious fact et al). A veritable war was raging on both Sons of Noah and Ten Commandments, the former with Codex Sinaiticus (talk · contribs) and the latter with myself as his main antagonists. His obvious lack of respect for tradition (see his userpage), his total disinterest for NPOV and his tendency to provide unsourced material are a big problem.
I feel this user should be the subject of an RFC if he has returned to his previous behaviour. There have been enough policy violations in the past, plus a healthy dose of incivility, to make this user a case for worry. JFW | T@lk 20:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
"Obvious fact" is a WP:NOR violation, especially as distinguished from "common knowledge". Tomertalk 23:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I looked up Samuel in the Jewish Encyclopedia, which has the line "Indeed, the temptation is strong to suspect that originally the name (Saul) was found as the hero of the victory, for which later that of (Samuel) was substituted." So there is, or at least was, something to this hypothesis. Don't know whether "the temptation is strong to suspect" ever became "most [or any]critical scholars believe", but if this source is used as a basis, mention could be made of the hypotheisis as long as it is presented (a) in the speculative terms the source states it, and (b) as the Jewish encyclopedia's point of view Will check further, but probably not this week. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The Jewish Encyclopedia says, among other things (note that some of the hyperlinked words are missing from my cut + paste here for some reason):

The outline of the life of Samuel given in the First Book of Samuel is a compilation from different documents and sources of varying degrees of credibility and age, exhibiting many and not always concordant points of view (see ). The name "Shemu'el" is interpreted "asked of ," and, as Ḳimḥi suggests, represents a contraction of , an opinion which Ewald is inclined to accept ("Lehrbuch der Hebräischen Sprache," p. 275, 3). But it is not tenable. The story of Samuel's birth, indeed, is worked out on the theory of this construction of the name (i. 1 et seq., 17, 20, 27, 28; ii. 20). But even with this etymology the value of the elements would be "priest of El" (Jastrow, in "Jour. Bib. Lit." xix. 92 et seq.). Ch. iii. supports the theory that the name implies "heard by El" or "hearer of El." The fact that "alef" and "'ayin" are confounded in this interpretation does not constitute an objection; for assonance and not etymology is the decisive factor in the Biblical name-legends, and of this class are both the first and the second chapter. The first of the two elements represents the Hebrew term "shem" (= "name"); but in this connection it as often means "son." "Shemu'el," or "Samuel," thus signifies "son of God" (see Jastrow, l.c.). (emphasis added)
It seems to me that this source is disagreeing with a claim that Hannah's explanation of why she named his Samuel should be interpreted as representing Samuel's Hebrew name's etomolygy. All it seems to be saying is that the proposition that The name "Shmu'el" is interpreted "asked of" is untenable. I simply don't see how this passage raises a claim that Samuel is really Saul. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with such a claim. One has to engage in WP:OR to draw an inference from this statement to a claim that most contemporary scholars believe that Samuel is really Saul. --Shirahadasha 16:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The New American Bible, in a footnote for 1 Samuel 1:20 says:

Since she had asked: this explanation would be more directly appropriate for the name Saul, which means "asked"; Samuel means "name of God."
This source was never cited in this article. Moreover, this quote again doesn'ts upport a claim about what most contemporary scholars believe. It is hardly couched in terms of suspicion, let alone a claim, certainly not a statement about most contemporary scholars believe. --Shirahadasha 16:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that far from being interested in checking sources, that Shirahadasha, Jfdwolff, and IZAK are far more interested in removing any material that contradicts their literalist/semi-literalist stances on the accuracy of the Bible. Im not sure where the passage that Shirahadasha has quoted derives from, but selectively reading sources, and missing out the main arguments is really not appropriate. And claiming that my source is the website of some Rabbi is completely disingenuous - I had never heard of the Rabbi or website in question until Shirahadasha mentioned it, and I certainly do not see, having read the website, how it could even be considered to be my source. --User talk:FDuffy 14:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I should add that now I will be a 4th year (or rather an MA) theology student. And by the way, being a theology student does not intrinsically make you have a POV; and to suggest otherwise is simply Anti-Intellectualism. Also note that Biblical criticism, for those that don't know, is simply the rigourous treatment of the Bible as a historical text (the word criticism here being a reference to historical criticism (a method of study employed by nearly all historians of literature), rather than meaning anti); it is not a POV - to claim that Biblical criticism has a POV is tantamount to claiming that breathing is a biased action. --User talk:FDuffy

Editors can hardly be blamed for failing to check sources never mentioned in the article, or for failing to draw inferences not explicit in sources mentioned. Our concern here is simply whether this content is supported by the sources cited, and its claimed notability is limited to what the souces can prove.. Please read the WP:NPOV regarding Wikipedia's policy on the necessity of citing the range of points of view on notable disputed subjects, although the issue here involves reliable sources only. I appreciate your pointing out the analogy between intellectual POVs and the biologcal activity of breathing. I would add only that, as with our intellectual points of view, we can become so habituated to our own mode as the only possible mode of living that we become unaware that a diversity of modes is even possible - until we find ourselves in deep water and notice the fish. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

For your information, Jfdwolff, the quote from Jeremiah on my user page is in reference to the documentary hypothesis and how it is backed up even from within the Bible at face value. If I had such a lack of respect for tradition, then how come I always include the classical rabbinical viewpoint where the Jewish Encyclopedia mentions it?--User talk:FDuffy 14:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Re the Jeremiah quote, you have changed it to read: "How do you say "We are wise, and the Lord's torah is with us"? In fact here it was made for a lie, the lying pen of scribes" Try reading the original Hebrew... (Quod erat Demonstratum!) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

FDuffy, the Jewish Encyclopedia is not the final word, neither on Rabbinical scholarship or on the Documentary Hypothesis. Quite on the contrary, it is >100 years old, and even in its day represented a stream in Rabbinical scholarship that was rather innovative (to use an euphemism). Many of the points you quote as the gospel (no pun intended) are highly, highly speculative and rather easily disproven by a slightly less radical look at the text.

I have no doubt that you want to improve the critical scholarship in Wikipedia, and I agree that articles should have reasonable coverage of all views in Bible articles, quite unlike your characterisation of me as a literalist and an anti-intellectual. Your big problem, as I've said only several times in the past, is your failure to cite your sources adequately. Have a look at aprotinin. Before I touched it, it looked monstrous - clearly written by someone with an agenda.[2] It lacked historical context, basic biochemistry etc etc. With the judicious use of good sources it wasn't even too difficult to arrive at the much more relevant, NPOV and well-sourced article that we have now. Similar things can be done with Bible articles. If you represent the POV of the Jewish Encyclopedia or Richard Elliott Friedmann, then CITE IT. However, if you are simply inserting your own thought, then stop, because WP:NOR is one of Wikipedia's strongest policies.

Have you thought about fixing your signature, by the way? JFW | T@lk 19:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this discussion suggests that there is some support for the Samuel-substituted-for-Saul theory. A remaining difficulty is that both the Jewish Encyclopedia and the New American Bible sources seem to use very tentative language, presenting the idea as something of a possibility or a speculative hypothesis, and don't provide a clear idea of how widely the view is held. This language doesn't seem to be consistent with the definite, even emphatic way that the idea is presented in the proposed content. It also doesn't seem to be consistent with statements that this is the view of "many" or "most" contemporary critical scholars. I also agree that terms like "textual scholars" may be unclear and suggest that the views of academic biblical critical scholars should be labeled more clearly, just as the views of rabbinical or Christian religious scholars are clearly labeled as such. Finally, it is often appropriate to separate religious and academic views of these subjects into separate sections, just as (for example) the Jewish Encyclopedia often does. I want to stress that the issue is not the inclusion of the views of Biblical Criticism as such, but issues such as the citing of sources, whether statements go further than can be supported by the sources cited, whether a hypothesis or speculation is presented as definitive, a minority view as a majority or principle view, etc. These are all nuts-and-bolts issues of ensuring that an encyclopedia provides appropriate coverage to the range of views held. Wikipedia is vulnerable to having an editor's favorite theory or own Original Research given undue weight or presented as fact. The content contained elements such as unclarity of sourcing, emphatic statements, statements like "most" scholars, etc. which are often clues that these sorts of problems may be present. More explicit sourcing including the use of standard sourcing formats, and more modest and measured statements about definiteness and evidentiary support, are usually best, and could prevent these sorts of difficulties. Best, --Shirahadasha 11:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
It is never appropriate to write articles in the style of a debate. See for example Template:Debate, the manual of style, and the quality standards.
I provided a link under "textual scholars" to textual criticism. That should be sufficient to clarify what is meant. Likewise the views of classical rabbinical scholars are marked by a link to Classical Rabbinical literature, Midrash, Talmud, Rashi etc. as appropriate.
Im not generally familiar with the views of modern Christian or Jewish (incl. Rabbi) religious scholars that meet the notability criteria, particularly as most modern Christian and Jewish sources seem to be from unnotable individuals (in respect to scholarship on the subjects in question) - I am aware of certain notable modern Christian and Jewish scholars, but they are not scholars in this field (NT Wright for example being a scholar concentrating on Paul the apostle). Thus being unaware of any notable views from modern Christian/Jewish scholars (by which I assume you mean modern notable Christian/Jewish scholars in the field in question who disagree with the other academics), I am unable to include them too.
The Jewish Encyclopedia does not present it tentatively. It says, about the traditional Samuel=heard by/of God view that it is not tenable. That doesn't look tentative to me. That looks very definite indeed. And the New American Bible states ...this explanation would be more directly appropriate for the name Saul..., which also looks pretty definite not tentative.
--User talk:FDuffy 18:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
WP:NPOV requires multiple points of view to be expressed in terms of A says X while B says Y. This is nonetheless in expository form, rather than back-and-forth arguments in the style used in a debate transcript.
Just in response to Codex: Jeremiah 8:8 is clearly about the ignorant pretending to be Torah scholars; for an unlearned person to read the "words of scribes" out of context or for the purposes of justifying ones unethical behaviour would turn these words into lies. Those "wiseguys" (as the prophet mockingly calls these people) have clearly despised God's word. (The commentary by Rav Joseph Breuer is especially enlightening here, but I will refrain from fanning the fires of this already overheated debate.) JFW | T@lk 19:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
But no, Francis chooses the distorted translation by R.E. Friedmann, look at the page Priestly source where he actually attributes this. JFW | T@lk 20:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Friedmann is a very well respected textual scholar. His version is no more distorted than the New International Version, and certainly less than the New Living Translation which says for Lev. 18:22 do not practice homosexuality: it is a detestable sin (lev. 18:22 actually mentions male-male anal sex, including male-male anal sex by heterosexuals (eg gay-for-pay, or slaves, or something) not simply being gay in general, and doesn't refer to lesbianism). --User talk:FDuffy 18:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Friedmann tries to read things into that sentence that are not readily there. It is quite a feat to suggest that Jer 8:8 refers to the scribes rather than the people purposedly misreading their writings - simply from the verse's context. I admire the creativity, but it's not the plain meaning - or pshat in the terminology of Jewish exegesis.

Lev 18:22 is completely ambiguous as to whether the intercourse is anal, penetrative etc. All it says is "ve-et zachar lo tishkav mishkevei isha" - "do not lie with a man as one would lie with a woman". The term mishkav is not necessarily penetrative, nor does it definitely indicate that it is anal. Only through exegesis does Jewish law take this to refer to male penetrative behaviour. Female homosexuality is only banned by rabbinic law in Judaism, and is not derived from this verse at all. JFW | T@lk 15:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

That was quite my point. --User talk:FDuffy 22:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You were fairly unclear. You said "lev. 18:22 actually mentions male-male anal sex" while it doesn't. It is correct that while Jewish law forbids fantasising about sin, is does not ban "being gay" but rather the act. JFW | T@lk 23:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

FDuffy claims reprised

User:FDuffy claims that the Jewish Encyclopedia supports his position and brings a quote from it as evidence. The problem with this argument is that the Jewish Encyclopedia quote plainly opposed FDuffy's position. It plainly and clearly states that it is interpreting Samuel as representing "asked of" God -- Saul -that is untenable. The Jewish Encyclopedia not only provides no support for FDuffy's position, it strongly and emphatically opposes it. Here is the qoute again:

The name "Shemu'el" is interpreted "asked of Yhwh," and, as Ḳimḥi suggests, represents a contraction of , an opinion which Ewald is inclined to accept ("Lehrbuch der Hebräischen Sprache," p. 275, 3). But it is not tenable. The story of Samuel's birth, indeed, is worked out on the theory of this construction of the name (i. 1 et seq., 17, 20, 27, 28; ii. 20). But even with this etymology the value of the elements would be "priest of El" (Jastrow, in "Jour. Bib. Lit." xix. 92 et seq.). Ch. iii. supports the theory that the name implies "heard by El" or "hearer of El." The fact that "alef" and "'ayin" are confounded in this interpretation does not constitute an objection; for assonance and not etymology is the decisive factor in the Biblical name-legends, and of this class are both the first and the second chapter. The first of the two elements represents the Hebrew term "shem" (= "name"); but in this connection it as often means "son." "Shemu'el," or "Samuel," thus signifies "son of God" (see Jastrow, l.c.).

FDuffy's whole argument rests on an assumption that Hannah's answer must represent the etymology of Samuel's name, only if one believes this could an anomaly be perceived. The Jewish Encyclopedia takes the contrary position, stating that a purely etomological interpretation is "untenable." The sources FDuffy supplies simply do not check out in a very basic way. These claims should be removed. Best --Shirahadasha 14:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not my argument. I do not make arguments, wikipedia is not about original research. What is or isn't logical, and whether or not you think it depends on belief, or the perception of an anomaly, is not important - you should not try to form an argument of this manner since you would be creating original research by doing so.

The argument clearly exists, is cited, and is notable - the only qualification required for being present in wikipedia. What you are disputing is whether the position is a majority one, and whether the Jewish Encyclopedia views the argument as accurate or not - as a Jewish Encyclopedia, in the era before editorial neutrality (ie wikipedia), I would hazard a guess that some editorial bias may have been present. This is not important; what is important is that the view exists, is notable, and mentioned by a respected encyclopedia. You would seem to be attempting to remove a view simply because you disagree with it - something not allowed.

As for other citations, which you have asked me to present, where this theory is produced:

--User talk:FDuffy 21:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

-- Could you please provide standard references with author, title, publication date, ISBN, page numbers if possible? Thanks. --Shirahadasha 19:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed an additional source user:FDuffy provided, Peake's Biblical Commentary and the version I found (Mathew Black, Peake's Commentary on the Bible. Routledge, 2001. ISBN 0415263557) says the following at p. 319:

Hannah named her son Samuel. The name, in the narrative, is interpreted as meaning "I have asked him of the Lord," but this interpretation belongs, etymologically, to the name Saul. It has therefore been suggested that the etymology, and probably the whole birth story with it, has been displaced from Saul to Samuel in the course of compilation or transmission.

I agree this commentary is a reliable source to support mention of the idea as a hypothesis. However, a plain reading suggests it describes the theory as a suggestion ("it has been suggested..."). This tentative statement of the view does not appear consistent with the use of emphatic language or claims that the idea is established among "most" academic scholars or with anything like the degree of evidence or support comparable to evolution. A lot of explanation (e.g. a later anti-monarchist author etc.) which does not appear to be in this source's commentary on the Hannah story (It may be elsewhere). The Hannah article (and others) need to be signifcantly toned down, to state only what the sources can support. It is the making of statements beyond what the sources can support, as well as Wikipedia's policy shouldering editors with the responsibility for supplying sources, that is at issue. If sources can simply supplied in accordance with policy, they could be quietly checked without all this fuss and bother. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The anti-monarchist (aka republican) stuff is in the Jewish Encyclopedia (see for example the Samuel, Books of article) you will also find in Peake's at the start of the Samuel commentary (I.e. before 1 Samuel 1:1 is commented on).

Also note that the second sentence is quite definite - "but this interpretation belongs, etymologically to the name Saul", and not at all tentative - hence "most scholars" support the view that it belongs to Saul (to be true to the source one should perhaps say "all scholars", but evidently there will be some who disagree, just on religious grounds).

As a more general comment on Peakes, statements, suggestions, etc. given by the commentary are the majority view, unless otherwise stated, alternate views are given, or the view is attributed to a particular individual - these conditions are not met here, ergo it is the majority view. Other encyclopedia also present this view; Cheyne and Black for example state that it is "too clear for any trained biblical scholar to deny" and go so far as to propose the possibility that Saul may in fact be completely identical to Samuel (the latter being a theory that is definitely in a minority, and only suggested by Cheyne and Black as plausible, not probable).

As a word of caution, its probably best to be aware that Peake's is not out of copyright, and therefore that explicitely quoting from it verbatim is somewhat inappropriate (Im not sure of florida copyright law, so I dont know exactly how much can or cannot be quoted).

--User talk:FDuffy 22:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Judaism Award

Check out - WikiProject Judaism Award. --JuanMuslim 1m 03:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Judaism COTW

Yes, a Judaism COTW is now established. Please help out and lets make this work. Masterhomer 04:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources for articles

I have just begun putting the public domain Jewish Encyclopedia online at Wikisource (see here). Not only is this an invaluable source of fantastic information; it can be mined for articles and images. Best of all, we can provide sources for statements by using projects within the Wikimedia family of projects. I encourage you to help in this effort. Danny 13:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

How does one cite and link a Jewish Encyclopedia article from this source? --Shirahadasha 15:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
It is a simple interproject link. Danny 17:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
You can also add a box like this in your external links section: Danny 18:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikisource has original text related to this article:

Article proposal: Sukkah (building)

The current Sukkah article is about the masechta, not about the structure. Any takers? Tomertalk 22:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Roald Dahl's Anti-Semitism

Does anyone here have access to back issues of the British newspaper The Independent going back to 1990? The reason I ask is that I've worked for a while with other people on the Roald Dahl article dealing with his anti-Semitism. We've had a few anonymous users occasionally appear and try to reduce or delete this section of the article, but the charges are well-documented. Dahl long made anti-Semitic remarks, though he personally claimed to be only anti-Israel, not anti-Jewish. (It's a fact that he had several Jewish friends, who apparently viewed him as an Archie Bunker type.) However, shortly before his death in 1990, he finally admitted to The Independent that he was an anti-Semite. This last fact is one I remember being publicized back in 1990 when I was a teenager, but strangely I found no mention of it anywhere on the Internet. There was lots of information about Dahl's anti-Semitic statements in the 1980s, but it always gave the impression that Dahl went to his grave denying the charges. I finally dug up a reference to it in an old New York Times letter to the editor by Abraham Foxman that appeared shortly after Dahl's death, and this is the source I used in the Wikipedia article on Dahl. (The exact quote is as follows: "I am certainly anti-Israel, and I have become anti-Semitic.") I so far have not gained access to back issues of The Independent going back to 1990 (I think I'm going to try my local library). If anyone can get the exact citation of the article in which Dahl made this statement, I'd appreciate it. marbeh raglaim 15:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried the British library? It has back issues of pretty much everything published in the UK since 1900 (and before), including newspapers. --User talk:FDuffy 18:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Ha! As if I'm going to travel all the way to England just to verify this tiny fact. I guess anyone who lives near there might try; meanwhile, I'll look for sources closer to home. marbeh raglaim 03:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

sometimes you can get acess to back issues without paying if you declare youר browser as a Googlebot with a User agent switcher. Jon513 10:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't mention where in the world you are, but your user page suggests the U.S. If you can identify the date of the story you want, then there is a fair chance that you can get microfiche of it on interlibrary loan. - Jmabel | Talk 05:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Conflicting names with Christian and Jewish Orthodoxy

Hi: I posted the following at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy#"Orthodoxy" alone is ambiguous. Thank you. IZAK 03:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Deletion review: Liozna and Larger than Life (books)

Please see: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 19#Liozna and Larger than Life (books). Thank you. IZAK 06:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


Help?

Sorry if this is the wrong place, I can't find a Jewish Wikipedian's notice board - is there one? This phrase was written in the Jewish Chronicle in 1877, it refers to a Jewish heiress marrying a British gentile aristocrat - can anyone explain to me, what they are trying to say - "If the flame seize on the cedars, how will fare hyssop on the wall: if the leviathan is brought up with a hook, how will the minnows escape" - I'm not Jewish and find it completely mystifying, I gather they are not happy but is their an explanation of the text? Any suggestions gratefully accepted. Its for an article I am writing here. Thanks in advance Giano 13:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a member of this wikiproject or any wikiproject, and in fact, I'm just trolling your contributions, but I got your answer. It's from the Babylonian Talmud, I won't bother with its history, but original alongside a 'simple' translation by me is cited below followed by the answer:
“

אם בארזים נפלה שלהבת מה יעשו אזובי הקיר

אם לויתן בחכה הועלה מה יעשו דגי הרקק

אם בנחל שוטף נפלה חרבה מה יעשו מי גבים

If the flames seize upon the cedars, what will the hyssops on the wall do?

If the leviathan is brought up with a hook, what will the small fish do?

If the drout hits the dashing torrent, what will the waters of the purling brook do?

 ”
Answer: they will do many wonderful things. Anyway, the three lines above have a common thread, and the first one esp., is often used in modern Hebrew to denounce corruption of authority, i.e. 'if authority fails to do this or that, what sort of example does that set for the masses?' (the answer in the case of imperialism is, of course, very bad) So, for example: 'If the Arbitrators are not impartial, what will the un-connected editors do?' More generally, it can be seen to be saying: if major components are affected by something or other, how will that impact minor components. I hope this has been enlightening for you. [An interpretation of the original can be found here] Regards / בברכה , El_C 09:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks EL C, that is very helpful indeed. Giano 10:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Not at all. My pleasure! G'luck with the article. El_C 10:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism vs. Judaism

In an ongoing POV attack, anons [3] [4] attempt to present Messianic Judaism as "the practice of the religion of Judaism". ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Barry Gurary article

Hi: Could you please take a look at the discussion concerning Conceptual backround: Hasidic dynastic disputes in the Barry Gurary article. See Talk:Barry Gurary#Dispute of content. Thanks. IZAK 03:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikiversity Torah Study

In the Division of Jewish Studies on Wikiversity, I'm starting up a Department of Torah Study] to provide for a way for the perpetual discussion of the parshah online. If anyone is able, I'd really appreciate some help getting the project off the ground. I think it could be really successful if we could get a group of people together who are willing to contribute to the discussion even once a month. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 18:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Just wishing everyone a happy and successful New Year. Shana Tova! Masterhomer 08:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Kashrut

Kashrut is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 14:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Nominated anti-Semitism for FAC

Vote here. Masterhomer 04:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Rival Biblical views

I am moving this section from Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Todo: it is supposed to be a list, not a discussion. No change in content. The note was so huge that it destroys formatting. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Biblical Criticism has been formed to "to improve the coverage of material related to Biblical Criticism. I.e. to improve the provision of information deriving from academic rather than just religious sources" (see for example: Wikipedia:WikiProject Biblical Criticism/Torah list).

Input into articles from this "school of thought" has already been offensive to some members of Project:Judaism. Therefore, members of Project:Judaism are requested to be alert to efforts that would radically change the classical teachings of Judaism on related subjects.

Someone seems to have failed to understand Neutral Point of View. "Rival views" suggests that WikiProject Judaism has a "view" - which is a complete failure to comprehend NPOV. A "call to arms" against "radically changing the classical teachings of Judaism" (which by the way are often different to modern Judaism's views, such as interpreting parts of Hosea as referring to a cult of spiced human skulls, which Hosea saw as positive) is totally against Wikipedia's principles.
Wikiprojects are not POV-pushing exercises, and should not be made into such things. Quite what anyone could have against making sure that not only religious sources (such as [hypothetical] Rabbi Jones who has a spot on channel 6) are included but also academic sources (which, by the way, include midrash etc. where available), is incomprehensible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FDuffy (talk • contribs)
  • Duffy old chap: NPOV does not mean "NO POV" (ie "not having any point of view") because if someone wants to know what classical Judaism has been teaching about Hosea in its commentaries then that view (and not yours and what your professors are teaching you) must be conveyed first and truthfully. The traditional teachings must not be chopped up into unrecognizable interpretations by the "Bible CRITICS" (why don't they take up Film criticism instead?) and by modern POV-pushing secular professors in universities who mostly hate religious people, hate religion, hate rabbis, hate the outlook of classical rabbinic literature, and are in love with their own narrow Bible-bashing atheistic breast-beating anti-Judaic teachings. One cannot have secular views of religion dominate the roost, as much as one cannot have religious views of every scientific subject under the sun spoil articles about science. You are making unfair accusations that this group is "pushing views" (what views? is the factual NPOV truth a "view"?) when all it is trying to do is convey what Judaism has been teaching faithfully for millenia and NOT what Rabbi Jones (hahahaha, is he Jewish by the way?) teaches the stupid masses on TV. For goodness sakes man, get a grip on yourself! IZAK 12:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with Francis' insistence that articles should at least contain DH views. Yes, it's apokorsus, and I won't be the person writing it. What has annoyed me about Francis' contributions is the creation of a large number of articles with inadequate sourcing. Simply listing some popular books, such as by the infallible R.E. Friedman, is completely inadequate in controversial topics.

I would also insist that the "classical" interpretation is provided by default, with the academic/DH view brought seperately in a section dedicated to it. This will show clearly the differences between long-held popular belief (for which millions died during persecutions) and the concoctions of a group of people bent on distorting the history of Judaism and the Jews. The suggestion that Hosea endorsed spiced skulls is laughable (what would one do with a spiced skull anyway? smoke it?). Have you considered a prophet may be using metaphors to eloquently state his point? JFW | T@lk 12:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Category vote

Please provide your view at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 10#Category:Saintly person tombs in Israel. Thank you. IZAK 03:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Vote to delete Medzhibozh (Hasidic dynasty)

I have written the following to the nominator:

Meshulam: You should avoid this kind of move (the hasty nomination to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medzhibozh (Hasidic dynasty)) because it's a slippery slope and could lead to the nomination for and deletion of similar articles about smaller Hasidic dynasties - by people who are not experts and don't care - with unintended consequences. Votes to delete are open to the world and you are inviting people who have no idea what this topic is about at all to cast a vote, which is very unfair and lacking insight. It seems that you may have been better off trying to add a {{merge to}} template or considered MERGING the material at some point perhaps and WAITED (at least a month!) to do so. You should also have first started a discussion at a number of places where people who know something about this topic could have given their intelligent input, such as at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism and Wikipedia talk:Orthodox Rabbinical Biography Collaboration of the Week. Or you could have contacted other editors who deal with topics like this to solicit their views. This action of your is extreme and I do not condone it. I urge you to withdraw this nomination. Thank you. (I am cross-posting this message on a couple of relevant places, to get people's attention.) IZAK 10:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Bible

There is currently a dispute over the future fate and scope of the Bible article. Someone has enlisted the help of WikiProject Christianity on this matter, so (because this dispute has to do with including the Jewish POV) I am returning the favor here. Comments over at Talk:Bible are encouraged. Thank you for your consideration.--Andrew c 20:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Weekly Torah portion FAC: expert help needed.

Hi,

I recently nominated the Bereishit parsha article for FA here. However, it has run into a little difficulty because one of the editors feels that the article is not comprehensive enough, but doesn't know enough about Judaism to tell me what is needed. Could I ask you to check this article and, if it needs more to it, either add it yourself or explain what is needed on the FAC and I'll have a go. If it doesn't require anything, please also explain that on the FAC. Votes of support, of course, are also welcome. :) Thankyou, Dev920 (check out this proposal) 23:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Jews in apostasy

Jews in apostasy article needs attention. IZAK 10:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The Seven Worlds, is it Kabbalah?

Please review the The Seven Worlds article. What is fact and waht is fiction? Anyone know? IZAK 11:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Is the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn Qabbalah the same thing as the Jewish Kabbalah? --Shirahadasha 16:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
There are many derivative forms of kabbalah, some of which are initially from Jewish sources but have left their roots substantially. In the Middle Ages there was remarkable interest in Jewish mysticism (see Nostradamus) but much of it is completely out of key with what an Orthodox (or even Conservative) scholar would understand to be Kabbalah. JFW | T@lk 21:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Seven Worlds

What do you make of this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Seven Worlds 2? Thanks. IZAK 09:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Holy of Holies, Most Holy Place, or Kadosh Hakadashim

I created a stub under Holy of Holies to address the location in the Tabernacle, Temple in Jerusalem and Temple Mount. There's a proposal under Talk:Holy of Holies either to merge it into Most Holy Place or to create a new article called something like Kodesh Kadoshim devoted specifically to this purpose. Please share any thoughts you might have on the subject in the discussion taking place at Talk:Holy of Holies. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Most Holy Place seems to be an article that complies a list of holiest places according to different religions. I don't really see a need for it. Jon513 12:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Holy of Holies, definitely. If there is an English term that umambiguously refers to that subject in question then WP:NC dictates that term is to be used (e.g. Passover). The content presently on Most Holy Place (which is a hodgepodge) can be moved to Shirahadasha's new stub. JFW | T@lk 19:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Edits to Korban

User:FDuffy has made extensive edits to the Korban article, including, in typical fashion, citing the Jewish Encyclopedia as a whole without bothering to identify a specific article, and adding a provocative section entitled "Human Sacrifice" claiming a dark origin in human sacrifice based on the views of a single individual (assuming the individual actually said it) characterized as fact and as what "Biblical scholars" as a whole believe. I'm going to wait to comment myself until I've had a chance to review this user's claims, but perhaps others might want to comment now. At the very least, biblical-criticism type claims should go in a separate section. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This is getting beyond the joke. I'm happy supporting an WP:RFAr against this user for consistently failing to adhere to the most basic Wikipedia policy. WP:NPOV, WP:RS/WP:CITE, Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and WP:NOR are all being violated here.
I'm fully aware of the DH proponents claiming that Judaism evolved from Kanaanite sects that practiced human sacrifice (even Dan Brown lends his reputation to this view), based on the circular argument that bans on these customs were only introduced in sources that they consider to have been of later date. If we are to include these nefarious claims, we should at least demand the highest level of sourcing and critiques from traditional scholars. JFW | T@lk 00:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Conservative Judaism

I would like to create a project to help improve the series of articles dealing with Conservative Judaism. What do I need to do in order to create a new WikiProject? Is anyone interested? --yonkeltron 08:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't really need to do anything except start it. Remember, be bold! I'd be interested in helping if you could get it going. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 12:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to carefully delineate the scope of such a WikiProject. Of course Conservative viewpoints deserve airtime, but it needs to be quite clear what POV is Conservative and what POV is Orthodox. We have previously had a Conservative-affiliated editor trying to redefine Orthodoxy according to his POV, causing incessant edit wars. JFW | T@lk 12:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, one of the goals should be to clearly define the POV and relationships with other projects. Thanks for the advice. --yonkeltron 21:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
(after edit conflit)you don't need a wikiproject - if you want to improve the articles, just go ahead an improve them. Wikiprojects are unnessiary when there are only a few editors involved, talk pages would work much better. Also, this wikiproject can with help with article related to conservative judasim. Still, if you want to creat a wikiproject you should read this. Jon513 12:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
By that logic, however, why is there WP:OJ? Kari Hazzard (T | C) 21:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there should be a wikiproject for orthodox judaism. It just makes another page I have to watch. This project isn't so active as to make it nessisary to have splinter projects. Often items are posted on both project! whats the point of that! having another project for conservative judasim would just make the problem worse. Jon513 17:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Not only that, but it brings the conflict between various "streams" of Ashkenazi Judaism into the WP community. Tomertalk 00:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Go for it, but as non-denominational Jew, I wouldn't join it :) I'm not in WP:OJ either. Masterhomer 05:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd definitely join. Valley2city 06:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Obviously, this wikiproject isn't Judaism, and obviously, I'm not the ultimate arbiter of what should and shouldn't take place on WP, but I think a far more constructive approach to this question would be to develop a subproject of WP:JEW at Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Conservative Judaism, and think that WP:OJ would best be reincorporated back into this project at most as Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Orthodox Judaism. Shqalayai. Tomertalk 05:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Why not have a task force instead?--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 06:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Shlosheth haReghalim

Question here. Tomertalk 23:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Barnstar

Does anyone have any graphic skills, or for that matter a good graphics program to create a barnstar for contributions to Jewish projects, etc? WP:Islam has their own barnstar and I think we should have our own as well. I was thinking something looking similar to the original barnstar but with six arms instead of five (like the Magen David). Anyone willing to do this? Does something like this already exist? Let's recognize some contributions with some wikiBling... Valley2city 06:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops, never mind, I notice it now on this very same talk page. Valley2city 07:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Aaron, Son of the Devil

Hi all: Care to take a look at this Aaron, Son of the Devil article and see what you make of it. Does it have validity and is it being twisted in some (anti-Semitic) ways? Thanks. IZAK 04:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with it in it's current form Masterhomer 06:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Nadira (actress)

I added the template {{Jew}} to it and two users edit-warred and removed it on what I feel are poor grounds.If you have any opinion then please express it.If consensus agrees with them then I will back down from this, of course. However, if consensus is on my side then I request some comments in the talk page Talk:Nadira (actress).

The issues are expressed in these diffs:

  1. [5]
  2. [6]
  3. [7]
  4. [8]
  5. [9]

Basically, my contention is that since the template is a portal to Jews AND Judaism (not just Judaism) it belongs in all articles on Jews as well. They disagree for a reason that I cannot fathom (particularly, I invite you to note the last entry in User:BhaiSaab's block log).

Involved users are me User:Hkelkar, nd, on the other side, User:Zora and User:BhaiSaab

Thanks for your attention. Shalom.Hkelkar 21:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I also invite attention to and comments regarding articles like J.F.R. Jacob,Nissim_Ezekiel and other articles in Category:Indian Jews that require expansion.Hkelkar 21:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
This template, like the templates for other religions, belongs in articles about Jews that have had a significant influence in Judaism in the past, in addition to topics that directly relate to Judaism. If you were to put it in every Jewish person's page, most articles would become a mess because other religion templates would follow. I'm pretty sure any person could fathom this reason. BhaiSaab talk 21:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The template may be appropriate for individuals with significant influence on either Judaism, the religion, or Secular Jewish culture. However, just as the template {{United States}}is clearly inappropriate to add to everyone who happens to be an American citizen, the template {{Jew}} is similarly inappropriate for everyone who happens to be Jewish. --Shirahadasha 22:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
OK.Hkelkar 22:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Somebody should specify this point in the template.Hkelkar 23:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious by precedent. BhaiSaab talk 00:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Ezekiel Isaac Malekar

I have created this article, as well as the cat Category:Indian Rabbis. Please peruse, expand and make corrections as needed.Hkelkar 22:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

New guideline

Is there any objection to merging Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Manual Of Style into a proposed guideline for Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Judaism)? —Viriditas | Talk 00:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Chayot and Cherubim

The Jewish Encyclopedia article on Cherubim says that the Chayot that Ezekiel saw were Cherubim, referencing a mention in the Talmud. The Cherubim article reflects this. I had always thought that the Chayot were their own kind of angel, something quite distinct from Cherubim. They get their own mention in prayers (for example, in kal adon in shacharit on shabbat). But I'm not an angel expert. Would somebody know offhand what the traditional view on this is? Is there a dispute about it? It seems to me either they shouldn't be described as cherubim in the cherubim article, or they shouldn't have their own article, or we should identify and source both sides of a difference of opinion. --Shirahadasha 21:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Created a Jewish Angelarchy stub with Maimonides' exposition in which Chayot are #1 and Cherubim #9. Apparently this is not the only opinion. I'm learning here. Feel free to add to these articles if you know more. --Shirahadasha 06:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a note

HI,

I have no in-depth knowledge of Judaism whatsoever. I came across this page: Qemant. It may or may not belong in your WikiProject. Just letting you know.

--Ling.Nut 16:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Most Holy Place and Kadosh Kadoshim

The article Holy of Holies has been replaced by a redirect to Most Holy Place, which is a general cross-cultural article about special places in various religious and cultural traditions. I created a stub for Kadosh Kadoshim to be able to describe features unique to the Tabernacle, Temple in Jerusalem, and current Temple Mount. I created the Kadosh Kadoshim article because the situation seemed a little like wanting an article on Nasi, and having to use either an obscure Hebrew term or an English term like Manager that has numerous other uses that drown out the intended one. I'd be open to a better term that's short, not a neologism, well-known in the English world, and unique to Judaism and the Tabernacle and Temples. Also, I'd welcome contributions on the article. Will attempt a more in-depth article soon. --Shirahadasha 06:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what happened, but Holy of Holies reappeared. Will need to sort this out later. --Shirahadasha 07:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
There are currently three articles. It appears that other editors decided that two, Most Holy Place and Holy of Holies, should be generic articles on holy sites in various religions. I have proposed that Most Holy Place and Holy of Holies be merged into one generic article, with separate articles for each major religion/site. The Jewish site could be renamed Kadosh Hakadashim but may need to remain a Hebrew term to distinguish it because other religions also have sites called a Holy of Holies. Please feel free to comment on the discussion in Talk:Holy of Holies. Shavua Tov, --Shirahadasha 06:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

CfD Orthodox Jewish communities

Hi: See vote at: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 12#Category:Orthodox Jewish communities. Thanks. IZAK 11:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Haredim and Zionism

There is currently some discussion on the Haredim and Zionism article that might benefit from some more intelligent comments.--Meshulam 22:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I second Meshulam's call for comments. I suggest those users that agree with Wiki philosophies and policies make their way over, read the article and talk page and see if their input is warranted. Yossiea 15:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"Open Orthodoxy" & Avi Weiss

User:Shirahadasha has created an new article called "Open Orthodoxy" - about a new notion (that is "neither fish nor fowl") recently coined by Rabbi Avi Weiss. After having been asked about it, I attempted to redirect Open Orthodoxy to the Avi Weiss article and post all its content there because on it's own it's a neologism in violation of Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms, but Shirahadasha has reverted my redirect. What do you think should be done, please add your views at Talk:Open Orthodoxy. IZAK 09:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

A deletion proposal has been made for the article and the discussion has moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Orthodoxy. Please comment there instead. --Shirahadasha 18:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Major changes to articles by new user

I have just contacted new User:Chavatshimshon who has made some big moves in long-standing articles about Jewish topics. Please read what I wrote to him and add your expertise and intervention. Thank you. IZAK 08:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

STOP your changes NOW!
Dear Chavatshimshon: Welcome, and thank you for contacting me. Regarding your changes @ Chavatshimshon edits Please do not make any more changes or moves to Jewish articles. You are too new to Wikipedia. You are not even reverting articles correctly (by creating multiple double reverts). You are also creating duplicate articles of existing articles, which creates even more problems. The articles you are fiddling around with have been worked on for many years. You cannot move and change these articles without discussing it with the nearly one hundred known members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism; Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history; Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish culture and others. I am going to ask some experienced editors, who are also admins, to examine your recent changes and to revert your moves until we can get some better idea of what it is that you are doing, and if it is going to help the Jewish and Judaism articles on Wikipedia. Stay tuned. This message is being shared with User:Jmabel; User:Jayjg; User:Jfdwolff; User:TShilo12 and User:Humus sapiens. Thank you. IZAK 08:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

religioustolerance dot org

I came across over 700 links to this organization, Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. The site has a ton of ads but on the other hand, it has content (and a Wikipedia article).

Normally, such an ad-intensive site with so many links gets attention at WikiProject Spam for further investigation. Even if it's not spam, many links may often get deleted as not meeting the external links guideline. I've left a note at WikiProject Spam asking others to look at some of these and see what they think.

Even some non-profit organizations will add dozens of links to Wikipedia since links in Wikipedia are heavily weighted in Google's page ranking systems. (If interested, see the article on Spamdexing for more on this).

You can see all the links by going to this this "Search web links" page. I encourage you to look at Wikipedia's external links guideline then look at the links in the articles you normally watch. Also, if you don't mind, please also weigh in at WikiProject Spam with your opinions. If you see links to pages that you don't think add additional value beyond the content already in an article, feel free to delete them, but please don't go mindlessly deleting dozens of links. (Per WP:EL, links that don't add additional value should be deleted but that doesn't necessarily mean they're "spam").

Thanks for your help and for providing some second opinions. --A. B. 16:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Nazarene & Co

I stumbled upon contributions of user:Budo (who earlier attracted my attention in other topics with his original interpretations), and I see quite a few artcles sitting here underlinked/undercathegorized (hence lacking rigorous attention) relater to the root "Nazar-". These must be reviewed and order made with them. Now it is total confusion.

Please review: Nazoraioi -- Nazarene (sect) -- Nazarene (disambiguation) -- Nasoraean -- Nazoraean -- Nazuraioi redir to (Tzadikim Nistarim) -- Nazarenos (redir to Jesus) -- (Nasri redir to Monophysitism. why?) etc. `'mikkanarxi 05:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

CfD Anti-Semitic people

Hi: See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 23#Category:Anti-Semitic people. Thank you. IZAK 10:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Messianics again

The Messianic Judaism editors have been busy lately, you may want to know the following. Thanks. IZAK 19:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

new antisemitism section on opposition to shchita

Anyone have any comment regarding this? Tomertalk 02:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Adolf Jellinek and his Christian son

What does this portrait of Adolf Jellinek say? Did rabbis all have long hair in those days?
What does this portrait of Adolf Jellinek say? Did rabbis all have long hair in those days?

Does anyone know what kind of "rabbi" and Torah scholar Adolf Jellinek was (Orthodox, Reform, none-of-the-above, all-of-the above?) The question is important because he had a son Georg Jellinek who supposedly became a Christian, and the article about him says that "Jellinek, the son of Adolf Jellinek, a rabbinical scholar, converted to Christianity." Making it sound that the alleged conversion of George Jellinek is somehow "enhanced" (like a "hidur mitzva - lehavdil) by the fact that he had a "rabbinical father." Anyhow, the portrait of Adolf doesn't look like it would make it into an ArtScroll anything right now :-} In addition, in the List of converts to Christianity from Judaism Georg Jellinek is listed and his picture features very prominently. If anyone has any more information on this, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks. IZAK 14:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Dispute over Category:WikiProject Messianic Judaism

I am having a difference of opinion with User:Inigmatus who insists that Category:WikiProject Messianic Judaism be a sub-category of Category:WikiProject Judaism. I have tried to edit the page [11], and have even tried a compromise of having it be part of Category:Christian and Jewish interfaith topics instead which would be perfect for it, but each time he reverts me, claiming "We make that call, not you. We're not part of "normative" Christianity either." [12] and this:" "We" is Messianics. either both Judaism and Christain categories, or none go here. We make the call, because Messianics know best what is Messianic." [13], and he adds on Category talk:WikiProject Messianic Judaism#Main categories: "Either Christian and Judaism categories go here, or they both don't. Not one or the other. Messianics do not ascribe to Chrisitanity, and Judaism is an unrelated category. I didn't put either category in, so I request both be removed, but if one is to be listed, then I request both Christianity and Judaism be listed. "We" Messianics have the right to inform the readers who "we" are affiliated with. inigmatus 04:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)" What do you think should be done? Thanks. IZAK 14:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Messianic "Halakha" etc?

On 25 October 2006 [14], User:Inigmatus moved Messianic religious practices to Messianic Halakha with the lame excuse "moved Messianic religious practices to Messianic Halakha: As discussed in prior archives, with the creation of the new Messianic Judaism template, this page can now be targeted for clean up: This entire page is better split into two articles" [15] thus opening up a whole new can of worms. This fits into this new pattern of vigorous pro-Messianic Judaism POV edits, moves, categories, projects and articles, basically without warning and ignoring the consensus that has been maintained for some time. The main problem is that the over-all thrust of the recent pro-Messianic Judaism activity is to mimic and and get as close as possible to any and all Judaism, particularly Orthodox Judaism, articles and efforts, so that anyone looking at the one will arrive at the other by sheer proximity and similarity. And I repeat this again, because of its relevance: *User:Inigmatus (contributions), self-described as "A mystery user with a point to be made" (wouldn't that make anything he does as automatically POV?), has added a number of features to Messianic Judaism. A month ago he evidently plagiarized [16] the Template:Judaism and created Template Messianic Judaism based on it. He also created Wikipedia:WikiProject Messianic Judaism also obviously plagiarizing the Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism page. This may mislead unsuspecting readers and there ought to be some warning or guidance about this. I would suggest that a new template be develpoed that would be placed on Messianic Judaism pages with a "Note: This article deals with Messianic Judaism. It does not represent normative Judaism and does not have any connection with, or official recognition from, any Jewish denominations." IZAK 03:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome the NotJudaism template

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

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

Feel free to use it where applicable. Thanks. IZAK 05:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Solomon's Temple

There were a bunch of recent additions to Solomon's Temple. I did my best to copy edit this poorly written material, but I suspect that it was also poorly sourced and mostly either inaccurate, conjectural, or (insofar as it was accurate) redundant to material already there. Way outside of my expertise, though. Could someone have a look? - Jmabel | Talk 05:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Edaevich (Hasidic dynasty)

Added by a new editor. The entry looks plausible but I am unable to find any sources in English google. I was hoping that people who knew more might be able to find sources and determine if this group is real and notable. JoshuaZ 05:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As this is, according to the article, a very, very new group, that has functioned largely underground until now, it's not surprising that there is a paucity of sources. Does anyone speak Latvian or Russian, wwho could find some references in appropriate sources from the affected country, perhaps?HarvardOxon 05:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting concept - a sort of Conservative but at any rate definitely non-Haredi Hassidic movement, (understand the relative confluence of positions may be purely coincidental). If this is for real and this is a legitimate Hassidic movement, some of the statements made in the Hassidic Judaism article, and possibly some of the other places where Hassidic Judaism is contrasted with other branches, where we generally assume it to always be a branch of Haredi Judaism, may need a footnote or something indicating an exception. --Shirahadasha 08:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

re: R' Gamedze

Question here. Tomertalk 05:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yiddish writers

I've written more than two dozen entries on Yiddish prose-writers and poets in the Russian-language wiki (some widely known religious figures as well). It is quite problematic an undertaking there, because these entries are regularly suggested for deletion on grounds of "having too many Jews there already" (verbatim) and the like (in the Russian wiki this sort of language is permitted). Thus far only one is about to be actually removed (on poet Srul Bronshtein). However, now that I just started to translate the entries into the English and Yiddish wikipedias (see my first addition on Srul Bronshtein), the very same people immediately post these for deletion. This seems to be a sort of stalking, but since my experience with this is limited, I don't really know what to do. Any help? --SimulacrumDP 19:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This is NOT permitted in the English language Wiki. If such language appears, warn the editors that their behavior constitutes WP:Vandalism of our encyclopedia and if they persist report them under WP:VANDAL for blocking per the Blocking policy. Or some of us can intervene. Are there any current articles on which this has occurred? Please identify. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The guys know it's not permitted in the English language Wiki, they use different language with the same actions. Discussion of reasons for deletion in Russian [17] is replete with open statements (original reason for deletion in the very first line is stated as follows: Принадлежность к одной из нации — не есть критерий значимости, literally: "Being of one certain ethnicity is not a notability criterion", certain ethnicity is one of euphemisms normally used in Russian for this very certain ethnicity). What follows is not even euphemistic, very open talk about Jewish privileges, usual traditional anti-Semitic distortion of the poet's names in various "funny" ways, etc. In a single day one can see 4-5 postings for deletion of Yiddish/Hebrew writers and the likes. Then this same guy (in fact, an administrator!) posts the English version for deletion just saying he can't find anything in the google. Thanks for help, let's see what comes out of the discussion. --SimulacrumDP 00:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Noahide Laws cleanup

Hi, I was hoping we could collaborate on cleaning splitting and writing up more articles related to 7mBn. I've tagged Noahide laws for a cleanup. I'm not rushing in, I've read them all up, I'm waiting for the readiness of a few others so we can take this on together, and have it featured on the main page sometime. Its possible, there are quite a few of us and will potentialy be a subject of interest. Again, I'm one for words and think the parent article should be Seven Laws of Noach, as in 'Sheva Mitzvas Bnei Noach'. Anything that is should be another 'ism'. Chavatshimshon 01:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi Chavat: Do not change that title, it is the accepted English name for it (why is it that you have this great urge to change the titles of long-establishe Wikipedia articles?) Not everything has to be a direct translation or transliteration from Hebrew. Many Judaic and Hebraic topics do and should retain their English titles. Please contact the following to help you: User:Noahlaws; User:Jon513; User:Dauster; User:HKT; User:PinchasC; User:Shirahadasha; User:Shuki; User:TShilo12, they all have knowledge of Jewish Law and experience as Wikipedians and may be interested in working on this with you. Sincerely, IZAK 21:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Names of God in Judaism

Names of God in Judaism has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" from featured status. The instructions for the FAR process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy (Talk) 22:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Declaration of interest

I am from the goyim side researching a Christian project which has a recurring Jewish theme rooted partly in the Narbonne and Leon schools of the 13th Century through an alchemical line via the Paris 1290 and Brussels 1370 pogroms into modern facts. If these ring a bell with anyone, please contact me directly at jelmain@skynet.be - I would prefer to have my suggestions peer-reviewed first.Jel 16:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

RFC: Talk:Jews for Jesus

See [18]. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Goa Inquisition

An editor has raised neutrality issues with the article. The subject is part of Jewish history, particularly the section Goa_Inquisition#Persecution_of_Jews, regarding the persecution of Indian Jews during the Christian inquisition in India. I would greatly appreciate perusal and input regarding any neutrality issues. Hkelkar 04:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Interests: History, Religion, Developing World, Education.

Base: UK. has called the Jewish encyclopedia a "hate source".Bakaman 06:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The guf

I came across the guf which is apparently where souls are kept before birth. The two links provided (to jewishencyclopedia.com) only mention "guf" in passing, apparently as the transliteration from Hebrew of a word translated as "cage" or similar. Knowing positively jack squat about Judaism, I've come to ask someone here: is "the guf" a legitimate concept? The article also calls it the "Chamber of Guf" and notes several alternate spellings. Is "the guf" (or actually it should be just guf) the appropriate place for it? –  Anþony  talk  13:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. Doesn't guf mean "body"? JoshuaZ 05:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
So am I. The article says guf/guph/gup means "to be hollow", then "guff" means body like you say. The links also refer to it as a cage or a columbarium. I don't know enough (really anything) about this to even understand if the article's contradicting itself. –  Anþony  talk  14:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm no expert on this, and can't be of much help, but I have heard this same explanation of "The Guf" as in that article once before, long ago - in a Hollywood movie! (It was Damien Omen I think, or something similar...) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Religious leaders

The current organization there is abit muddled, and needs some discussing how to deal with. A general proposal for cleaning it up is posted at Category talk:Religious leaders#Organization proposal, and more input would be great. It doesn't address the issue of Religious leaders/religious workers/religious figures, but that is another issue that exists. Badbilltucker 22:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Torah Umadda

An anon has taken out a section there claiming as matters a conversation at Modern Orthodoxy- I don't fully understand what the critique of the section is. If someone who knows more about the relevant details could take a look it would be appreciated. JoshuaZ 05:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Amidah or Shmona Esrei?

it seems to me that this article should be at Shemoneh Esrei or even Eighteen Benedictions rather than at amidah, since the former is the prayer's proper name, `amidha being instead a "nickname" of sorts, analogous to the situation with `arvith, as opposed to ma`ariv. Thoughts? Tomertalk 23:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, Shemoneh Esrei is just as much a nickname as Amidah. Chazal refer to it as simply "Tefillah" and obviously that has taken on a much more general definition nowadays. --DLandTALK 23:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Harumph. Fine. It's an older nickname.  :-) Tomertalk 00:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Amidah is shorter and therefore easier for people with little or no knowledge of Hebrew. Eighteen Benedictions, of course, has the problem that the actual number varies (weekday vs. Shabat and Yom Tov) and there are never 18.--agr 02:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Neither of those are real concerns as far as Wikipedia goes. We name articles based on the most appropriate title, not based on what is "easier." Also, the colloquial term is "Shemoneh Esrei" regardless of the actual number of benedictions. Despite this, I think it should stay as Amidah anyway. --DLandTALK 02:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Paschal Lamb article needed

Would anyone like to start an article about the Korban Pesach? Since right now all there is, is that Paschal Lamb disambig page that splits off to Jesus... It would be a nice start for Pesach too and help the Passover-related articles. Thanks. IZAK 09:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Encyclopedia, anyone? Here's the relevant ártigo... ;-) Tomertalk 07:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Solomon's Temple

I strongly suspect that the Solomon's Temple article has been kidnapped by a fanatic crackpot. Sample: "the Temple could in no way have stood on the rock culminating the ancient Jewish citadel… For all the details, mathematical data and references, concerning this masterstroke-historical manipulation in Jerusalem (which, according to Natan, succeeded brilliantly until this day), and concerning (also according to Natan) the blind persistency of magisterial and complacent errors in history and archaeology, see the book online: The Temple of Solomon could not stand on its Water Tower at www.jerusalem-4thtemple.org." It is permeated through with this sort of stuff. I don't know the topic well enough to do much about this (I was just in there trying to copyedit when I noticed that there were problems well beyond those I can deal with as a proofreader). I suspect it may need eit her to be selectively removed, to be peeled way back to some much earlier version, or even to be restarted from scratch by someone knowledgable. - Jmabel | Talk 20:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Went ahead and reverted back to my last (Dec 6.) revert. --Shirahadasha 21:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
A user named User:Nnatan was here on December 6 with a similar set of edits. I reverted them several times and explained on his talk page why the source web site and self-published book don't meet the WP:RS criteria. Perhaps the two users are related. --

Shirahadasha 21:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, they're probably non-colloquant cohabitants of the same corpus. Tomertalk 07:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There are still enormous problems there: much material cited from dubious sources. And, Shirahadasha. despite your undoubtedly good intentions, you mostly reverted my copy edits and the identification of a 19th century archaeologist. - Jmabel | Talk 07:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe I've now torn out the inappropriate material from Solomon's Temple. Twice, because User:Nnatan promptly reinserted it. (Apparently, he is citing his own original self-published research, and repeatedly telling people to see his own website for details.)

Similar issues at Temple in Jerusalem, by the way. Same user. I leave it to someone else to clean that one up. - Jmabel | Talk 22:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I've fixed, and copyedited, Temple in Jerusalem. Someone might want to nominate it for GA status now, it's looking pretty good. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 00:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Jewish-American businesspeople category removed

The "Jewish-American businesspeople" category was removed as were other ethnic groupings for business people. Comments are welcome at the discussion page for undeletion. I am trying to have the category recreated. Please read the comments there, and leave your thoughts. There are 15 subcategories for Category:Jewish Americans but this one was deleted by a group of people opposed to Jewish identity in articles. Only three votes were cast and then the category was deleted, leaving the biographies without a heritage category. Even if you believe there shouldn't be heritage categories please read the discussion and leave an opinion. Please go to:Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_December_14#Category:Jewish-American_businesspeople_changed_to_Category:American_businesspeople --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

may fall within the scope of your project

--Ling.Nut 07:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh wait, it is in your project. Someone put the sidebar halfway down the page.
--Ling.Nut 07:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Palestinian rabbis

What does one make of the new Category:Palestinian rabbis and Category:Talmud rabbis in Palestine, should they be renamed to something like Category:Rabbis of ancient Palestine? so that it does not connect, and become confused with, the way the word "Palestinian" is used today (meaning the very unJewish modern Arab Palestinians, who have nothing to do with these rabbis!) Thanks. IZAK 09:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Not using "Palestine" or "Palestinian" for Talmud and rabbis to avoid confusion

Note: Many articles about the rabbis of the Talmud and Mishnah are derived from the archaic Jewish Encyclopedia, published between 1901-1906, over one hundred years ago (when the Middle East was still under the thumb of the Ottoman Turks) and which used the archaic expressions "Palestine" when referring to the Land of Israel, and to the Jews living in the areas of the historical Land of Israel as "Palestinians." This is a big mistake that requires constant attention and correction, especially when copying and editing articles from the Jewish Encyclopedia or from similarly archaic sources such as Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897). At this time, no-one uses the term/s "Palestinian/s" (in relation to anything associated with Jews or the land they lived in and which they regarded as their homeland) nor by any type of conventional Jewish scholarship, particularly at the present time when the label "Palestinian" is almost entirely identified with the Palestinian Arabs who are mostly Muslims. Finally, kindly take note that the name Palestinian Talmud is also not used and it redirects to the conventional term Jerusalem Talmud used in Jewish scholarship. Thank you. IZAK 13:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Not using "Palestine" or "Palestinian" for Talmud and rabbis

Makes sense, I'll try to remember. However, there was a period when everyone referred to the land of Israel as Palestine. Therefore, to say something like "in 1940 Shlomo Pines emigrated to Israel" would appear to be an anachronism. Don't we have to use the term "Palestine" during a certain period for historical accuracy? What is this period? From Roman conquest until 1948? Thanks. Dfass 15:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi Dfass: Note: The term "Land of Israel" is an old one of Biblical origin, whereas the name "Palestine" is considered offensive by many Jews because it was coined by the Romans after they crushed the Jews of Judea-- and needless to say today it refers exclusively to the Arab Palestinians and never to Jews. Note also that the "Land of Israel" article is not the same as the "Israel" article because the latter refers to the modern post-1948 Jewish state. My main concern was about rabbis from the Mishnaic and Talmudic eras, up until about a hundred years ago being called "Palestinians" on Wikipedia as a follow-through from the many articles that have been copied and pasted from the old Jewish Encyclopedia and which collectively create the wrong impression. Such are the hazards of relying on dated information, long-discarded terminology, and unsuitable writing and communication styles. Wikipedia as a modern encyclopedia should not be relying on archaic terms such as "Palestinian rabbis" that could potentially cause grave misunderstanding. I think that from the time of the British Mandate of Palestine, also shortened to "the British Mandate" and sometimes "Palestine," that Jews were associated with those terms from 1923 until 1948 when the modern State of Israel was declared. I hope that you have noted that I am most definitely NOT saying that whenever the Jewish Encyclopedia uses the term "Palestine" that the single word "Israel" should be used -- obviously I do not mean that because when Israel is used alone on Wikipedia it refers to the MODERN State of Israel only. On the other hand, what I am saying is that when the word "Palestine" is used in archaic sources that predate modern Israel, and when writing about Judaic topics that relate to the Middle Ages, Talmudic, or Biblical times, then the better, more accurate, less controversial term for Wikipedia to use is "Land of Israel" which is historically what the Jewish people, and everyone else in academic life, have and do still call it. Hope I have clarified myself, and thanks for caring. IZAK 12:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, I think I get the drift. I will pay attention to it in the future. (Don't be so down on the Jewish Encyclopedia though! It's an incredible work, written by some tremendous scholars. I think these articles significantly raise the quality of Wikipedia, whether their English is somewhat archaic or not. If you compare a JE-borrowed Wikipedia article to one written by "the masses," you can't but be struck by the difference in quality and scholarship. The typical Jewish Wikipedian (myself included) is not capable of producing articles of anything like that caliber. Most Wikipedians cannot even be bothered to cite the sources for the couple of factoids they manage to dredge up from their memory of 10th grade.) Thanks again for the clarification. Dfass 15:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Hi Dfass: I am not down on the old Jewish Encyclopedia at all, and I fully agree with you that it is a more than masterly work of scholarship. But is was written in the context of the culture of over a hundred years ago as a product of the nineteenth century! My specific concern at this stage was only about how the meaning and application of the word/s "Palestine" and "Palestinian" are getting "lost in the cut-and-paste process" because one hundred years ago, "Palestinian" was used as an academic adjective as for example, together with "rabbis" ("Palestinian rabbi/s") or the Talmud ("Palestinian Talmud"). Up until 1948 the words "Palestine" and "Palestinians" still had application/s to Jews because of the existaence of the British Mandate of Palestine until 1948 in the territories of historically Jewish Land of Israel. Since then, the name "Palestine" and "Palestinians" has shed any connection to Jews and the modern Jewish State of Israel which was set up in contradistinction to an Arab Palestine. Particularly since the rise of the PLO (the Palestine Liberation Organization), following the 1967 Six-Day War, the term and notion of "Palestine" and "Palestinians" has become thoroughly and exclusively connected with the Arab Palestinians to the point that no-one (not in politics, academics, the media, religion, etc) associates the name "Palestine" and "Palestinians" with the Jews or Judaism, so that it can safely be said that the notion of a "Palestinian Jew" is an archaic anachronistic discarded notion. So when cutting and pasting articles from the one hundred year old Jewish Encyclopedia, one should not fall into a "time warp trap" by blindly pasting articles from it without some sensible updates, and not to inadvertantly recreate and foster terminology for Jews and Jewish Israelis that neither they nor the world accepts or recognizes. One needs to be conscious that the term "Land of Israel" is a well-established name that has survived for a long time and is still the preferred term of choice when speaking in modern terms, so that Jews not be confused with Arabs and vice versa. By speaking of the Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel, meaning rabbis (or any Jews) associated with a historic geographic area, one also avoids problems such as calling pre-1948 rabbis or people "Israelites" -- used only for people in the Biblical era or "Israelis" -- which refers to citizens of the modern State of Israel. Thanks for your input. IZAK 07:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion

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

  • Hi Shira: I noticed this comment. Their assertion is outrageous and false and should be rejected and disputed to the full. There is no "supreme council of religion" on Wikipedia and there never will be. Each religion has its experts and contributors on Wikipedia and none of them will ever tolerate interference from outside busy-bodies. Judging by their user pages, the members of this "religion" project are obviously coming from a Christian POV and seems they now wish to "double dip," pretty funny actually. See my notice on that page, below. Thanks, and may the Lights of Chanukah dispel all ignorance and darkness. IZAK 10:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

NOTICE and OBJECTIONS to WikiProject Religion vs. Judaism

Hi: Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Judaism. Thanks, IZAK 10:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

NOTICE and OBJECTIONS:

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

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

  • In response to the above comment, no one said we were trying to take control over every religion in the world, or even attempted to imply such. I know I, as the person you are probably speaking directly to, as I placed the banners, had no intention of doing so. I note again that the banner states that the articles are "supported by", not in any way under the control of, the project. Also, I was in the process of tagging the articles which do not yet fall within the scope of any project which seems to actively engage in assessments. In the process of the comparatively minimal amount of tagging I have done to date, I have already nominated three articles for Good article status, on the basis of the lack of previous objective editing of them. Also, it is my intention to bring the Portal:Religion up to featured portal status in the near future, and, of course, all religions, including Judaism, could potentially be displayed there. Personally, I think that the person who made the post to which I am responding is probably more than a little overreacting to the simple addition of a banner, which, in most cases, also included the addition of an assessment, and also, in many cases, simultaneously included the addition of a Judaism banner for the first time. I placed the Religion banner on top because it provided the information on the article's assessment, which the Judaism banner did not. Actually, as soon as I am done tagging the central articles of all of the major religions, I intend to add the assessment parameters to all the religion banners, like I already have done with Wikipedia:WikiProject Messianic Judaism and Wikipedia:WikiProject Atheism, so that we don't there is no need to include the Religion banner with assessment, as the other existing banners will have assessments as well. I hope that this is sufficient response, and I hope that any further conversation can be carried out in a more calm and rational manner. Badbilltucker 15:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • It is hardly a good idea to try and take other Wikiprojects under your wing despite objections of the members of those projects. You cannot assert your authority over another Wikiproject by fiat. Beit Or 16:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
      • It does seem a bit inappropriate. It's surely also inappropriate to try to force Wikiproject Atheism into an overarching religion wikiproject, if that's what you meant above. Also, who is assessing the Judaism articles, and are they in a position to assess them? SlimVirgin (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I fail to see how Izak is being "overly emotional" or "irrational" (you even accused him of going into a "tirade" on his talk page). He's simply expressing very legitimate concerns that many people would have about an umbrella project that encompasses all religious articles and is overseen by group that belong in large part to a single one of those religions. I can't disagree with him - my concerns about this new project are identical. The last thing I want to see is a very few editors with limited knowledge and experience doing things like moderating and ranking articles of which they have only the vaguest understanding. That said, this kind of project is not by nature a bad idea; the problems stem from the membership and of their self-assigned duties. Perhaps a better approach would be to spread an open invitation for discussion of creating such a project across all of the various religious projects? Approaching the members of projects that are committed to the articles you wish to oversee to participate before declaring their articles part of your project might be a good idea. Dbratton 16:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Please also note Izak's own positive reaction to my response elsewhere. Also, I ask you to read the inflammatory statements he used, which clearly qualify as being emotional and, at best, nonrational. Having said that, I apologize for any overreaction I myself may have had. Also, please note that it is now requested that all the projects engage in assessments. As stated above, it is my intention to adjust the banners of all the religion projects for assessments, as I already have done on some, so as to not require the use of a single banner for assessment purposes. Also, please note that assessment relates only to the quality and amount of content and reference in an article, none of which require any expertise in the subject. Also, for what it's worth, I majored in "History of Religion" in college, so I think I probably have a better grasp than most about this subject. Also in response to the above, Atheism is a form of religion, and that is why it was placed in the "Religion" section of the Project Directory. I know, because I was the primary person responsible for creating the directory in the first instance. Also, please note that I sent them a message regarding their placement in the directory on their talk page some time ago. And, again in response to the above, please note that their is no intention of assuming "proprietary" claims to any of the articles. In fact, as I already stated, I am going to adjust the other religion banners (and have actually in the past few days created a few for Holidays and Syriac Christianity) for assessments so that the above banner can eventually be removed. I have in no way been trying to "lay a claim" on any article, as that is a clear violation of Ownership. I have simply been assessing the articles so that their current status can be known and that the projects can know which will most quickly benefit from attention. Finally, please note that one of the respondents above has already chosen to make a change on the WP:RELIGION page, a project to which he does not belong, on the basis of his disagreement with what is in fact standard phrasing on such banners. I will only continue this conversation on my talk page, and I will only respond to messages which are themselves not inclusive of ill-informed aspersions to my own character or actions. Frankly, given the amount of overreaction that my actions to improve wikipedia have already caused, I for one am beginning to wonder whether it was a good idea to make the Religion project active at all. Badbilltucker 16:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry Tucker, but IZAK is totally in the right here. Your group has no right to come in and attempt to tell us that you're some kind of 'umhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism&action=edit&section=92brella group' covering all religions. Such a status implies buy in from the individual religion wikiprojects - something you clearly do not have. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 16:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Chabuk, please note that the one thing that I have actually been doing is placing a banner containing assessment on talk pages of articles relating to religion, as it was and still is one of the few banners which actually has assessment parameters. Also note, where possible, I also added the banners of any other projects which relate to the subject as well, generally because they were not present. Also, I would ask all of you to read the Scope section of the Religion Project page, which says that the group will largely leave other religions alone, except to assist in actions which those other projects do not themselves do, like assessment. Frankly, considering the amount, volume, and frequency of ill-informed aspersions against me for my recent actions, I am now beginning to wonder whether the majority of the religion based editors are capable of actually learning about things before making accusations, and am actively considering withdrawing from wikipedia permanently. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that religion is one subject about which the majority of the active wikipedia editors are not capable of being fair and objective. Badbilltucker 17:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the WikiProject I am most familiar with—Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups—has two projects listed as subprojects, both of which postdate it. Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America is quite active and has numerous participants and we've generally just gotten out of their way on anything they want to take over as within their scope; so far, there are no signs of them abusing that by staking out topics not obviously in their scope. And they seem to have adopted most of our best ideas, while we've picked up a few from them. Wikipedia:WikiProject Pashtun is smaller (only four participants), has so far bannered only 12 talk pages, doesn't seem very active, and until it shows more signs of life I wouldn't hesitate to "double up" on bannering talk pages.

Given that the Judaism WikiProject is quite active, I don't see the point of adding a Religion WikiProject banner to talk pages that have already been bannered by the Judaism WikiProject, unless the topic in question has significant ramifications outside of Judaism (e.g. the books of the Hebrew Bible are all equally important in Christianity). - Jmabel | Talk 17:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is quite clear that the Judaism project page is about religion, without the need of the additional banner. I am a member of no religious group or sect whatsoever, and have joined as I have joined other religiously oriented groups, in the interest of promoting a NPOV. (I am, naturally, interested in the topic as well). DGG 17:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
DGG: Is that some sort of "policing function" or a good faith interest to keep an open mind and learn something about the topics as well? After all, the point of an encyclopedia is to convey what the subject is about and not to twist or change facts to make people happy when they may come across stuff that does not fit into their worldview, but which may be perfectly factual and reliable? Think about it. IZAK 18:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I think of NPOV exactly as keeping an open mind--and providing the material for others with an open mind to think about the topics and the issues. Writing and editing, in either the traditional or the WP sense) is probably the best way to learn more about a subject, at either a beginning or a more advanced level. (Teaching also can do this). I do not edit without reading, and there are many topics which, upon seeing here, have induced me to go back to the sources, sometimes to learn more about something new, sometimes to find better information for what I already wanted to say.
Like very many Wiki people, I will adjust wording that assumes the truth of a disputed point, and ask for documenation of what I do not see sourced but think could be sourced, and asking for the presentation of valid relevant opposing viewpoints. Isn't that what's a wiki for? I don't call it policing but simply editing, because I will help either side of a discussion if I have somethig to add. I also try to prevent any controversal religious or political article from deletion. I can tell it needs protection if it arouses emotional personal remarks about the editors rather than the article. For anyone wishes to write in an environment of only his fellow believers, this is not the place.
If someone should happen to disagree with one of my edits, it can be discussed, as long as it does not involve questions on personal beliefs or unrelated topics. I try to make edits that I do not think unsupportable, just to make the point. It isn't clear what editing principles mean until one sees them applied.

I don't think your formulation is very different from mine. Material should be presented in an objecive but sympathetic manner, using the vocabulary appropriate to the topic. It does not necessarily mean "balance" within an article--it is not necessary to repeat in every article that Jews and Christians see things differently. There will however, be some topics in common where it makes sense to present the various perspectives together for a more lucid presentation. And if there is dispute, it is fair to alert the reader.

I would not hesitate in the least to edit a topic I think altoether wrongheaded. if I think I can do so fairly. I have added positive sources to articles about people whom I deplore to keep them from deletion. I think it extrmely wrong to have the view that only Jews, or only believing Jews, should edit here. I am aware that in some views Halacha accepts only arguments from believers. I would never dream of contributing to such a forum--not only would I not know enough, they'd through me out. It is such views which close individuals to "stuff that does not fit into their worldview." DGG 19:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Where we may differ is that I find I can best present the views I do not hold: I can better summarize creationism than Darwinism, because for Darwinism I am too much caught up in the details to have a good perspective. Obviously, doing this right implies that I have actually seen and considered what they have to say. DGG

I don't see anything wrong with a general wikiproject about religion- there isn't anything wrong with different projects having overlapping concerns. Projects should be more for organizational purposes than anything else. However attempting to assert that one project is a subset of another without permission of the other project is at best rude and is a recipe for conflict more than anything else(and putting the atheism project under it? I mean c'mon). I would also have some concern that religion as a whole is a broad topic and that this may lead to editors editing topics where they have insufficient background to be helpful. A variety of other concerns have been raised above but I'm not going to reiterate or go into detail since they mainly revolve around NPOV concerns which of course we need to be careful about. In summary don't see a fundamental problem with having a project for editors interested in religion in general as long as they cooperate and work well with editors from the other projects. JoshuaZ 19:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, it may still be possible to consult with members of the relevant projects and find out if there is interest in having an umbrella project that includes them. Otherwise, a stand-alone project would appear to be the better course. Representing the other projects as sub-projects without first consulting them appears to be a mistake which -- with quick corrective action -- might possibly be recovered from. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

atheism

('(heading added--DGG) I must seriously question User:Badbilltucker's assertion above that:

"Atheism is a form of religion, and that is why it was placed in the "Religion" section of the Project Directory. I know, because I was the primary person responsible for creating the directory in the first instance."

Come again? "Atheism is a form of religion"??? What religion? Atheism comes from the Greek words a theos - "there is no God" so how can not believing in God be termed a "religion" unless one has totally lost touch with what the classical definition of "religion" means = (most basically) "belief in [a] God." Otherwise we can say that anytime anyone holds by any views (even antithetical to religion) they are "religious." If one is a fan of a movie star or celebrity or whatever tickles one's fancy, does that make one into a follower of a "religion"? Like the proverbial "Church of baseball" merely because most of America worships at its TV-altar as its national sport and people love to "worship" it tirelessly? One cannot allow confusion about the basics of religion to become the false foundation-stone of Wikipedia articles or projects. Sure we must, and we do all strive, for perfection as editors and writers, but we are not brainless blobs without ideals or religious principles, we must be steeped in knowledge and life's experience. IZAK 18:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Bill, if you intend to tell the Wikipedia atheists that atheism is a form of religion, please let me know, because I'd like to watch. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


This may not be the appropriate forum for this issue -- perhaps it should be brought up on the relevant WikiProject. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, atheism means "godlessness" [a theos means "without god", not "there is no god"] and is never a religion, any more than "theism", "pantheism", "panentheism", or "deism", it is only ever a viewpoint. In the West, many atheists find religious expression in Secular Humanism and other forms of secular and, in many cases, antitheistic "religions", but that doesn't make atheism itself a religion. In light of that, adding Wikipedia:WikiProject Atheism to Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion was probably not a very well-considered move, especially for someone who claims to have studied the history of religion, the apparent appeal to self as authority in that assertion notwithstanding. WikiProject Religion looks to be an all-around poorly conceived project, and not very diplomatically executed. IMHO, it should really be merged with Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy as a sub-project, but definitely should not attempt to characterize itself as the "parent" of the various religion wikiprojects. חג אורים שמח לכולם, and a very merry christmas to everyone else.  ;-) Tomertalk 00:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, a far better refutation of frummer's assertion is the fact that he first gives an etymology and then proceeds to say his etymology (correct or not is irrelevant here) is reason enough to support including WP:ATHEISM in WP:RELIGION...but there's nothing in that etymology even remotely relevant to either wikiprojects or atheism. There's no reason given, therefore, aside from "frummer thinks so". Tomertalk 16:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
That's the short route, but I like to educate him too. IZAK 03:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually I merely noted that there has been allot of scholarly debate around the definition of religion, the etymology of which i provided. Due to this i don't think one can simply put down the proposal. Thanks for the tremendous educative efforts on your behalf! frummer 05:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Special Sabbaths

Feel free to add to Special Sabbaths. Thanks. IZAK 03:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Milkhemet Mitzvah

Milkhemet Mitzvah needs some attention, someone came at from a funny angle initially. See what you can add. Thanks. IZAK 18:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

"Rebecca" article

... is currently located at "Rebekah". My feeling is that the article should be located at the most common English spelling should be used, which is "Rebecca" (or maybe "Rebeccah"). See Talk: Rebekah. —Batamtig 00:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Messianic Judaism

Hi there, I just wanted to let you guys know of the WikiProject Messianic Judaism, which was recently started. I want to raise the issue of their Template:Messianic Judaism, which has many of the same articles as Template:Judaism does. Please see the ongoing discussion at Template_talk:Messianic Judaism regarding the contents of that template. Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 03:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't like it, but I don't really see what can be done about it. If they claim something is "relevant" to their religion, who can deny that? However, one can complain that they're hiding their Christian identity by not linking to many Christian articles. Peter, Paul, etc. would be favorite here. —Batamtig 20:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
My main digression is that they are using articles that have nothing to do with Messianic Judaism in their template. Take Kosher for instance. Messianic Jews do not keep kosher. They don't follow the 613_mitzvot. They don't have any Conversion to Judaism. Yet all of these articles are listed on their template. They even have a link to the New Testament under a subheading with a link to Category:Jewish_texts. And it's misleading since they have the term apostolic, some bizarre word I have never seen used. Looking at the Wikipedia article on the word, it has nothing to do with Jewish texts or anything Jewish. These blatant examples of misleading statements regarding Jews need to be dealt with. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 00:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • We don't intend to be misleading. I created the template based on topics from my experience in Messianic Judaism, and started with the Judaism template so I could get a broad idea of the available topics already in existence that relate to Judaism. It was a matter of removing articles from the Messianic Judaism template that had no relation to the copied topics from the Judaism template. Those topics that do remain are relevant to Messianic Judaism. Personally me and my congregation keep kosher, attempt to do all 613 mitzvot, and my personal mentor is one who actively performs conversions to Judaism - although personally I disagree with the practice. The topics listed in the template may not necessarily apply to all Messianic Jews, but then again, neither do all the topics listed in the Judaism template apply to all Jews. The "apostolic" issue is debatable and I suggest you bring that issue up in the template's talk page. I also think it's a good idea to have Peter and Paul listed on the template. But I removed them from earlier versions of the template because unlike Template:Judaism, I didn't want to start the template's design with already built-in feature creep. If you notice, not even Moses or David are listed either. So instead, I've relegated the whole host of important figures to Messianic Judaism to a simple link. My goal is to keep the template trimmed but still relevant, useful, and informative. Please feel free to bring up any disagreement you may have with it, in the template's talk page. Shalom. inigmatus 20:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Added Page on Shorter Jewish Encyclopedia

I translated the Russian wiki page, and would appreciate some editing. Please see the talk page for details. Madler 04:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Mala Zimetbaum and millions of Holocaust victims and survivors

How notable is this person Mala Zimetbaum, and does she deserve an article of her own? There were millions of Holocaust so should they all get their own articles now? Doesn't that trivialize the event? Seems that if someone gets to write a book or gets mentioned somewhere, they then "automatically" become notable. What do you think? IZAK 16:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

"Three pilgrim festivals" vs. "Three pilgrimage festivals"

Question: What should be the name for the Shalosh Regalim: the Three pilgrim festivals or the Three pilgrimage festivals? Please see the discussion at Talk:Three pilgrimage festivals#Name. Thanks you. IZAK 16:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Messianic Judaism

Template:Messianic Judaism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. IZAK 19:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently 36-19 in favor of delete is "no consensus, lean towards keep." No consensus I can understand, but lean towards keep? Especially annoying when most of the keeps were from editors with no edits to Judaism (or MJ) articles calling the deletion "oppression of a minority," which is impossible with MJ. Inigmatus was the only real defender, but his arguments must have appealed to the closing admin. Dbratton 10:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding technical stuff to templates

I think we should start to add ratings to the WP:Judaism template (ie: stub-class, start-class, b-class, etc...) as well as having an assessment system. I don't know how to go about with this technical stuff at this time but is anyone else knowledgeable on how to do this? See Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey (WP:NJ) for an example of what I see it looking like. Valley2city 20:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Kavod HaBriyot article

Hello, IZAK and I are having one of our occassional disagreements where outside comment might be helpful, this time about the Kavod HaBriyot article. I recently started the article because the concept has gotten increased notability as a result of its use in a Conservative opinion on homosexuality. It was previously used by Daniel Sperber as a basis for an opinion on women's aliyot. Before then Orthodox rabbis used it for much more mundane topics like whether a deaf person can use a hearing aid on Shabbat. These rulings are based on a particular Bareitah and related discussion in Berachot 19b beginning with "Great is kevod habriyot, which can override a negative prohibition of the Torah." IZAK has rewritten the article (a) to claim that the concept as we know it today is really based on statements in Pirkei Avot and elsewhere, and (b) to present as fact his view that the Rabbis of the Gemorrah eventually rejected the Baraitah in toto, so that it has no legitimate application in Halachah, period. Whatever one makes of this, I presented sources that contemporary rabbis (on the mundane as well as the controversial topics) looked to Berachot 19b as their source, saw it as still having some life (although addressing at most Rabbinic rather than Torah prohibitions), and used it in contemporary opinions. Although I respect both his passionate attachment and his scholarship, IZAK's essay seems to me to be essentially Original research. What do others make of this? IZAK has put a lot of work into this, and I'd appreciate other's opinions before any more attempts to revert each other are made. Obviously this is a controversial topic with multiple views, and I myself find some interpretations more dubious than others. Please comment on Talk:Kavod HaBriyot#Requesting Comments. Thanks. Hope you had a tzom kal and have a Happy New Year, --Shirahadasha 00:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I join Shirahadasha's request for peer review. Nothing I have added to that article is "original." If anything I have quoted verbatim the sources, the Shulkhan Arukh, and the meforshim. With all due respect, Kavod Habriyot is not about aliyas for women or what Daniel Sperber or any modern writer thinks it's about. This is a serious topic in Torah. To be continued at Talk:Kavod HaBriyot#Requesting Comments. IZAK 02:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler's contacts with Jewish people

Have you ever had a close look at this strange article: Adolf Hitler's contacts with Jewish people? It's full of red links for the supposed Jews he had contact with (do they deserve articles just because they were Hitler's alleged dentist/shoe-shine-boy/chimney-sweep/whatnots etc?) It's weirdly prurient. The heading stinks. Do all the Jews killed in the Holocaust get to be in it? How about all the theories about Hitler having a Jewish ancestor, does that also count as him having "contact" with Jewish people? I doubt that the originators of this article and those who worked on it have rational objectives. It should be merged with something else involving Adolf Hitler or even deleted for its stupidity. (If not, how about Adolf Hitler's contacts with gypsies, Adolf Hitler's contacts with Italian people, Adolf Hitler's contacts with Russian people, Adolf Hitler's contacts with retarded people, Adolf Hitler's contacts with murderers this can go on forever, and then we can even create Category:Adolf Hitler's contacts with people. IZAK 02:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Calm down. Your addition of the red-links towards the end were not necessary. You might offend someone. However, I agree the article itself should be merged into the main Hitler article. The material is not strong enough to stand on it’s own.(Ghostexorcist 02:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC))
Hi Ghost: That's exactly my point, that the article is offensive to "Jewish people" among its other failings. I am calm... IZAK 03:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The Rambam was a "Muslim" for a while?

Ever heard of this? See List of Muslim converts#Religious figures: "Maimonides - Jewish philosopher, theologian, and physician forced to convert to Islam under pain of death during the Cordoba massacre of 1148. Reverted to Judaism when his life was no longer under threat.<ref>Lewis (1984), p. 100</ref>" I don't see which book by "Lewis" is even cited here, and does "Lewis" even say that? (I assume this refers to the Arabist Bernard Lewis.) I had once heard that the Rambam did issue a heter for this kind of procedure (it must be written somewhere) but I had never heard that it had also happened to himself personally. I read an article in the English Yated a couple of years ago that the Mashhadi Jews in Iran relied on such a ruling from the Rambam, and that it was controversial, yet acceptable according to Halachah. Can you help with verifying this, especially if it happened to the Rambam? Thanks. IZAK 18:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, this is true. Not so much that he was a Muslim in the sense of a practicing adherent to the religion, but yes, during th Cordoba Pogrom, he and his family were forced to "convert" (keeping in mind that to convert to Islam, all you need to do is recite the Shahadah three times in the presence of two muslims, and you're considered a full muslim. Of course, according to Judaism, you cannot stop being Jewish simply by saying a sentence three times. So while according to Islam, he was a muslim, according to the religious Jewish view, he was always Jewish. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 19:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The go-to work of Rambam's on the topic of forced conversion is called Iggeret HaShemad. The issue of how to deal with forced converts, conversos, etc. actually leads to a whole genre of responsa among the Rishonim; everyone weighs in on it because so many communities were affected over a very long period of time. YM0107 04:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe this can be found in the Halkin & Hartman book, "Epistles of Maimonides: Crisis and Leadership".

Reciting the Shahadah three times only means that a person wishes to be recognized as a Muslim. Whether or not they are actually Muslim is a matter left to God (and occasionally Islamic scholars) --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 18:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Religion

The group indicated above was recently revitalized for, among other things, the purpose of working on those articles whose content is such that the article does not fall within the scope of any particular denomination. To most effectively do this, however, we would benefit greatly if there were at least one member from this Project working on those articles. On that basis, I would encourage and welcome any member of this Project willing to work on those articles to join the Religion WikiProject. Thank you. Badbilltucker 14:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Expanding Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Articles to include a section of article that overlaps with Judaism would help many editors here may be interested in working on those article but have not noticed that existed. Doing so for all religions would be a great way to encourage work on articles that have "fallen between the cracks" of the other wikiprojects. Jon513 15:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, most of the other religion projects are getting their own lists of articles which fall within their own specific scope. Having started all of the article lists in the past day, they are all by definition still in the process of being created. Once they're all finished (whenever that is), I hope to try to improve the categorization so that it will be easier for adherents of specific faiths to find articles related to their faith. However, as I am not a member of this project, it would probably be taken as an affront by certain members of the project if I were to attempt to do anything along those lines myself. Badbilltucker 15:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
What is the point of a list of article which falls within the scope of a project? Each project should define its own scope. When there is a issue with an article it is talked about on the talk page. if the issue involve a range of article, the discussion takes place on the wikiproject that is most closely related to that set of articles. The statement on the project page "This WikiProject aims to standardize Wikipedia articles on Judaism, Halakha ("Jewish law" and tradition) and other subjects and phenomena that are directly related to Judaism as a religion" defines the scope of this project quite well. Jon513 15:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The point is that such a list is the basis of the recent changes function, as that function reviews the recent changes to articles on that list. Badbilltucker 16:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

External links

I am not sure what is like in other articles but the Jewish article seem to get cluttered up pretty fast with links to shurim of everyone favorite rabbi. Perhaps it would be best if we add a comment at the top of the external link section giving a short explanation of what types of links are appropriate. A "external link cleanup campaign" might also be a good idea. And it could be helpful if we formate more specific rules for external links in halakhic article than what is currently explain in Wikipedia:External links. It seems to me that there is also a problem when there are many links to different, yet comparable, shurim on a topic. There is no need to include all, but it is hard to justify how to pick just one. Jon513 15:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

24.110.12.50 edits to various articles

Anon editor 24.110.12.50 has made some pretty substantial edits to Judaism's view of Jesus, Jewish Messiah, and Messianic Prophecy that should be examined. He's obviously well-intentioned, but his grasp of the language is a bit lacking and he's been somewhat over-eager to add links to numerous anti-missionary sites to every page which aren't really necessary for the subjects in question. Some of his other additions may be worthwhile, which is why I haven't made the changes myself - it will require a bit of effort to determine what parts should be kept and adjust the wording, and I'm going to bed momentarily after a long, torturous day of flat hunting. ;)

While you're at Judaism's view of Jesus be sure to check out the one-man crusade being waged by editor Just nigel to introduce first a section on MJ, and now a POV tag because the page is "biased against their religious minority". Dbratton 22:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Funny Swastika

Take a look at these templates:

with the Image:HinduSwastika.svg displayed prominently. Honestly, of all of Hinduism's symbols' did this one have to get "headline" billing on these templates? Alternatives are aplenty if one were to look around on articles listed on {{Hindu Deities and Texts}} where there are dozens of less offensive symbols that could be chosen for the same purpose. While the swastika may be ok with some Hindus, it should not be flashed around "in all innocence" because for the rest of the world that was caught up in World War II it was the symbol of literal EVIL, DEATH and DESTRUCTION emanating from the Nazis. It was Hitler's personal diabolical "symbol of choice" and for that reason it is VERY far from neutral, no matter in what context it is used. It violates Wikipedia:Civility to have it displayed in such an "in your face" fashion on these Hindu templates, giving it a dubious "place of pride" it does not deserve. Need one say more? IZAK 22:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a religious symbol, plain and simple. Not everyone in the world are racist or a Nazi. I understand that your hatred for what Hitler did is very passionate, but you need to stop looking at everything like it’s a plot against the Jewish people on Wikipedia. I'll admit that it's not a traditional-looking swastika which normally opens to the left. This is a Buddhist symbol.(Ghostexorcist 23:36, 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"?
Hmmm: So what about the guy who posted [19] one of the templates ({{Hindu Links}}) 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): Image:Holocaust123.JPG
IZAK, I think I understand and somewhat share your feelings, but IMHO you are overreacting here. Nazi swastika looked different and symbolized something very different. More importantly, I don't see an evidence of their intention to offend, and they seem to simply celebrate their religion. Perhaps more education/reconciliation is in order. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Humus: Thanks for your input, but for most people, even intelligent ones, "a swastika, is a swastika, is a swastika" -- I am not saying that the intention was deliberate, I am saying that this symbol is "too hot to handle" and that if they have better alternatives they should use it, as not everyone can stay calm and get educated about the nuances of swastikas when about 65 yeears ago their ancestors were murdered by the millions with hazy ("warm and fuzzy") swastikas fluttering all over the place... It's a two-way street, as we take our time getting educated (it may take about two thousand years) they also need to get educated about what it means to some other people who hate it for very good reasons. IZAK 01:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a centralized discussion on this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hinduism. --tjstrf talk 01:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a heated discussion over the subject. You are reading too much into the symbol itself. It was used LONG before Hitler took it as his symbol. Most westerners don't even realize that it has a use outside of the Nazi party. I believe Humus sapiens was right when he commented on further education on the subject. (Ghostexorcist 01:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC))
And I was also right that civilization cannot wait 2000 years to get educated. Some things are too painful and should not be abused or covered up with "education needed" -- that is the way all totalitarians reacted, they sent people for "re"-education...IZAK 02:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Hitler's "re-education" was not about openness, learning the history of other societies, and increasing in mental diversity. It was about censorship, exclusion of anything he did not personally tolerate, and blindness to the cultures of the outside world.--tjstrf talk 02:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I wasn't referring to Hitler, his solution was genocide, I was thinking more about the Russians and Chinese who in addition to genocide used "re-education" by sending them to the gulags and the farms etc. IZAK 02:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
So now you are a Bigot and a RACIST! (Ghostexorcist 02:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC))
IZAK...You crossed the line there. MetsFan76 02:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: Talk about this is now centralized at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hinduism#Use of Swastika. Thanks. IZAK 02:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You are one sick person. You just equated me with a nazi. Is "Bigot" your middle name?(Ghostexorcist 02:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC))
No, I am saying that anyone who can casually dismiss objections to the use of swastikas, evidently does not care that much about what the swastika, any swastika, meant to victims, dead and alive, of the Holocaust. I cannot fathom why you attribute "equations" to me that I never made. I mean what I say, and say what I mean. Like "Tell that to the marines." I leave "equations" for mathematicians. IZAK 02:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I urge all Jewish people to contribute in this discussion, it is not the fault of a 3000 year old peaceful religion that a person in the 20th century adopted its religious symbol for a political symbol. Hindus are not Nazis, if you believe that then I have nothing to say to you. Hindu nationalist groups are one of the biggest supporters of Israel within India. See Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Hindutva and here. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 03:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Two move proposals

I have proposed two separate moves:

1. Aharon Leib Shteinman --> Aharon Leib Steinman

2. Joseph Soloveitchik --> Joseph B. Soloveitchik

Please see Talk:Aharon Leib Shteinman and Talk:Joseph Soloveitchik to discuss and comment. Thanks, DLandTALK 04:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Article tagged as needing expert attention

Great Synagogue of London has been tagged as requiring expert attention. Any such assistance in improving this article would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Badbilltucker 02:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Negiah

Jon513 and I have had our hands full dealing with some original research-related edit warring from a new editor at Negiah. If anyone can help us build consensus there, it would be appreciated. --DLandTALK 04:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DLand on at least this point! As one of the two 'new editors' in question (new in that I've never made a login before), I think building consensus about how to correctly cite sources is really important to ensuring the quality of this article. I actually think the debate we were having on Negiah is pretty useful vis-a-vis how sources are cited in general in halachic articles on Wiki. (Namely, is it OK to cite, without comment, an ancient or medieval textual source for a contemporary practice, when the textual source itself appears to describe a different practice. Conversely, is it original research to instead translate or paraphrase the cited textual source in the body of a Wiki article?) The related issue of conflating rabbinic historiography with academic Jewish history/history of halacha is also of great importance. YM0107 18:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: template for "rabbinical literature"

Hi all. A person pointed out to me that some of the individual pages for various rabbinical works (i.e., Avot de-Rabbi Nathan) are difficult to dive into without some background. What I thought might help matters would be some sort of template for "rabbinical literature" that would essentially parallel the structure of the Rabbinical literature page, and could be placed on the individual pages for the various Midrashic works and such (any page describing a post-biblical and pre-medieval work). This would make it immediately obvious what "category" such pages belong to, and where the interested reader should go for a "gentle introduction". (Of course the Rabbinical literature page should then provide such a "gentle introduction", which I'm not sure it currently does.) Is this template a good idea, and, if so, should I just go ahead and try to make a template (I've never done one before), or is there some procedure? Or is it a bad idea? Thanks much. —Dfass 00:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone cares, I'm working on such a template myself: Template:Rabbinical Literature. Currently, it's a mess, but I will try to get it more together. Any ideas are welcome. —Dfass 18:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad's destruction of the Jews of Arabia

Please read Banu Qurayza and then compare it to Banu Nadir, Banu Qaynuqa, and Muhammad and the Jews. The first one is well written, while the last three proclaim, in not so many words, that Muhammad was great and those Jews had it coming. Please try to make all the articles like the Banu Qurayza article! Muhammad's treatment of the Jews is held up to be the model to emulate in many parts of the Middle East. It's vital that the wikipedia articles on these topics be accurate and neutral. Arrow740 02:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

If someone wants to put it on the front page of this wikiproject that'd be great. Arrow740 02:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Jared (ancestor of Noah)

Hi, could somebody please place one of those Hebrew-character parenthetical names for this guy? I mean, the one with standard Hebrew and Tiberian Hebrew and the like. I wasn't sure which part of To-Do I should put this, so I figured I may as well put it here. The Behnam 07:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Godhead (Judaism)

Godhead (Judaism) is a new contribution that requires further input. Thanks. IZAK 08:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

{{HeBible-stub}} on SfR

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SFD#.7B.7BHeBible-stub.7D.7D_.E2.86.92_.7B.7BTanakh-stub.7D.7D - crz crztalk 19:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Molten Sea

Greetings! I come under the auspices of WikiProject Abandoned Articles, aiming to bring abandoned articles back to life. One such article is Molten Sea, and I was wondering if there was anybody with enough knowledge to expand the article and make it more detailed and comprehensive. --Lord Pheasant 22:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

A plea for help: United Synagogue Day School

An editor, User:Pan Dan, has tagged United Synagogue Day School, a Conservative Jewish Day school in Toronto, as not being notable. I am having trouble proving its notability. Any help to keep it would be appreciated. --YUL89YYZ 23:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

BSD Userbox

{{User:Eric1985/userbox/bsd}}

בס"ד This user built his/her user page with the help of HaShem

Anyone is free to use my new BS'D userbox. --יהושועEric 01:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

possible copyvio

39 categories of activity prohibited on Shabbat was recently expanded([20]) The source of "Ribiat, Rabbi Dovid. The 39 Melachos. 12th ed. Vol. 3. Jerusalem / New York: Feldheim, 2003. Pages 783-803." is given. Can someone with the book handly see if it is a copyvio? (I suspect it is) Otherwise it needs to wikified. Jon513 17:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Sephardic Jews

I didn't do any vandalism, I think some mistook it for vandalism though, all I did was put down a picture of an actual Sephardic Jew. I got it off of [http:http://racialreality.shorturl.com/]. There was no harm intended. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arnie Gov (talk • contribs) 19:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

the proper link to the page the image is from is [21]. Jon513 19:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criticism

A new draft of a proposed policy on criticism is being circulated. Since Judaism articles tend to have lots of controversy, suggest editors might want to review and comment on the proposal. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Jews and Judaism in Kazakhstan

In Jews and Judaism in Kazakhstan, it says, and I quote:

The Kazakh government registered eight foreign rabbis and Jewish missionaries.

Can anyone find a source for this ... one which says what exactly is meant by "Jewish missionaries"? Tomertalk 04:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Vat is this?

Vat is this? Some type of joke? 203.217.94.62 09:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shammaite. --Shirahadasha 18:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Opt-in WP:CANVAS list

Given the recent re-deletion of Category:Jewish-American businesspeople in an attempt to circumvent the overwhelming consensus of the DRV in question, I think we might want to start an opt-in list for canvassing articles related to the project. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 16:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Jews of Wilno/Vilnius

In Operation Wilno article there is a dispute whether Wilno in 1920 was inhabited by Polish Jews or Lithuanian Jews. See also Talk:Operation Wilno#The Jewish Issue. Comments appreciated.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Aarons: ben Joseph & ben Elijah

Could some one with some background peek at Talk:List of people by name: Aa#ben Joseph & ben Elijah? (And respond to this note with at least "Done", when their peek satisfies them it's been brought under control.)
--Jerzy•t 17:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)