Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 20

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 20
| Archive 21 →


Contents

Toledano Tradition article

I have nominated the Toledano Tradition article for the deletion. The AfD can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toledano Tradition. The reason for my requesting the AfD is that the article claims to present the early development, and character, of the Kabbalah, but actually does that based on the thinking of one problematic writer Warren Kenton. Since Kabbalah has come much more into the public's attention, I think it important to remove articles that distort Judaism. So far there has been little voting, and I would appreciate it if as many editors as possible vote -- either for or against...as seems best. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Is anti-Semitism tolerated on Wikipedia? Please review these complaints

Rather than contact individual editors, I am posting this request on a few talk pages where it may be of interest. I posted a complaint about an anti-Semitic editor at WP AN/I, with links to the talk page containing this editors anti-Semitic rants and Jew-baiting of me. An (16 year old) admin came in to that notice, told me to "shut the hell up, and closed the case. I filed again at Wikiquette alerts (since anti-Semitic rants and attacks, I assume, are not considered good Wikiquette) with relevant diffs, and bizarrely, I was told that the "the consensus from WP:ANI seems to be to let this go", even though the only "discussion" on ANI was between the "shut the hell up" admin and the anti-Semitic editor himself?! Since there seems to be a bit of difficulty in getting a clear-cut case of anti-Semitism (not to mention a serious and vile transgression of WP:TALK properly heard, I am inviting review by editors. Thus far, the main action has been for me (and not the anti-Semite) to receive warnings, even though I simply called an editor who a simple google search also shows to be a Stormfront member a nazi. I assume Godwin's law only applies when the term is used inappropriately, not appropriately. Thank you for your consideration. Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Depending on what articles you decide to edit, it can be pretty easy to run into antisemitism on Wikipedia. My view is, at this point, that it is best to avoid personal disputes -- no matter what is said -- and focus on effective editing. You can put something on the Administrators Notice Board if you want, but don't expect any results from that. And the fact is, if you let them know they have gotten you mad, or have hurt you, you have told them they have just succeeded in baiting you and in reduced your effectiveness as an editor. If you get into the mediation process, you waste a lot of time, and still are unlikely to change anything. But, if you are effective in your editing goals, they will be the ones who panic. It is best to bore in on improving your editing skills, and on effective editing, and then you can let the antisemites sweat it. Just my view. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I have read the diff you provided and I cannot find any reference to any personal attacks. Focus on the article - not on personal opinions and move on. Wikipedia is not a forum, and nothing besides the article itself should be discussed. If a person is a good unbiased editor you should be unable to deduce what his opinions are. You are both to blame for arguing about the validity of your viewpoints instead of focusing on the article. Jon513 (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Jon513,
  • A) if you actually read the talk page, you will see I discuss none of my personal viewpoints, I instead protest against the other editor using the talk page as a forum for his anti-Semitic rants (of course me opposing that can be considered a personal viewpoint, but its with regards to a serious violation of WP:TALK)
  • B) You don't consider being told that, because I am offended by anti-Semitism, "you have a serious emotional problem, or, you're probably Jewish," or being told "keep your pro-Jewish views out of the article when you edit," as offensive, anti-Semitic attacks? Hmmm, OK. I must be meshuggah. Or NOT! Boodlesthecat (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed that there is also a Wikipedia:WikiProject Discrimination, and you might look into that. I have no idea how active, or effective, it is. But it is really important to stay calm when dealing with antisemitism, and focus on the article. If you find that you can't control your anger when an antisemite tries to provoke you, it might be best to stay away from editing articles like, for example, Jew Watch, until you reach a point that you can. Personally, I found that studying Mussar a big help (although the article about it could use a little work). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Bereishis

I just did a Wikipedia search for Bereishis, and was redirected to Book of Genesis which is part of Project Christianity. That seems to be a big whole in Project Judaism. The same applies, I am sure to the other books of the Tanach. Perhaps, for a start, some discussion of the books could be added to the Tanach article....or something. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Book of Genesis is also a part of Project Judaism and has been for some time (actually, longer than it has been in the Christianity project). "Bereishis" redirects to "Book of Genesis" because they're two names for the same thing, the latter being more well known. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that Bereishis should be a disambig page. There is also Bereishit (parsha). Jon513 (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Nice catch. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
All the variant spellings of Bereishit probably should redirect that page, which is already a disambiguation page, and not to Book of Genesis. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I set up similar pages for Shemot, Vayikra, Bamidbar and Devarim, and I redirected all the Hebrew transliterations that previously went to the English-language names to the new disambiguation pages. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of synagogue articles

In the past few days User Bstone (talk · contribs) has been nominating and prodding articles about various synagogues for deletion. I am not sure what his criteria are over-all, but such sweeping actions need more attention from a greater spectrum of Judaic editors familiar with the issues as well as with the Wikipedia policies that should or should not be applied. See his contributions to follow his moves. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I can kind of understand why he is doing it. Some of the articles are only a single sentence.--Ghostexorcist (talk) 03:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
... and at least one of them was stub-length and established the synagogue's notability in the first few words. Go figure. Despite all evidence to the contrary, I think we should assume that User:Bstone is acting in good faith and doing what he thinks is in the encyclopedia's best interest. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Malik: Indeed, we are all here to act in the best interests of Wikipedia. And some of us understand that articles do not sprout up overnight and that lots more time may be needed. Articles cannot grow in content, scope and quality overnight if legitimate seedlings are uprooted before they are given time to grow and develop more fully as mature articles. Sure, by all means, choosing a synagogue article here and there to delete is legitimate, but for any editor to set himself up as a kind of "grand inquisitor" of all synagogues and arbitrarily, in effect, abuse Wikipedia guidelines as an excuse to eliminate many potentially important articles is very worrying. Each case has to be examined carefully and not rushed with "prods"! Most of the synagogue articles and stubs have been created and written in good faith by editors from all denominations of Judaism over many [years. Some aren't even active as they used to be. This needs to be handled in a thoughtful and respectable manner and not in a hurried "mass killing" fashion. Such a decision, as to what to do about a collection of stub articles in any subject that one feels should be either improved or "eliminated" should be brought to a greater number of editors in order to attain WP:CONSENSUS at a minimum so that such moves are truly motivated by what's best for Wikipedia and not by some pretty obvious desire to wield an axe in some sort of not so subtle over-arching edit-war against synagogue articles. We do not need a Wikipedia version of Kristalnacht -- and yes it's that sensitive a topic! Often, synagogues are the main and focal points of the history of certain communities, and their historries are interwoven with the history of the communities that built them and used them as the focal point of communal worship and more. It is worrying and needs to be addressed. IZAK (talk) 08:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Very well written, IZAK. Comment: I think many people, outside of Judaism, do not realize how important of a part a synagogue plays in the Jewish community and everyday Jewish life. A synagogue cannot be equated to that of a Christian church, however we cannot fault people for not knowing; we can only try to educate them and hope that they come to understand. Nsaum75 (talk) 09:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nsaum: As I say, one or two nominations won't kill anyone or anything, but if an editor appears to be readying himself for an organized effort that would normally require greater consensus it needs to be stopped until there is more understanding of the issues involved that go beyond this or that technicality of Wikipedia guidelines. You know, for example, that is why there are rules about avoiding WP:LAWYERing when rules are used to violate WP:POINT. IZAK (talk) 10:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Izak. It is much better to first talk in general about what synagogue articles there should and shouldn't be, and then delete the ones that need to be deleted, and create the ones that need to be created. Nominating some and leaving others without first considering the criteria for inclusion for the set of articles creates a haphazard application of the policies and guidelines. Jon513 (talk) 13:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have just added exactly two AfDs to congregations that do not assert notability, here and here, are sometimes only a single sentence in length (or abouts) and are almost as much as yellowbook ads for the respective congregations. I did CSD A7 on small number of others which were rejected by admins in favor of formal AfDs. Based on the results of the formal AfDs, which are there to determine if the congregations assert and/or are notable enough to be included in this project, the articles will be kept or deleted. As it sits now one both of them are a single sentence long with no notable information whatsoever. As for the statements of grand inquisitor and especially even bringing up Kristalnacht...well...I am officially nauseated. Bstone (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

A quick look at a couple of the articles suggests they are very brief and their notability does seem to be debatable, so I don't see any reason for arguing that the deletion nominations are in bad faith here. We can address their individual merits as they arise. Bstone, it would be appreciated if you could add nominations to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism as you go along. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll write myself a note to place a notice of AfD here for all related articles. In the meantime, since there seems to be a consensus that non-notable congregation deletion should be considered on a case-by-case basis I would inquire why there seems to be people voting "opposed" in the exactly two articles I have nominated for deletion. Perhaps it is time for IZAK and Nsaum75 to go back and modify their opines on the relevant AfD pages? Also, opposed to what? I thought it was either keep, delete or merge. Bstone (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Bstone, I'm inclined to think (like Shirahadasha) it's ok to move forward on a case-by-case basis and, absent any consensus to the contrary, proceed with the usual parameters. Still, are there any criteria you are using that you might apprise us of? Also, what pace of AfDs would you consider reasonable for our (limited) community of editors to handle? Thanks. HG | Talk 21:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Note to Bstone: Since this matter has now drawn the attention of some serious Judaic editors may I respectfully request that before you continue on your rampage of deletions, that you first list and discuss what it is that you plan on doing and why. You fail to realize something very important, that Wikipedia articles are not produced overnight, especially articles relating to Jewish topics may start as stubs and then develop over time. That is why Wikipedia has the entire institution of stubs, not to line articles up like sitting ducks to be deleted, but rather to give editors a chance to put down topics and then have them develop. You are violating this spirit and hindering the growth of articles by destroying them through prods at their early stages. I would strongly advise you to stop and discuss the matter fully here before you go any further or stronger action against your moves will unfortunately be necessary very soon. Yours sincerly, IZAK (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I echo the words of IZAK, a discussion of the matter here is best. Culturalrevival (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
"Strong action"?? What, will someone steal his lunch money?--Docg 23:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Assuming good faith, the editor Bstone, is attempting to better Wikipedia. We should all assume good faith. At the same time we must recognize the record of Bstone and the AfD on Beyt Tikkun. If Bstone would state her or his intentions/designs outright, then we might all be able to return to the assumption of good faith, and continue to better Wikipedia. Communication is needed here. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
"Return" to assuming good faith? I see no grounds for anyone to have departed from it in the first place. People who think something should be deleted and entitled to avail themselves of the deletion process and make their case there. Since that's what we do for all articles, I can't see any problem.--Docg 01:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
It has been difficult, for many, to return to the assumption of good faith after the negative tone taken by Bstone in the following discussions located at [1] and [2]. This is just an honest assessment of the present situation. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Then such people should reconsider their attitude to this project. We do not assume bad faith because we strongly disagree with someone's views on deletion/inclusion. People who can't disagree with civility and manners really are not helping things.--Docg 02:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Shavua Tov! In the last year or so Wikipedia has been significantly tightening its policy enforcement across the encyclopedia. One area where this has shown up has been in the deletion of articles considered non-notable or insufficiently verified. Wikipedia recently deleted thousands of articles on television episodes, bands, and other topics for failing to make a claim of notability and lacking any sources. These synagogue deletion nominations are part of that trend and, if you look at what's been happening in the rest of the encyclopedia, are perhaps inevitable. It's pretty well established that Wikipedia is not a directory and it's not interested in hosting lists of synagogues and the like. Grumbling isn't going to change that. I hate to say it, but grumbling could have consequences which may be the opposite of what is intended. If WikiProject Judaism editors, particularly longtime ones, are not willing to come in to AfD discussions making arguments that show we've read Wikipedia policy, are at least basically willing to abide by it, and understand how to argue from it, our credibility with the rest of the Wikipedia community could be completely blown. The rest of Wikipedia actually defers to us a surprising amount in marginal cases on Jewish-related articles and gives us quite a number of leniencies. If we don't sound like we know what we're talking about and are willing to play ball on basic policy matters, that deference could end. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

In response to a similar post on my talk page from User:Shirahadasha, I am reposting Shira's post and my reply IZAK (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC):

IZAK, suggest spending some time hanging out in the C:SD area, which shows all the articles that have been nominated for speedy deletion and are awaiting deletion. The majority of them get deleted by an admin within a few hours without any discussion. There can be dozens, sometimes hundreds, of nominations at any one time. It used to be that most articles in this area were obvious vandalism, joke articles and the like. But these days, probably a majority are serious articles that aren't considered appropriate candidates for the encyclopedia. In the last year or two Wikipedia has been inundated with articles by companies attempting to use Wikipedia for cheap advertising. One consequence of that experience is that a lot of Wikipedians are very wary of articles on organizations and suspect them, unless they have a lot of content and a clear reason for being there, of being advertising ploys. Two of our criteria for speedy deletion for articles, A1, lack of sufficient context, and A7, failure to explain the subject's importance or significance, are routinely used to speedy-delete, without discussion, articles that contain more information than some of the synagogue articles you are protesting. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi Shira: Thank you for contacting me. Frankly, with all due respect for your abilities and capabilities: I have been on Wikipedia for over five years, far longer than you, so I have as good a sense of, if not a better sense of what gives and what is good for Wikipedia! So I understand full well what you are saying. But you have not grasped where I am coming from in the present situation it seems, because my concern and focus is on BUILDING Wikipedia especially its Jewish content. In the process of building one needs "bricks" and "cement" at least. Some of the recent nominations to delete articles about synagogues run counter to the spirit and aim of building good articles. Many of these synagogue articles have been accumulated over years and they need to be looked at NOT as "nuisances" that need to be removed but as POSSIBLE building blocks, either on their own if at all possible, or as the parts of articles about the cities and communities they are in. Thus an article about a small synagogue in an isolated community may not seem that significant on its own, but it can and should be part of a larger article about [[History of the Jews in _ _ _ _]] see Category:Jewish American history by place as an example, or it could even be MERGED into an general non-Judaic article about the city or community it finds itself in under a sub-heading of "==Religion in _ _ _ _=="! These are all healthy possible options to have in mind and but not to be "trigger happy" by reaching for the "delete" options at every turn without considering the larger picture and the difficulty of gathering information for Judaic articles in the first place! These are some of my concerns as a Wikipedia writer/editor/contributor (who by the way also knows that at times some articles must indeed go, but it must be built on perspective and not just "fulfiling rules" that are a dime a dozen and don't help writing/editing/contributing in any real way.) As for what large company's and organizations are doing it mostly does not impact Wikipedia's Judaic content, except I would say with articles relating to Chabad that are flooding-in in greater numbers and need to be controlled and channelled. But this needs to be a careful busines and not a "shoot at sight" situation where an editor can look for all the rules around and shoot down stubs especially, something that is very unfair to all stubs. The mere fact that Wikipedia allows for stub articles to exist without any timeframe imposed on them, disproves the desire of the blanket deletionists. Not every article can reach full bloom with the slapping down of a template for "more information" and the like. Growth takes time. We are writers and editors first and being "deletionists and butchers" needs to be seen in context of growth and not just a process to fulfil rules that have nothing to do with writing and creating larger and better articles. IZAK (talk) 04:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I do have to point out that it has become fairly well established that individual churches are not notable, and neither are college student organisations at individual colleges. I would not like to try to defend that a synagogue necessarily has a great role in the community than the congregation of some other religion, or that an Hillel has a greater notability than another organisation at a college. What does seem defensible is that the chief congregation of a particular religion in a city is notable, and so its its religious leader. One can usually defend a Roman Catholic bishop or a chief Rabbi. there has to be something specific that those outside the group can understand. those who know them may know what rabbis are important, but will still need some way of not just explaining it, but showing it. There's a discussion on my talk page right now about this in relation to a very different religion. DGG (talk) 07:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi DGG: Adas Israel Congregation (one of two articles now up for deletion) is the oldest surviving Orthodox synagogue in Duluth, Minnesota. So that it has the longest living and continuous history of any synagogue in Duluth making it automatically a key part of Duluth's Jewish history. Unless someone can write a more complete History of the Jews in Duluth, Minnesota, it is important to preserve smaller and hopefully growing "thousand points of light" articles and stubs so to speak, that will hopefully coalesce and coagulate into fuller-bodied articles. Even a human being starts off from two half cells and takes nine months to grow to birth size and then it takes at least another 18 years to grow up... IZAK (talk) 09:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Similarly with the Adath Jeshurun Congregation now renamed Adath Jeshurun Congregation (Minnetonka) which is one of the oldest and largest Conservative synagogues that is the center not just of Jewish religious life for those Jews but also for culutural and academic activity. See the article as it stands now. Each synagogue is usually part of a larger whole. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 10:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: The Adas Israel Congregation and Adath Jeshurun Congregation articles, now renamed Adas Israel Congregation (Duluth) and Adath Jeshurun Congregation (Minnetonka) to differentiate them from other similar sounding congregations elsewhere, are now a full articles. They meet all criteria for such articles. It is requested that the nominations be withdrawn! That's what a little work on articles can do! Rather than calling to delete articles, one should check out with other Judaic editors if they are able to, or if they have an interest in expanding such articles that bridge important parts of Jewish history. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 09:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Kol hakavod IZAK! Thank you for doing a lot of research and turning those one-sentence stubs into encyclopedia articles. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
IZAK, Thanks for your tireless efforts in helping to improve Wikipedia. I'm sure there is a mitzvah in it :-) Nsaum75 (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:RELIBODY. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 08:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Judasim has no top-down organization comparable to many other religions; a synagogue is a self-contained community of Jews with its own traditions and history. Synagogues are not parishes. One synagogue, even within the same denomination, can be very different from another. A broad and inclusionary policy is warranted. If there is enough external and verifiable content to support an article (often sources from local newspapers), then why not have an article? The problem is stubs. Wikipedia has too many stubs. All of us should be sensitive to changes that make Wikipedia seem like a less complete encyclopedia. We should stop creating stubs and create articles that are at least complete enough for others to continue work on and improve. I appreciate IZAK's efforts to turn stubs into articles. I'm not going to create stubs in the future unless I have material to go ahead with an article. --Metzenberg (talk) 05:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up with creator of Minnesota synagogues stubs

I have contacted User Grika (talk · contribs) who was the editor who originally created all the stub articles about synagogues in Minnesota that have now become the focal point of much debate, and he, as creator of the stubs has neither responded, participated nor defended himself in any discussions AFAIK. Please see User talk:Grika#Requesting your attention. Feel free to add your comments. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 10:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Temple Shalom of Northwest Arkansas needs attention. Chesdovi (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I tagged them and will try to wikify, copyedit and clean it up. It's likely written by someone from the congregation and needs a major overhaul. Bstone (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Debate if Hummus is Jewish food

This may be a case of fact being stranger than fiction, but there is actually a major debate on the go, with a "RFC" and all, about the sauce Hummus whether it can be called a "Jewish" food or Israeli food or whatnot. See Talk:Hummus#Hebrew/jewish/Israeli references, Talk:Hummus#RfC, Talk:Hummus#Proposed solution. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This goes straight to WP:LAME. What a joke. JFW | T@lk 09:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
It's been there for a while. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Lame did you say or WP:FLAME?, some people don't know the difference. But they sure are fighting over a plate of yummy Chumus when all I want to do when I am there is lick some with my pita. IZAK (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Eat your hearts out (well maybe it's feast your eyes) over this combo:

Pita topped with cucumber, HUMMUS, and kosher[citation needed] lamb.
Pita topped with cucumber, HUMMUS, and kosher[citation needed] lamb.

Al matzos umerorim tochluhu? IZAK (talk) 11:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

IZAK, I can't see the hechsher; is it shechitas beis yosef? Also, if the image gets removed does it become basar ha-misalem min ha-ayin? JFW | T@lk 14:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
If you've seen the image in 10 different articles, and 2 of the captions do not specify kosher, are you permitted to specify kosher in the caption for an 11th article? (Be sure to cite your sources....) HG | Talk 16:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Heh HG. That sounds like it might be a case of kol de-parish, which can keep a group of rabbis debating well into the early morning. JFW | T@lk 16:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Serves me right for going up against two lomdim. IZAK (talk) 16:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

dead links: www.tanakhpersonalities.org and www.tanakhprofiles.org

Many articles have external links to these two sites, but the sites seem to have been abandoned. "Personalities" serves a domain squatter's search page, and "profiles" just serves a blank page. -- 68.101.73.109 (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

58 for the former (link search)
12 for the latter (link search)
Does anyone have a spare bot that could get rid of this? JFW | T@lk 17:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I did them by hand. A lot of the pages had two links so it wasn't as bad as it looked. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Great. JFW | T@lk 21:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Kabbalah

Unfortunately the AfD against the Toledano Tradition article (above) did not succeed despite almost unanimous agreement that it was defective and in need of change because of its misrepresentation of the Kabbalah tradition as deriving from Neoplatonism. Also unfortunately, the same editor that created that article is in the process of re-writing the Kabbalah article. I urge anyone interested in the Kabbalah article to keep an eye on developments there, and to get involved also. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Jewish porn stars

While perusing this edit, I discovered this new category. I don't know what Wikipedia's policies are on this kind of a category, but I'm about to delete all entries that don't specifically mention in the text of the article that the person is Jewish. Thoughts? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

But I know that Category:Jewish American actors and Category:Jewish American comedians were both deleted. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And while we're on the subject, if those two cats don't exist, why should Category:Jewish American models exist if the above two don't? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The category is completely superfluous and should obviously be depopulated of all people whose Jewishness is not specifically indicated in the article. They may be of partial Jewish descent and not identify with their ancestors' religion at all. Can't we go back to discussing hummus? JFW | T@lk 21:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
As they do in mainstream Hollywood, Jews play a disproportionate role in the adult film industry, both in front of and behind the camera. There are essays about it here and here. WARNING: The links are not suitable for work, they include graphic advertisements for adult websites, and they discuss pornography. If you think you might be offended by such material, don't click on the links.
I think the category probably satisfies the relevant guideline ("the basic criterion for such a category is whether the topic has already been established as academically or culturally significant by external sources" [emphasis in original]). So long as there's a WP:RS (a big problem with porn bios), there's no reason to keep articles out of the category. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Uh, Malik, the two links you provided above are to a self-published essay and a blog. That does nothing to establish notability, or even the truth of any of the claims made in them. Your claim that "Jews play a disproportionate role in the adult film industry, both in front of and behind the camera" is still completely unsupported. The "relevant guideline" you refer to above also does not support this category. It supports categories where there is a recognized, accepted relationship between the field of endeavor and the group, written about in reliable sources, like Category:African American musicians and Category:LGBT literature. Basically, the guideline says that if you could reasonably construct a valid article with the same title, you can have the cat. I don't think that applies here. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Aharon Kotler

In the article he is categorized in Category:Hasidic rebbes. He would be turning over in his grave if he knew he was categorized this way. He was well known as a Misnagid. I am unable to delete the category because it doens't come up in the category section in the edit page. I suspect that the cat originates from the infobox, and as I'm not sure what to do at this point I bring the issue here. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have removed Category:Hasidic rebbes from the infobox. Some articles that were previously automatically included in this category will now have to be explicitly included. Jon513 (talk) 01:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. It looks like the cat can apply to the rest of the bios that have the infobox. It might be better just to remove the infobox from this article. No? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Sometime in the past few days I noticed that categories that are included in templates are being included in articles that the templates are transcluded to. This is a problem because some of those categories are supposed to apply to templates only. For instance Template:Antisemitism topics is in Category:Jewish navigation templates. This is a category for templates only. But the category now includes all pages that include the template, such as A Protocol of 1919, Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Judaism, and many others. This is clearly erroneous and has only been true for, I believe, less than a week. This must be a recent change to the Wikipedia source code (correct word?) because I noticed it change a few days ago. I just wasn't sure where to mention it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I found out what went wrong with Template:Antisemitism topics here. Jon has fixed the issue with Template:Infobox Rebbe so there's no need to take it out of any articles. The categories for that template are no longer transcluded along with the template. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
It appears you moved the category inside <noinclude> by editing [3] the version right after it was moved outside. I don't know whether it was intentional but it reverted all edits made to the template since. If you don't want to do that then edit the version before your latest edit instead. Note: I have not evaluated whether the reverted edits should be kept. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that wasn't what I intended to do, but somehow I did it. I just self reverted and then moved the tag, I think that fixes it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Another one

Could someone also have a look at Image:Mexico low.jpg? It was obtained from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum with a claim of fair use that's being challenged. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  • As with the other one, it just needs the fair use rationale template: [4] Fair use images with that one are rarely if ever put up for deletion by rampaging bots. Funkynusayri (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Funkynusayri is right. All the image needs is an explanation of why it's necessary to use it on Wikipedia. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, now that I look a little closer, I don't think it will qualify. It's a book cover and those are usually only fair use for articles about the book depicted. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 11:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Organisation of Bible articles

Someone took the time to complain that this project hadn't been explicitly notified of the Wikipedia talk:Organisation of Bible articles discussion, rather than just doing so.[5] So there ya go! -- Kendrick7talk 20:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Action at Hershel Schachter

A recent news story has generated the interest in the article Hershel Schachter of two new editors (72.229.30.16  (talk · contribs) and Eat-more-radish (talk · contribs)). I am glad to say that the edits have, in general, improved the article, and that disputes are being discussed instead of edit warred. As the article is now undergoing an expansion, I would invite any interested editor to get involved. Perhaps this can be, a least for a short time, a revival of Wikipedia:Orthodox Rabbinical Biography Collaboration of the Week. Jon513 (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Jew

Does anyone know why what used to be Template:Infobox Jew got userfied and redirected to User:Humus sapiens/Infobox Jew? The code for the template is now located at Jew and it's being changed against consensus by editors who apparently can't see the talk page history. I can't find any discussion on this anywhere. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

A number of templates that were used in only one article, including Template:Infobox Jew, were merged and deleted. Template:Infobox Jew was moved to User:Humus sapiens/Infobox Jew to preserve its edit history and Talk page. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
In that case, can anyone point me to any Wikipedia policy or guideline that forbids single-use templates? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
You'll have to ask User:Green Giant. He merged the template with the edit summary "moved single-use template here and fixed infobox name". His contribution history shows that he moved a lot of "single-use templates" on January 21, including Iranian ethnicity, British people, Polish ethnicity, etc. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
You can see some discussion of Green Giant's rationale here (follow the links to see some of Green Giant's replies) and especially at the bottom of Tiamut's Talk page. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I left an inquiry at Green Giant's talk page. Unfortunately, he's on a Wikibreak and hasn't responded. I can't really find comments on his talk page relevant to this. I also inquired at User talk:John Reaves since he's the admin who deleted the redirect about 8 hours after the move, but he hasn't answered either. I have to say that it seems a little odd that Green Giant would do this without any discussion, consensus, policy or guideline (as far as I know) to back him up. Personally, I think the page was better off with the single-use template, mainly because it created a separate talk page for template issues. Oh, and I'm sorry if I should have taken this up at Talk:Jew.--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at the bottom of this page, where Green Giant explains the deletions. Green Giant points to Wikipedia:Template namespace ("templates duplicate the same content across more than one page" and "templates should not normally be used as a substitute for usual article content") and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes)#Why dynamic templates?.
I think Green Giant was aggressive in interpreting those guidelines and deleting several dozen single-use templates in a single day without any discussion. If you agree, we can move the template back from User:Humus sapiens/Infobox Jew to Template:Infobox Jew and harmonize it with the infobox as it's been edited in Jew (some population figures have been changed).
PS: Maybe Talk:Jew is the appropriate forum for this discussion, but we're discussing a strictly technical issue, not a content issue. I don't think anybody would feel that they've been left out of the discussion, but I'll post a note there just in case. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Malik, I poked around a little and finally found his comments after I posted. I agree that GG was quite aggressive and I'd like to restore the template. I just want to give it a little time to percolate and see if anyone opposes. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

After nearly a week with no other comments, what do you think? Should we move User:Humus sapiens/Infobox Jew back to Template:Infobox Jew? I'm in favor of such a move.
PS – Template:Infobox Jew wouldn't be the only single-use ethnic template. There's at least one other that I know of, Template:African American ethnicity, and there may be more. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor of it, but a little busy right now. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Loans and interest in Judaism

I've added a maintenance tag asking for an expert to look at the article. The article is basically a copy from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia with all its problems, not the least of which is complete omission of modern developments and its intersection with secular law (such as arbitration), as well as a very slanted view of halakhic aspects written entirely from a critical perspective. I know very little about this complex subject, but wondering if someone could take a look at it. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Any article lifted from 1906 needs very careful scrutiny. It is a complete failure as an encyclopedia for its distinct anti-traditionalist bias. JFW | T@lk 10:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Image for deletion

Image:Ben-yehuda.jpg transcluded at Israeli literature has been nominated for deletion. Since the uploader, User:Humus Sapiens hasn't posted an edit in a month, it would be nice if someone could help save this image. It's fair use and the nominator says the fair use claim isn't valid. Eliezer Ben-Yehuda died in 1922 so there may be a possibility that a public domain argument can be made. I don't know much about images. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  • If someone could find an image which was first published in Palestine back when he lived, that image would be in the public domain. Anyone know where the current image was first published? By the way, all fair use images end up deleted if they don't have the fair use rationale template. Funkynusayri (talk) 06:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The picture's already available on Commons: Image:Eliezer Ben Jehuda bei der Arbeit.jpg. I'll fix the link at Israeli literature, which is the only article that uses the soon-to-be-deleted image. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Could still be in the danger zone, as we don't know whether the author actually died 70 years ago or not. Funkynusayri (talk) 07:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Nice work, Malik. Oh, and just for the record, I don't think that whether the author died 70 years ago or not is the only issue. I remember reading (somewhere) that any image published before a certain date (1927?) is automatically in the public domain. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, that's 1923, and only in America. So, if the image was published for the first time in America prior to 1923, it's in the public domain worldwide, but if the picture was published in for example Palestine in the 20s, I believe British copyright law would count, and it is ineligible to be uploaded to Commons, check this: [6] Funkynusayri (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
It should be in the public domain according to my understanding of the law. The author's death is not relevant in the British Mandate or Israeli Law. See the template below Epson291 (talk) 10:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Public domain This image is in the public domain because the Israeli Copyright law of 1911 section 21, (essentially the United Kingdom Copyright Act of 1911 as it was applied to the former British Mandate in Palestine), as amended to August 2005, specifies that:

1. Photographs become public domain 50 years after the photograph was developed from the negative. (See Wikimedia Commons: Category:PD Israel & British Mandate for details).

2. Photographs taken by a public authority become public domain 50 years after the date of publication. (See Wikimedia Commons: Licensing, Israel for details).

terminological help, please

I need to distinguish between two historical characters, one of whom is Antonio de Montesinos (Dominican friar).

So... Which is correct (or better)?

A bit of context is needed. Does he actually need his own article? JFW | T@lk 13:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I dunno; that's for others to decide. However, he is wikilinked in the following articles: Menasseh Ben Israel, History of the Marranos in England and John Dury. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi Ling: It would be best NOT to use either "____ (Sephardic Jew)" or "____ (Portuguese Jew)" as "title suffixes" or "appendages in parenthesis" at any time because that may be called an ethnic or religious slur ("Jew" is not always used in a complimentary way in the world, unfortunately.) Therefore the best advice for you is to use his profession or what he was know for, and not his religion or ethnicity. Thus, one could use Antonio de Montesinos (rabbi) or Antonio de Montesinos (Talmudist) or Antonio de Montesinos (Kabbalist) or Antonio de Montesinos (astronomer) or Antonio de Montesinos (philosopher) or Antonio de Montesinos (mathematician) etc all of which are NPOV and not laden with baggage. Hope this helps. IZAK (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but I don't know what he... was.... he was like George Psalmanazar, a charlatan, or perhaps deluded. Ling.Nut (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Framework for clarification in synagogue editorial dispute

I have created a "framework for clarification" to help resolve the editorial conflicts at the Temple Shalom of Northwest Arkansas page, see Talk:Temple Shalom of Northwest Arkansas#Framework for clarification that should help deal with this. Please contribute if possible. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Binding of Isaac article name change

Thanks for placing the article Binding of Isaac within the scope of your WikiProject. About 3 weeks ago, I proposed to change the name of the article to "Sacrifice of Isaac" at Talk:Binding of Isaac#Name of this article, but so far haven't seen any response. I plan to go ahead and rename the article on March 20, 2008 unless there are objections. I invite you to visit the article and submit any comments you have on the matter. Thanks! --Bryan H Bell (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Five editors have responded to the proposal described above. Four oppose and one is neutral. The consensus is opposed to the name change. I'll therfore leave the article as currently named ("Binding of Isaac") and consider the matter closed. Thanks to all who participated! --Bryan H Bell (talk) 03:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitions of Aleph - Tav according to Carlo Suarez

Re:Adoption request Re: Incomprehensible article. I've looked it over, and I'm still having trouble understanding the topical content. You might try asking for assistance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism where they know more about the topic. MBisanz talk 04:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Help?Johnshoemaker (talk) 11:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

John, please provide links. What is the name of the article? What points are you trying to make? JFW | T@lk 21:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitions of Aleph - Tav according to Carlo Suarez Re:Adoption request Re: Incomprehensible article. I've looked it over, and I'm still having trouble understanding the topical content. You might try asking for assistance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism where they know more about the topic. MBisanz talk 04:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Help?Johnshoemaker (talk) 11:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC) John, please provide links. What is the name of the article? What points are you trying to make? JFW | T@lk 21:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

JFW, my talk page has a conversation with MBisanz. Article is presently unnamed.

Points: plural. The main point is that definitions of the Aleph- Tav were given to Suarez and an understanding and appreciation of Torah will be advanced by their inclusion in WP.

Secondary point is that the definitions are esoteric, stringently so, but there was an opening in the ‘60s that revealed publicly that such definitions existed. Suarez states that this has happened a few times thru history. Without searching I can’t reproduce his words that describe world political conditions for these openings. Certainly Freud, Jung frameworks and the rebellion against received opinion in the ‘60s were ingredients. I have seen only two signs of the “opening,” the other in PARADE magazine in the NYT.

The PARADE article describes the conditions that keep the definitions esoteric; only being revealed to Jewish males who have memorized Torah and studied all of Talmud—and promised not to talk about it till they are “50.” Since this is only a paragraph supporting Suarez claims of “an opening” it can be included to see if a scholar disagrees that conditions to keep definitions esoteric exist.

Using the Oxford Abr. definition of spirit: the non material part of man, the article will clearly present the definitions of the Spiritual glyphs as elements of the intellect and intuition. I envision the first page only providing two of the nine archetypes; 2 and 6 which are corroborated by dictionarys. As in the conversation with MBisenz.

I don’t see myself as an editor but as a reporter requiring editing. Certainly this subject needs overview to keep it available to those who have never glimpsed Torah, and are repelled by formulas and occasionally prone to envision Casper the Ghost at the word “spirit”.

On a different topic: At the Maya Round Table discussions in ’89 a dentist talked on the use of Jade fillings in ancient Maya teeth. He said that we still haven’t determined how they worked the Jade but the procedure didn’t work. Serious Jawbone degeneration was commonly associated. My suspicion is that Jade was associated with healing. In Palenque Chiapas Mex. A five ton rock over a sarcophagus(~~700CE) holding a man with a Jade mask is carved with the symbols of the Caduceus and a man dying before a cross. The man is falling backwards(meditational death) before a cross around whose crossbar is a serpent with head at both ends. At the top of the cross is a bird of prey. The Mexican flag and money is adorned with an eagle and snake.

If the snake is symbol of feeling, intuition, the ubiquitous fangs signify the chemicals that are associated with an emotion(they take time to dissipate). “Everybody knows the bird is the word”(a 60s song) The wings of the Caduceus could symbolize the words, wisdom that passes between a healer and patient. The wisdom coming from bodily experience of the healer. Respect, review of ancient symbol systems could be healthy. Thanks for your consideration. JSJohnshoemaker (talk) 12:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon

There appears to be an attempt to remove Category:Antisemitism from the Gilad Atzmon article. Please read the article, its history, and participate with what you best believe should be according to policy. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Expand {{Infobox church/sandbox}} to cover all places of worship?

There is a proposal to convert the draft infobox template {{Infobox church/sandbox}} into a template that can be used for all places of worship. We would like your views on whether you think this is a good idea, and if you are able to help identify parameters that would be relevant to the religion that your WikiProject deals with. Do join the discussion taking place at "Template talk:Infobox church". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 03:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

What is presently sitting in the sandbox is huge and not yet customised for multi-faith use. JFW | T@lk 22:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Judaism: Articles of unclear notability

Hello,

there are currently 22 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. I have listed them here. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of 12 March 2008 and may be slightly outdated.)

I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I went through all of these and nominated three for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David E. Stern, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B'nai Emet Synagogue and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yavneh Day School. Bstone (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi B. Wolterding: Thank you for your caring about this. I reviewed all the articles and Wikified and updated most of them. They are all articles about valid and notable people and topics, but at this stage some are still short or stubs and need more work. With time they will improve. There is no point in rushing the process of developing articles. You have done the right thing by bringing this matter here and hopefully more editors will help to improve the articles. The 3 articles that User:Bstone nominated for deletion, I have improved drastically and they should be kept at this time based on the additional sources and improvements. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Gersonides

Hey all

I read an article was written by Yuval Ne'eman, whose scientific work defined as one of the most important physicist to live in the 20 CE (and may be more than that) in which he stated that Gersonides was the greatest astronomer of the middle ages and probably the greatest scientist as well (for who ever know to read Hebrew-this is the article-I couldn't find an English version [7]). His statement is of importance not only because he was a prominent scientist for himself, but also because many other articles suggesting that he didn't exaggerate for a survey follow the link) -however, you can't really learn about the importance of Gersonides as a scientist in the article about him.--Gilisa (talk) 09:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have to be Jewish to join?

I'm a Muslim and I know lots of info on the Jewish people but not enough I think to satisfy me. I'm multi-cultural and I like to learn about people's cultures... LOTRrules (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I mean the Wikiproject. LOTRrules (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi LOTRules: Anyone can join any project on Wikipedia, there are no rules on Wikipedia limiting who can join a project. IZAK (talk) 09:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Modifications to page

I've tried adding some tabs to the top of the page to make the navigation of the project easier, simpler, and more straight forward/professional. I thought the page was too long and cumbersome. Epson291 (talk) 11:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


Ashkenazi Jews at WP:RM

A request has been made that Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardi Jews be moved to Ashkenazi Jew and Sephardi Jew. (This is not as bad as it sounds, it's based on Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Prefer_singular_nouns.) If you have an opinion, please comment here sometime over the next five days. Relata refero (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi, I have stated my strong objections and reasons for it over there. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Simon Wiesenthal.

Not sure if anyone wants to tidy that article up, it seems in rather bad shape, and should have better references. It's also very POV-ish (both for, and against, rather than being neutral all the way through). · AndonicO Hail! 01:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Leningrad Codex

Hello, a user has recently started a discussion on the above article's talk page here and would like some additional input. Thanks! Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Corn syrup: Not Kosher for Passover?

Coca-Cola refers to "Passover Coca-Cola - a Kosher for Passover Coke made with pure cane sugar instead of corn syrup," with a reference to http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/mar/19/religion.uk
I assume from this that corn syrup is not Kosher for Passover. Could something on this be added to Corn syrup? -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 06:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Correct, corn syrup is regarded as rabbinically forbidden as kitniyot because it's a derivative of corn (known in Europe as maize), and is not eaten or used on Passover. Thus Coca Cola uses cane sugar instead for its kosher for Passover sodas and drinks, and in fact even non-Jewish Coke lovers love this change because it is an annual partial revert for the kosher consumers to the way Coke used to be made in the USA with cane sugar before they switched to corn sugar that all can enjoy. Hope this helps. IZAK (talk) 09:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
(I believe you meant to say cane sugar, not corn sugar. I have edited your comments accordingly. Jon513 (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC))
Thanks, IZAK (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • FYI, we have to be careful to avoid local bias here. The status of kitniyot are a disputed matter within Rabbinic Judaism. Sephardic Jews (Spanish/Mediterranean origin) do not prohibit eating kitniyot like corn on Passover at all. Ashkenazic Jews (Northern European origin) do not eat it, but as a custom, not as a rabbinic decree. However, it should be noted that processed foods like soda require preparation under supervision, and because the overwhelming majority of Jews in North America are of Ashkenazic origin, kosher supervising authorities enforce the ashkenazic rules here. It might conceivably be possible to get certified kosher for passover Coca Cola containing corn syrup bottled in a country with a lot of Sephardic Jews. I wouldn't know if this actually occurs. However, any statement made should be qualified -- it applies in North America and under Ashkenazic rules, but not necessarily universally. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Many Sephardic Jews in practice follow the customs of the Askenazim too in recent times (even though in "theory" they are not required to) not wishing to differ and to seem too lenient. But thank you Shirahadasha for the added nuanced input. IZAK (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks all. Again, I hope that some note on this might be added to Corn syrup. I don't feel that I'm the person best qualified to do so, but if nobody else does, I'll add something after a day or so. Thanks again. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the all "Minaag" (custom) of kitniyot is now considered as irrelevant by some orthodox Ashkenazi rabies in Israel and some of those are now suggesting to declare it as such (but I don't know how it will go, and anyway, the all knowledge of mine in this subject is coming from the Israeli secular media). We must remember that from the first place it started because that in Europe mostly kitnyot were mixed with leftovers of leavened food and the reason it wasn't cancelled yet is to keep people out of confusion people and not to make them to hold the "mitzvoth" cheap.--Gilisa (talk) 09:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Gilisa: As you admit, your comments are coming "from the Israeli secular media" and they are the last ones to be relied upon or trusted for any comments concerning any of the Halachik aspects and laws of Orthodox Judaism. The laws of kitniyot apply in all their stringencies until the present time according to all known and trusted Halachik authorities, rergardless of the "historic tales" that may or may not underly them. There is a principal in Jewish law that states: "minhag Yisreal Torah hi" ("[Jewish religious] customs [of] Jews/Yisrael [becomes a part of the] Torah" [i.e. Jewish customs that are adopted are "observed" as if it they are something that comes from the Torah itself]) so that many "customs" let alone outright rabbinic promulgations are continuously observed regardless of any changes in historical circumstances. The moral of the story is that it is entirely not advisable and plain wrong to enunciate upon or about Jewish religious observances and principles based on those who oppose religion such as those "from the Israeli secular media." Thanks, IZAK (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for responding, but there are customs that can be change when it comes to traditions that are related with certain "eda" (a word that has no good parallel in English, the closest is "ethnic group") - so it was along the history. And anyway, when it comes to "kitniyot" we are talking about a "chumra" (stringently). when a Sephardic Jew marry an Ashkenazi girl (and it happens a lot outside the ultra orthodox groups) she is dismissed, according to the hallach, from keeping the customs of her "eda". there is also the idea of "atarat nedarim" ( vows loosening- but I don't know if it can be applied to dismissing one from his "eda" customes) - it have nothing to do with the non orthodox groups, I am talking only about authentic Judaism-and this custom dont look to me as one which cant be change, but I'm-as you are I guess, not a "posek" (adjudicator). Anyway, a mitzva that cant be change for example-is to live in Israel in the first possible moment, so said the Torha, the Talmud and etc, but it seems to me that there are ultra orthodox groups that will give their lifes to keep on the "kitniyot" idea, but will do nothing to keep other "minor" Jewish ideas.--Gilisa (talk) 08:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Gersonides-again...

Hey all,

I left a post regarding the above few days ago. For now it seems like nobody is willing to take the initiative and to make his article much better (had my English was better, than I would do it), as easily can be done -however-still didn't. There are many high quality sources regarding the significance and extent of Gersonide's work, sadly, he is still downgraded- a mistake that easily can be repair.--Gilisa (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It requires someone with a decent knowledge of the philosophy of the rishonim. I've personally never learnt the Ralbag and I understand he was not without controversy. JFW | T@lk 11:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I was aiming to his scientific work and less to his philosophy (which is of course very important as well).--Gilisa (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Help with categorization requested.

A recent thread at Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein#Religious categories has asked whether Ludwig Wittgenstein should appear in categories such as Category:Austrian Jews, Category:LGBT Jews, etc. As I understand it, although Wittgenstein was of Jewish descent, he was not Jewish by the Orthodox tradition, and was baptised and raised a Roman Catholic (his mother, and her mother, were Roman Catholics). I know that the issue of "Who is a Jew?" is a complex one, and can give rise to sometimes heated debate, so please could members of this Wikiproject give us some guidance on this? Thanks! DuncanHill (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe he would be considered Jewish by any stream of Judaism. More traditional streams of Judaism would look at objective considerations such as matrilineal descent (or conversion certified by a rabbinical court). More liberal streams would pay more attention to personal beliefs and subjective identity. He had neither. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for translation

I wrote the Letter of the Karaite elders of Ascalon article. It is currently just a stub, but I plan on expanding it in the future. The sources I have used thus far have been English, however, one source that holds additional info about the people menioned within the letter appear in a Hebrew book. As I can't read Hebrew, I was wanting to know if anyone would be interested in translating a page from the book so I can add the material to the article. Please contact me on my talk page if you are interested. Please keep in mind I just recently requested the book via an interlibrary loan and so it may take a few weeks before it arrives.

I don't know, someone may already have it, which would greatly speed up the process. Here is the world cat webpage on the book. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Religious terrorism

The issues of the conflation of the Jewish religion with Jewish ethnicity are once again being raised at Talk:Religious terrorism. Please drop by and speak your mind, whichever way you feel is correct. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hebrew calligraphy

Is there an article on Hebrew calligraphy? I found the Sofer article, but nothing on the more general subject of Hebrew calligraphy. It is my intention to add a Hebrew section to the main Calligraphy article, and later will create a new article for Hebrew calligraphy. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there a is real calligraphy tradition in Judaism separate from the work of a Sofer STAM. JFW | T@lk 12:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
[8], [9]Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
So it's a relatively recent phenomenon. JFW | T@lk 13:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Not really. This [[10]], because it is not a Torah scroll, is written in a different style of lettering than would have been used for scrolls.Also, for example, [11]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
This is interesting too [12]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Just joined!

Just joined this WikiProject! Can't promise I'll be doing major renovations, but every little bit helps, yeah? Is there a banner/infobox I can add to my Member page, attesting to the fact that I'm a member of this Wikiproject (as other Wikiprojects have)? —Micahbrwn (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Should Antisemitism be broken out into its own Wikiproject?

Or should all antisemitism-related articles remain WP:JEW, WP:JH, both, neither, or other? -- Avi (talk) 04:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi Avi: It's a bad idea because ever since the creation of this main Judaism Wikiproject almost all the spin-offs from it over the years have never succeeded, be they for Reform Judaism, Orthodox Judaism, Secular Jewish Culture, Hebrew Language, all have tried to have their own WikiProjects and none have made it and have had to be shut down. The Jewish History one barely limps along. While one or two editors may be enthusiastic in the beginning of a new project, they never stick around long enough and it's not enough to sustain spin-off WikiProjects. So I would advise against it, because there is simply not the constant manpower needed to run such a project. This project has worked well as "the big tent" and "central address" that covers all topics relating to Jews and Judaism and it should not be difused with well-meaning ideas that will not fly in the end. IZAK (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
There are articles, such as the one discussed above [[13]], that have the antisemitism template. In many cases, changing to the ProjectJudaism template would be confusing....and in this case (because the subject of the article seems to be an antisemite with a Hebrew name) the whole point would be distorted to the point of making it laughable. If the ProjectAntisemitism were ended how we deal with that sort of problem? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The template is independent of the WikiProject, Malcom. The question is do we have a separate project focusing on antisemitism, or do we continue to monitor it under the ægis of WP:JEW. -- Avi (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Part of the reason for the failure of the other projects may be the lack of a sufficient project template, providing assessments and the like. If the members of this project wanted the Judaism project banner to function like the Australia banner on Talk:Sydney for instance for the Orthodox and Reform Projects I could probably do it. While I acknowledge that there are a lot of articles related to Antisemtism in the Category:Antisemitism, I'm less than convinced that the Antisemitism is necessarily a major point within those articles. Wikipedia:WikiProject Discrimination already deals with all articles relating antisemtism, as well as the main topic itself, and it would to my eyes seem the more logical place to suggest this. A joint work group of the two projects, or perhaps a "religious discrimination" task force/work group of Discrimination, would certainly be at least worthy of consideration. John Carter (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I will remind editors that it's been mentioned repeatedly in this space that this project specifically does not deal with antisemitism related issues and that this was agreed to when the project originated. Many editors have brought antisemitism issues here to be told that they're in the wrong place. Given that, I think it might be a good idea to create a "right place" to hold those discussions. I also point out that, contrary to what Malcolm Schosha seems to be saying above, there currently is no Antisemitism project. There's only a category. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree, Steven. The only exception I would make would be antisemitism on purely theological grounds, such as Nahmanides' disputations with Pablo Christiani. But as I'm sure you'll agree most antisemitism is either unrelated to Jewish theology or employs deliberate and easily-disproven misinterpretation. JFW | T@lk 19:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Honestly folks, is there such a burning need for such a project? And to JFW: The Judaism WikiProject has not been purely a "theological" one because over the years it has had all sorts of postings very loosely connected to Judaism without anything being said against that. If there are some serious issues, they can easily be discussed here if need be, we have not been so strict in excluding discussion of the topic, or it can be taken to the Jewish History WikiProject as well, but at this time it seems that an AntiSemitism WikiProject will die the death that other such spin-off projects have simply because of lack of long-term manpower devoted to keep it going. But by all means, if some people want to create it, they can try and see where it goes. By the way, what will be it's purview? Will it over-lap with the Israel WikiProject where anti-Israel discussions often come up? Or what if the religious or historical aspects of persecution of Jews comes up, will an editor seeking help, guidance or information have to post in three or four places to get noticed and who would have the "final say" as it were? Thanks, IZAK (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:JH sounds like a perfect forum for antisemitism issues. It is mainly a historical and cultural phenomenon, not a religious one.
IZAK, when we started this WikiProject we were pretty clear it was going to be about religious observances rather than cultural, political, ethnic and social phenomena. We even had a project for "Jewish Culture" (now defunct I believe). If I had my way, I would restrict the aegis of this WikiProject to its founding principles. We decided to stay clear of the Israel-Palestinian issue, and for similar reasons I have always tried to nip antisemitism-related discussions in the bud. They are distractions. JFW | T@lk 21:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If ProjectAntisemitism does not now exist, what specific objections are there to creating it? I do not understand the basis for the objections. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Malcolm, I don't think that even those who are expressing skepticism here are explicitly opposed to creation of such a project. I believe, if I understand them correctly, that they are simply doubtful about the ultimate usefulness, longevity and success it is likely to enjoy.
Here are my concerns. From time to time in the course of my involvement in Wikipedia, I have come across editors who take a particular interest in articles like Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Antisemitic canard, Blood libel against the Jews, Kevin B. MacDonald and other similar articles. And not in a good way. I have occasionally found myself reverting them only to find that, unlike garden variety vandals, they don't just do their dirty work and disappear. Instead they initiate lengthy, tendentious talk page discussions that an uninvolved editor or administrator might see as trollish, but just as easily might see as an honest defense of a minority view. Sometimes I feel as though I'm alone in fighting for an honest article. Where do I go? I've been told explicitly (and rightly) that this Project talk page is not the place for such discussions. WP:WikiProject Jewish history is near-moribund. Discussions I try to initiate there frequently die without response. Going to WP:ANI usually elicits one of two responses, either "That's an ordinary content dispute, take it somewhere else," or "Oh my goodness, what an egregious case of antisemitic trolling. I can't believe he's been getting away with it this long. Why didn't anyone stop him sooner? I'll block him immediately." I honestly cannot predict which it's going to be. It seems to depend entirely on the administrator fielding the complaint.
On the other hand (and there's always another hand) having a project that exists largely to patrol antisemitism-related articles for edits from an unwelcome point of view (and that is, honestly, my main reason for wanting it) sounds like it might make the project look a little bit like a cabal.
I don't pretend to have a definitive answer to all this, but I hope I've identified some of the issues at hand. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


As an outsider... seeing the question, then reading the above comments, I think three things:
  • subject antisemitism is not properly a religious topic, so I can understand the desire to not have it be a part of WikiProject Judaism,
  • the subject has been inserted into Jewish history, as it has been the unhappy 'cause' for much modern history, yet I wonder about it being "Jewish history",
  • because after all it is at the interface between Judaism and the antisemitic extra-Judaic elements that we have the subject 'antisemitism' and its consequences.
So... I can find it reasonable to not want either the emphasis on the subject or the watchfulness, centered in either WP:JUDAISM or WP:JH. I can understand the desire to separate the subject from these two projects.
Even if a justifiable new project, I have great trepidation at the thought. I worry about any project whose center, whose 'cause', is the subject antisemitism. It will be extremely difficult to form and maintain a reasonable, viable project focusing on such a corrosive subject.
What's my problem? Why'd I venture to comment? Wandering about (watchlist) I saw a reference to the question, and immediately thought "Aieee, not WP:JDL! Please noooo!" How would you prevent the almost forgone radicalization that will result? My fear - yet another project whose mission will doom it. But then, I'm a pessimist. Shenme (talk) 05:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
functional-wise (i.e. "It's a bad idea because ever since the creation of this main Judaism Wikiproject almost all the spin-offs from it over the years have never succeeded") i can't say.
topic wise, yes. if i can crib from The Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Antisemitism :
Anti-Judaism, or the controversial term coined in the 1870s by Wilhelm Marr, Antisemitism, is one of the most complex and, at times, perplexing forms of hatred. It spans history, infecting different societies, religious and philosophical movements, and even civilizations. In the aftermath of the Holocaust, some contend that Antisemitism illustrates the limitations of the Enlightenment and modernity itself. Manifestations of Antisemitism emerge in numerous ideological based narratives and the constructed identities of belonging and otherness such as race and ethnicity, nationalisms, and anti-nationalisms. In the contemporary context of globalised relations it appears that Antisemitism has taken on new complex and changing forms that need to be decoded, mapped and critiqued.
The subject matter of Antisemitism, like prejudice more generally, has a long and impressive intellectual and research pedigree. It remains a topic of ongoing political importance and scholarly engagement. [14]
Gzuckier (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

New Template!

I created a template for Passover just in time for Passover. Check it out and please revise it or suggest revisions. Remember (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Good work. You might add Chol HaMoed but not the Four Sons HG | Talk 10:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
v • d • e
Passover • פֶּסַח
Seder Passover
Haggadah
Passover foods
Matzah products: Matzo • Matzah ball • Matzah brei • Matzo farfel granola
Matzah companies: Streit's • Manischewitz • Yehuda Matzos
Religious
Observances: Bedikas Chametz • Fast of the Firstborn • Korban Pesach • Mimouna • Pesach Sheni • Chol HaMoed
Laws/Customs: Chametz • Kitniyot • Gebrochts


In this template, Beitzah links to Egg (food), a general article on the culinary use of the ovum of certain birds, which makes no mention of passover. Should it be there? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Jehovah

A couple of us are having an edit dispute concerning the transliteration of of יְהֹוָה, and would appreciate a third opinion, preferably from someone who knows Hebrew. Thanks. StAnselm (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi StAnselm: The use of the word "Jehovah" in articles should be avoided because Judaism forbids taking this name in vain and it is therefore offensive to many learned Jews to use it. The name Jehovah or יְהֹוָה is used ONLY in Jewish prayers and Torah study but is never pronounced phonetically, and instead the Hebrew word "Adonai" is ALWAYS used in Judaism and by Jews in prayer and study. Thus, it is wholy correct and justified that this name of God holy to Judaism and Jews should not be bandied about and that when it is found, the english word "God" should be used instead, with a "dab" to Names of God in Judaism like so: [[Names of God in Judaism|God]]. Therefore when some Judaic editors come across a denigration of God's name on Wikipedia, they change it accordingly to God. Thanks for asking, IZAK (talk) 07:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


This is a paragraph from the introduction of the article:

Following long-standing tradition, in modern Jewish culture the Tetragrammaton is not pronounced, instead the above vocalization indicates to the reverent Jewish reader that the term Adonai is to be used. In places where the preceding or following word already is Adonai, the alternative term vocalized for the Tetragrammaton is differently indicated by the vocalization markings, indicating that the reading Elohim is to be used. Details of these vocalization markings differ between the various extant manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible.

Is this correct? I am not frum, and may not understand tradition correctly. But it is my understanding that if the text is to be read Elohim, then Elohim is written; and if Y-H-V-H is written there would be a silent space in the reading, or it would be replaced with Adonai. It is also my understanding that vowel marks are not used for Y-H-V-H in Torah scrolls.

This article should be read through by someone knowledgeable, and if necessary corrected, to make sure (at minimum) it does not represent Judaism. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

See eg Deuteronomy 3:24, Deuteronomy 9:26 (second instance), Judges 16:28 (second instance), Genesis 15:2 for examples where the Tetragrammaton is written with a vocalisation indicating that Elohim (rather than Adonai) should be read.
In each case, this avoids reading "Adonai Adonai" ("Lord Lord"). Jheald (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, looking in my Stone Edition Chumash, I see that Bereishit (genesis) 15.2 haShem has vowel marks. But I also see that the following use of haShem does not. The article gives the incorrect impression that Y-H-V-H always has vowel marks, when in fact it is extremely rare.
In fact, at the top of the article's introduction, there is this statement:

This article is about reading of the name of God in Hebrew scripture. For other renderings of the name, see Tetragrammaton. For the deity of monotheistic religions, see God. For other uses of Jehovah, see Jehovah (disambiguation). See also: Yahweh

The subject is "Hebrew scripture", but discussed in a way that is (according to my understanding) unacceptable to Jews.
I am going to copy this to the article's talk page so that it can be discussed there also. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I think "extremely rare" is not correct. Including vowel marks when writing the Tetragrammaton might be discouraged in some (comparatively recent) traditions; but on the other hand, the early Masoretic texts include the vowel points; as did the 1525 Rabbinical Bible; as does eg the JPS Tanakh online; as do many Siddurim. ArtScroll has a tendency to steer towards the most conservative and restrictive course. But not everyone's a Hassid...  :-) Jheald (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Pesach userpage template

For those who might be in need of it {{User:Elipongo/Userboxes/Pesach}} will yield:

WikiProject Judaism is celebrating Pesach and will not be back online until the evening of Monday April 21, 2008

Of course your own user name will be in the template when used on your own page. Chag Sameach! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Baha'i clutter on Davidic line

I'm a Baha'i trying to actually delete Baha'i POV from the Davidic line article. To Baha'is the subject is treated as symbolic. There is a trivial breakaway sect, however, that takes the subject literally, and its got an editor that insists that that literal view be given a place. I've cited WP:UNDUE, WP:V and WP:RS all to no avail. I get reverted at every turn.

I'm a hard core exclusionist, especially on religion pages. I've deleted Baha'i POV before. To me it's a matter of intellectual honesty and inter-religious respect. WP:NOT#SOAP

Comments and editorial assistance there are invited. Grazie, MARussellPESE (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Szmul Zygielbojm

A question has come up concerning the Bundist leader Szmul Zygielbojm and whether his religion should be shown in the infobox. Please comment at Talk:Szmul Zygielbojm#Religion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hebrew Bible

Hi all. Hebrew Bible is a mess of "citation needed" tags and I am not (yet) enough of an expert to get the definitions straight. Can someone help? Kaisershatner (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It has always been a fork of Tanakh and Old Testament. I'd prefer to merge & redirect it to Tanakh. JFW | T@lk 14:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Those fact tags were placed by an IP 72.229.10.154 (talk). Check that user's contributions and talk page and you'll find links to another IP and a registered user who created Michelle Ferguson-Cohen, an article that was nominated for deletion (nomination subsequently withdrawn) and had many of its assertions challenged. In short, those tags look rather pointy and can probably all be deleted as common knowledge. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I deleted one of those tags, but now I see more uncited statements, like this one: The term does not imply naming, numbering or ordering of books, while both Tanakh and Old Testament do. Well, I've never heard that before, and personally I use Hebrew Bible as a neutral term synonomous with Tanakh. So it needs a citation, or else deletion. Can anyone help? StAnselm (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
That's a relatively obvious one. The books of Tanakh are in a different order and counted as a different number than in the Protestant canon (24 versus 39). Nevertheless, organizations like the Society for Biblical Literature (prominently cited) recommend using "Hebrew Bible" to refer equally to both canons despite such differences. I think you'll also find ample discussion of this sort of stuff (to exhaustion) on the talk page of that article. Dovi (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
My point remains that Hebrew Bible is a redundant article that was purely created as a fork to satisfy various POV pushers. JFW | T@lk 16:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't know about the origins of the article. But Hebrew Bible is certainly a notable term of art and there's every reason to have an article about such important terms. Meanwhile, I'm rather surprised that all 3 articles are so weak. In some ways Tanakh is the weakest because (from what I can tell) it lacks any discussion of literary, historical, social, legal, etc scholarship on the topic. Kol tuv, HG | Talk 10:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
As the creator of the article a long time ago, I'm interested in knowing what "POV" I was trying to push... In any case, myself and others who have worked on it always seen it as being an extremely notable term of art, no more than that but also no less. I also agree that all three articles need a lot of work. Tanakh seems the best candidate for improvement.
On a related topic, I'd love to get feedback and help on Parashah. Maybe it can eventually become a featured article. Dovi (talk) 03:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Dan Burros

WikiProject Judaism may want to keep an eye on Dan Burros (member of American Nazi Party and United Klans of America Ku Klux Klan reported in the press to be Jewish, and who subsequently committed suicide.) Article has a few odd lines that might be vandalism, or might be simply reported speech of the persons quoted. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Please could someone take a look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Judah and Special:WhatLinksHere/Tamar and help fix links to disambiguation pages? I've tried, but don't know enough about the characters involved to do any more. Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 09:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternative Judaism

User:P4k is removing the text about Christianity that is similar to the text we have at Messianic Judaism. I would request that more eyes be placed on the article. -- Avi (talk) 05:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Manual of style: Should we delete the Rabbi honorific from Avi Shafran in the lead of the article?

Avi wants to enforce a new Manuel of style policy, see and talk: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Religious Honorific prefixes - Rabbi and doesn't even wait [15] [16] for a consensus outcome to see if his argument gets excepted which was handily refuted and turned down here Talk:Yisroel Dovid Weiss#Honorifics and in the archives of that talk page, by a few users, he has already gone on a deleting spree to take of the word rabbi from Jewish leaders who have no sources provided that they were crowned with the orthodox halachic procedure of Semichah to be called with this honorific.

Since there is definitely many levels of the word; there is the chief rabbi the grand rabbi the halchic decider posek and so forth, Avi is by the opinion that if the rabbi is only because he is some sort of a teacher and spiritual leader or more precisely only a activist the word rabbi must be deleted from its lead because in his mind its the same as Mr.

Since there is some truth to this claim; since many in the outer world are calling every Jew with a long beard a rabbi, i am by the opinion that we should follow the sources and the references if all of them do indeed call the subject rabbi as the honorific we can let the claim rabbi in the honorific, after all we at wikipedia do not write anything original and new, we simply regurgitate and organize all the facts out there, i beg some valued Jewish users to share their knowledge on this after all Avi claims to be a Rabbi and i am far from a rabbi to battle his so high acclaimed authority here. please anybody write something about the issue to enlighten us how to do thanks.--YY (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The manual of style as it exists now at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific prefixes is very clear about this. If consensus is that changes should be made, the entry on the manual's talk page is the proper place for it to be discussed. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but i don't see one word of the term Rabbi discussed if it would be there this discussion Avi's request on that page's talk see his detailed requestwould have obviously been repetitive, so evidently Avi wants to broaden some other policy to also include Jewish honorifics, - as Avi puts it very bluntly his desire is to restrict the word Rabbi just like the word Mother of Mother Theresa! the question is should we? i don't. whats your thoughts?--YY (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
It does not have to spell out every honorific, YY; it discusses honorifics as a general category. As an aside, Shafran is referred to as a Rabbi in the article text, but not in the initial lede sentence, as per current MoS. -- Avi (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Common sense tells me that honorifics are decided not be some user in wikipedia who may have his biases but by sources and references, don't tell me that we cannot dissect through other media how to call rabbis, i beleave it is problematic to follow blindly their honorifics bestowed on people but if all of them use the rabbi as an honorific why not follow suit?!--YY (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Honorifics are generally not used in the lede. See Martin Luther King, Jr. for an example (note that he's not The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.) — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok thanks for your opinion, even Avi does not agree the word rabbi is the same as Reverend he explicitly excepts taht most as reb moshe fienstin also he agrees on satmar rabbi rabbis should indeed have the lede the word rabbi, his only beef is with a minor group of rabbis who are not grand rabbis not halachic deciders and not leaders of congregations--YY (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(<-)I do? Where did I say that? Just as you have misrepresented my actions in your opening statement, you have misrepresented my actions above as well. I'm curious to see which of my edits supports your statement above. One example doth not "most" make. -- Avi (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have given sources, please stop jumping from the roof tops, with personal accusations, that i lie, it sounds very ridicules, lets stay on the subject. U agree [17] that if the rabbi is world renowned as a rabbi, than we can and should use the rabbi as an honorific. So is Martin Luther king world renowned enough? i think so! Should we put the honorific Reverend to him? I don't think so. Because Reverend isn't the same as Rabbi.--YY (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

So what about a rabbi such as Eric Yoffie? Should Rabbi not be included in the leader then? I'm a bit confused by all of this... A Sniper (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes that is precisely the question, i would say that If half of the references do not address him with the Honorific Rabbi we should indeed delete it from the lede. This is indeed a can of warms opened, but the problem is we have to deal with this sooner or later, since Avi wont relent he has deleted the word Rabbi from many articles and this goes back a very long time. If we do not formalize any criteria or standard here when to use this word Rabbi in the lede and when not, he will claim that there is no real consensus against his deletions--YY (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out before, we already have a guideline on this, it is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific prefixes. -- Avi (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

AS we answered u already we dont have any guidance on the word Rabbi. If there is a answer please would u be so kind and copy and paste it here. thanks--YY (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

We do not need guidance about every single term; we have guidance on the class of honorifics. -- Avi (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Finely u agree there is no guidence here, so please enlighten us further: is it common sense to have the rabbi honorific on rabbi Eric or on Martin luther if he were a rabbi?--YY (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
YY, Rabbi and Reverend are the same, and as a general rule they don't belong in the lede. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem to except your opinion that it is the same, meanwhile no Reverend's biography has the word Reverend in the lead and all the biographies of the rabbis do indeed have the word rabbi in the lead so your opinion isn't for some reason excepted here. the numbers of wikipedia users who have rejected your statement that the term rabbi is the same as Reverend is troubling, can u explain that?--YY (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
(1) From the encyclopedia's point of view, both Reverend and Rabbi are religious honorifics. It's merely your opinion that they're different. (2) How do you know that no reverend's bio has the honorific and every rabbi's bio has it? Have you read them all? (3) Maybe the editors who work on reverends' bios are more familiar with the MoS than the editors who work on rabbis' bios. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
(1) From an encyclopedic point of view both rabbi and rev are united that they derive from the word reveared and so fourth buth in the rabbi article u will find different criteria than the reverened article. so its not the same think because they r also used as honorifics. fact is a rabbi is not only honorific its also a status which the masses use all the time when talking about them. so my opinion never was expressed here (acutely it is that rabbis should not be the same as revrendes but it does not play any factor in this discussion) is not at all stated here i only qoute from the relevant encyclopedia articles. (2) how do i know? because if u r long enough active in the wikipedia u should know that there is a search engine to instantly require that knowledge. and for rev. (3) maybe yes or maybe not intresting that milions of peaple r so dismissed by u as ignoramuses to how a encyclopedia is written.... and not only the english all tghe 374 languages write like this but u have no problem dismising them WOW!!!--YY (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
It took me only a few minutes to find counter-examples to your assertion concerning the bios of rabbis and reverends. The Reverend Grady Nutt, Rev. Dr. Brian Connor, Benjamin Yudin is an American Rabbi, and Milton H. Polin, an Orthodox rabbi who served in Brooklyn. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort in bringing 2 new unprofessional articles about 2 rev's which the lead rev wasn't yet deleted. and 2 rabbi articles which the term rabbi isn't yet added in the lead. does this proof exactly what? do u really want to waste our time and link to all those articles of rabbis and reverends which clearly do not lede in the word rev and do clearly lead into the name with a rabbi title if its a rabbi? i don't think so. listen we all heared already once that all those users are mistaken and u are the only smart one i appreciate that guts and i do not except that they are simply wrong there must be a better answer--YY (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
There aren't yet any "solid" guidelines specifically on the subject of naming articles about rabbis, I'm afraid. The are Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Western clergy)#Judaism (which leads to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew)) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific prefixes. Basically, so far as I can tell, it comes down to either the name the subject is best known by and/or whether the title in and of itself conveys some sort of significant meaning that would be absent were it not to be included. All heads of the Roman Catholic Church have their article titles start with "Pope" because in that case the word definitely has a very clear, readily understood, and significant meaning. If there are any approximately similar titled figures in Judaism (I don't know myself, sorry), then certainly using the title there would be indicated. Also, clearly, in cases of disambiguation, titling the article David Messas (rabbi) would make sense if there were another person with the same name, but that would only be necessarily in disambig cases.
This is not to say that the article can't itself include the title in the bolded name of the subject. We already have several pages on religious figures which include the subject's title in the bolded name starting the page, but not necessarily in the title of the article. I hope that helps a little. John Carter (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
There are one or two things that I think are worth mentioning that haven't been yet.
  • First, the word "Reverend" is not a noun. Therefore, while it is grammatically correct to say "The Reverend Robert Smith is an American Methodist Minister", it is always incorrect to say "Robert Smith is an American reverend." This is one important way in which "Rabbi" and "Reverend" do not directly compare. (See Reverend for a fuller discussion.)
  • Second, the two articles linked by Malik Shabazz above do not use the word "Rabbi" as an honorific. The phrases "Benjamin Yudin is an American Rabbi" and "Milton H. Polin, an Orthodox rabbi who served in Brooklyn" have no relevance to the original question posed and clearly are not deprecated by the section of the Manual of Style linked above. The only use of the word "Rabbi" that could possibly be construed as relevant to that guideline is its use as an honorific title, for example, "Rabbi Benjamin Yudin" or "Rabbi Milton H. Polin".
  • By my reading of the guideline, it also has nothing to say about the use of "Rabbi" as an honorific title. By the guideline's own description, it is meant to settle controversies surrounding "nobles, government officials, and members of royal families and popes." (The guideline was edited during the pendency of this discussion and I reverted as I thought that was manifestly unfair.)
  • The guideline is not meant to, and does not give any guidance in determining who is and who is not a rabbi. This is what seems to me to be the center of this dispute. (My own view on this is that we should follow the lead of secondary sources.)
  • The Martin Luther King article seems to set an example that religious titles styles such as "Reverend" and "Rabbi" should not be included in the bolded section of the first sentence of the article containing the article subject's name. Similarly, the subject of that article is referred to throughout the article as "King" not "Dr. King" or "Rev. King". Naturally, however, the article does not shy away from mentioning that King was a Baptist minister.
To sum up, my view on the best way of handling the two controversies put forward here is:
  • Who is a rabbi? - Rely on secondary sources.
  • When do we use the style rabbi in a person's name? - Avoid it as much as possible.
--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I am out of my depth here, but re assertion that "the word "Reverend" is not a noun", this is apparently contradicted by The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, which says that the word can be used as an adjective or (with "the") as a noun. - http://www.bartleby.com/61/59/R0205900.html . (Unless the assertion here is meant to be understood as "the word "Reverend" is not a noun in some particular case under discussion here") -- Writtenonsand (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(<-)Thank you for your detailed and careful response, Steven. However, I do believe that there is an analogy to the term Father as described in the final paragraph of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific prefixes. What are your thoughts about that? -- Avi (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That paragraph refers to special cases, certain individuals, such as Father Damien, Father Divine, and Mother Teresa who are popularly known by their honorifics instead of their forenames. (I suppose we could add Sister Mary Elephant to this list, but I see no point in deliberately antagonizing the folks at WP:CATHOLIC.) The paragraph approves of using the honorifics in the article titles in these special cases. If there are rabbis who fit this description, my interpretation is that this would apply equally to them. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The implication being that for people not commonly known by the honorific, the honorific does not belong in the title/opening sentence. Do you agree? -- Avi (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

yes we all agree! now what do u define commonly known? i assume u don't count wikipedie consensus into this equation, because u revert them all [4 users the last 2 days] single-handily, so why not rely on secondary sources to establish common knowledge? lets see on every rabbi if the references and sources bestow on him that honorific we cannot overrule them and should not. the subject at hand Avi Shafran is referred to by all commonly known sources as a rabbi why do u want to delete it?--YY (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that someone like "Reb Moshe" was universally referred to as Reb Moshe. The Satmar Rov was known throughout the world by that appellation. Avi Shafran, however, is not referred to by everyone as "Reb Avi" or similar. He, like Yitzchok Adlerstein is someone who is a Rabbi, not someone whose name has become permanently grafted to the term. Yisroel Dovid Weiss is even more tenuous, as we have no mention at all of the proper use of term, as opposed to Adlerstein, which at least says that he received semicha and from where he received it. What is your, and anyone elses, opinion, and why? -- Avi (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

ok so who decides this? why do u think that your decision has more power than 4 other users we said that we refer to him as rabbi wies and u r the only one saying we r wrong why do u put yourself above our community?!--YY (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

We all do; I have brought apropos policy/guideline and explained why I thought case precedent was applicable or not. What are your arguments/opinions based on? -- Avi (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

on this score it would help if someone could make this more explicit in the MOS, also should Grand Rabbi's, (Chief Rabbi's) be given their title, as are roughly analogously, Cardinals, per MOS?--Bsnowball (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I would think so, if we can show that "Grand Rabbi" is consistently used. I mean, they are truly referred to as the "Satmar Rov" and the "Satmar Rebbe", not "Grand Rabbi", but I would argue that that usage is roughly analogous to "Mother Theresa" since the most common vernacular reference includes the "Rabbanus" so both of them should have the titles in the lede, in my opinion an d understanding of the applicable policies and guidelines. -- Avi (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi: There has never been a hard-and-fast-rule on Wikipedia about how to exactly ascertain, prove or validate if anyone is truly a 100% "rabbi" in the classical Halachic sense of the word. For example, not every rosh yeshiva has formal semicha ("[rabbinic] ordination"), see Not all present-day rabbis have semicha, and not every Jew who has received a semicha ever serves as a rabbi, so that if an individual is commonly referred to, reported by the media as one, and even has a following who considers him as such, then there is no "law" in Judaism or in the world that can remove or repress that individual's claim to be called a "Rabbi" (regardless if he is one with semicha or not, and there are so many grades of semicha that not everyone accepts everyone else's in any case) -- indeed, it is common practice that out of common courtesy, many Haredi and Hasidic men are called or addressed as "rabbi" (even if they turn around and say, "oh, I am not a [real] rabbi") and they hold no rabbinic position and have never served as rabbis. As for the question if the title "Rabbi" should be included as the first word in the biography of a subject, there has never been one consistent policy on this and it's doubtful if there ever will be because there are just too many individuals and variables at work. For example, some of the greatest sages of the Talmud did not have the title "rabbi" and many great sages over the millenia were never formal "rabbis" but were philosophers or merchants and traders and never called themselves "rabbi" anything. The situation in modern times is even more confusing and it is safe to say that the title "rabbi" has become essentially meaningless unless one knows the exact people involved. Thus, this entire discussion is moot and almost pointless. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok its safe to sum it up that we had 5 users commenting and except of avi nobody sees any written rule of Manuel of style who is a rabbi and who not even Avi trys to argue that we have to go by common knowledge i openly challenge Avi that the article in question is indeed a rabbi and therefore i beleave that the word rabbi indeed comes before the word Avi Shafran. i beleave he was and is against consensus to constantly delete it. i hope i am not mistaken reading the words of Izzak, and more explicitly Steven who says openly that the link from Avi does not ion any way shape or form say something about Avi shafran and all the other users. thanks--YY (talk) 09:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
You have completely mis-read the discussion here. I wrote that we shouldn't use the honorific "Rabbi" before a person's name in the lede of an article. Steven wrote that we should "Avoid it as much as possible". IZAK wrote that "there has never been one consistent policy". In other words, nobody supported your position that articles about rabbis should always start with the word "Rabbi". — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I also didn't say that all the articles must start with the word Rabbi, all i am saying is that Avis analogy to some Manuel of style is non existent and all the other readers who have cared to comment say that as well, Avi is trying to create here a new policy which isn't wasn't and as it seems will not be excepted by the community. If we should use the word Rabbi before the name? I agree that in some cases i would not do it, but always we should follow the secondary sources, which in this case all refer to him as Rabbi before the name so it should be like this in wikipedia as well in my opinion.--YY (talk) 09:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
At the risk of unnecessarily lengthening this discussion, I'll try to clarify my remarks. First, I believe that the best practice is not to use the honorific "Rabbi" in the lead or in the text of any article. Second, if we say "Avi Shafran is a rabbi," that should be supported by secondary sources. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with u, but let me also agree with your second statement witch is not repeated bu u here: that if all the secondary sources claim and call him a Rabbi, we can indeed call him a rabbi, we have no Manuel of style as of yet whom to call and whom to not call the word Rabbi before the name--YY (talk) 09:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I reread Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific prefixes and I see that it prescribes rules for styles and honorifics (1) derived from noble title, (2) derived from political activities, (3) indicating royalty or a pope, and (4) the specific titles "Sir" and "Dame". However, the title "Rabbi" doesn't seem to meet any of these criteria. It is not derived from noble title or political activities, does not indicate royalty or a pope, and is neither "Sir" nor "Dame". Accordingly, I don't believe the manual of style currently says anything at all about the title "Rabbi", one way or the other. We can add a new rule ourselves if we want to have a rule on the subject, but I don't see that any rule currently exists. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
A famous aphorism by philosopher His Profundity Chico Marx comes to mind: Why a Duck? When someone says "Duck", don't just duck, ask "Why a Duck?" So let me ask, "Why a fence rule?" Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Please see the example about Father Dougherty and Mother Theresa at the end of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific prefixes. Father and Mother are analagous to rabbi in this sense. -- Avi (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that Father and Mother are in any way analagous to rabbi in this sense and I don't think you're correctly reading the guideline. The guideline refers to "certain historic persons" who were commonly known by their honorifics instead of their forenames. I can't see how this applies to any of the rabbis (or non-rabbis, depending on one's point of view) under discussion here. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Sotai article

This article is about a Japanese movement therapy with the sentence - also Sotai A servant of Solomon (Ezra 2:55) whose descendants returned from the Captivity with Zerubbabel. Could someone from this Project please write an article about him, I'm not qualified to because I'm a Christian gentile. Also I'm putting the WP:Judaism Banner on Category:Tanakh stubs. The only one so far I've had to change was Mount of Temptation because its about Jesus. Kathleen.wright5 13:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The above now has its own article under Sotai (Bible). Kathleen.wright5 22:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not convinced Sotai needs his own article unless there is much to say about him. You are fully within your right to write an article about Bible personalities; the only qualification you need is being a Wikipedian! JFW | T@lk 10:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:The Song of Moses and Song of Moses

It appears there are 2 articles about the same subject, The Song of Moses is Stub class and Song of Moses is Start class. I think a Merge is in order here. Kathleen.wright5 23:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism

The articles relation to Judaism and Christianity is being discussed on the talk page again. Please join and speak your conscience, whatever it may be. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding descendant projects, information regarding Biblebanner

I was wondering whether the members of this group wished to adjust the Judaism banner to include separate assessments for either the extant, if inactive, descendant projects, or for any other descendant projects on specific denominations at your discretion. I could arrange such changes myself. My reason for asking is that I have recently, for the purposes of reducing banner clutter on the most cluttered talk pages, created a new banner for the Bible Project at User:John Carter/Bible, which can be seen in use at User talk:John Carter/Bible. It is I hope understood that not only those other related projects which are directly relevant to the article in question will necessarily be activated in each article, generally determined by categorization. In short, it should, in general, be smaller. But if the members of this project did wish to create denominational or other subprojects, please let me know so that I could try to place those parameters in the Bible banner as well. I could also adjust your existing banner and assessment setup to include those groups under your own banner as well, if you so requested it. Please let me know. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Tophet and Topheth

I've proposed a merger of these two duplicate pages at Talk:Tophet#Proposed_merger_of_Tophet_and_Topheth. I don't expect this to be a controversial merge (they are two similar articles on the same subject at two variant spellings), however, I would appreciate any other opinions on the proposed merge from anyone who wants to give them. Please comment at the given link above, not here.— Gavia immer (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Update:In the absence of objections, I've gone ahead and performed the merger. Although I did some copyediting as part of the merge, the resulting article could still use attention. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"Stunningly unencyclopedic article" (taken from the talk page) Nathan (son of David)

This article was clearly written by someone who is such a devoted follower of Chabad messianism that they can't even see straight. I've hacked away at it a bit, but it is in serious need of help...especially from anyone with a background in Qabala, or who has access to the Zohar and the writings of Jehiel ben Solomon Heilprin and Philo... Tomertalk 21:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedic perhaps. NPOV no. JFW | T@lk 21:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

New article & cat

Temple of Israel (Wilmington, North Carolina) - the first synagogue in North Carolina and one of the first Reform synagogues in the American South.

Category:Synagogues in North Carolina is ready for more articles if someone is interested. APK yada yada 08:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Jews and Judaism by country

This is a noteworthy discussion regarding Category:Jews and Judaism by country at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 16#Category:Jews and Judaism by country. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)