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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://www.jewishgen.org/infofiles/BrazilianJewry.htm, which is not released under a compatible license. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
@Diannaa: Of course the information comes from there precisely because it's a WP:RS (how else can we get reliable information for WP articles?), but I summarized it and referenced it correctly in line with WP:CITE. Kindly restore your deletion/s thanks. IZAK (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
But it's not okay to copy the prose unaltered. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
@Diannaa: Could you please post here on my talk page the passage you deleted so that I can rework and paraphrase the quote a lot better to make it free of any problems with copyright, since I am entitled to WP:CITE it as a WP:RS. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Can you not see the content highlighted in the iThenticate report? I am not keen to add the copyright material to your talk page. Or I could send it to you by email if for some reason the iThenticate link is not working for you. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
@Diannaa: I will try look it up as you suggest. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLIX, July 2019
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Adas Israel Synagogue article
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for standing firm during the deletion discussion, for KEEP. I read the delete discussion log just now. --FeralOink (talk) 23:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXI, September 2019
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election half-way mark
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXII, October 2019
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dear IZAK, might I request your help with a line of Hebrew? I have posted the following article: Madīd (metre), and though the metre has no importance in Hebrew literature, I thought it worth including a line which Ibn Izra wrote in that metre. I hope I have copied and transcribed it correctly (please correct me if not). But I have no idea what it means, since the source I used does not translate it. Might you be able to add a translation to the article? I'd be most grateful if so. The poem appears here: Madīd (metre)#Medieval Hebrew poetry. Kanjuzi (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXIII, November 2019
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXIV, December 2019
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
An article you recently created, Seven Nations (Bible), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Jmertel23 (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
I protest
@Jmertel23: If you would have looked at the link I provided in the article, Judaism and war#Wars of extermination in the Tanakh and Jewish responses you would have seen the sources. I am not making anything up. The subject is just a STUB that takes its sources from the Book of Deuteronomy. Chapter 7, verses 1-2 and Chapter 20 verses 16-18. I have now added references to those two verses in the article.
I am also currently writing and editing from a mobile phone making it almost impossible to use all of Wikipedia's citation tools.
Please restore the stub immediately because it says review can take up to SIX months. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
@DGG: Thank you so much! IZAK (talk) 02:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Just fyi, it almost always takes less than 3 months, often much less. . They're reviewed in no particular order. Some reviewers work from the back, some from the front with the new ones, some by looking for something interesting or that they know about, some at random. I usually work from the most recent, trying to get the already acceptable ones approved immediately— and the worst of the junk discarded immediately. DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
@IZAK: Please see my response on my talk page (trying to keep the discussion in one place for clarity). Thanks! Jmertel23 (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Seven Nations (Bible), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi User:IZAK—could I trouble you to have a look at this? Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
@Bus stop: Good to hear from you. I think that the pie chart in the opening must go because it is too confusing. I have set up a "RfC" at the discussion. Be well, IZAK (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in. I was just concerned that there be enough knowledgeable eyes watching recent initiatives there. Bus stop (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
The Bugle: IssueICLXVI, February 2020
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team
The Bugle: Issue CLXVII, March 2020
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Category:Nazi leaders has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. buidhe 09:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello, IZAK. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
June 2020
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Exodus; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.--Ermenrich (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
@Ermenrich:I have had this argument countless times, but here goes again: Wikipedia is just an Encyclopedia, an online Encyclopedia, it is NEITHER secular NOR religious. One can write about ANY topic under the sun as long as it is written from a WP:NPOV and using WP:RS, end of story. So both your radical secularism and my religiosity can live side by side and respect each other's methodologies. Your allegation that one cannot "quote" the Bible in WP arguments is ridiculous because that is precisely what YOU are doing, you quote the Bible to disparage it by citing so-called secular anti-religious professors, while I am relying on the ongoing scholarship of Torah by Jewish sages from ancient to modern times, just that you may not have heard of all of them, the following would and do assert and affirm what I have to say about the veracity of the Hebrew Bible and that The Exodus is 100% true and the 100% reliability of Judaism's Oral Torah: ALL in Category:Rabbis by rabbinical period -- thousands of Jewish scholars spanning two millennia that would ALL agree with what I am trying to DESCRIBE and EXPLAIN. You have to make way for a more religious POV just like I have to make way for your secular POV, it's as simple as that. Hope we can agree on some common ground. IZAK (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.
Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).
If[1] you are here to promote pseudoscience, extremism, fundamentalism or conspiracy theories, we're not interested in what you have to say. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11 June 2020 12:07:32 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: Can you please point out any specific issues in my editing history you may be referring to. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes. We are biased.
Latest comment: 3 years ago12 comments2 people in discussion
Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once wrote:
"Wikipedia’s policies [...] are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.
What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t.[2][3][4][5]"
And we are not going to change. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: Not a single one of the above examples concern me as I do not edit in those fields. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Agree 100%, but I have serious doubts that this addition will accomplish this in a way that the creationism entry did not. Would any sane person reach the bottom of this list and still doubt that when science and theology disagree Wikipedia chooses science every time? — User:Guy Macon
@Tgeorgescu: No one was around at the time of Creation so everyone can have their theories and POV how the universe began. What "science" are you referring to in reference to The Exodus which is not a scientific subject but a subject in History, relating to Ancient Egypt, and intersecting with Jewish history, I do not see where science comes into this, do you? IZAK (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
According to many, history is a science. Of course, not everybody agrees.
I have granted that you and CHOPSY academics are normative for Wikipedia. That this will not change. That is all you are getting from me. T. Anthony (talk) 03:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Your perspective on what history is is normative for Wikipedia due to the demographics of CHOPSY academics and of Wikipedia. T. Anthony (talk) 05:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: Not arguing about that, but there is also Wikipedia:Expert editors when it comes to Religion adhered to by billions of people (do you respect that fact?) that needs to be understood in its own terms first before resorting to the next stage of secular scholarship as long as it is done in a WP:NPOV fashion. That should be logical. WP:NOTPAPER and it can hold a a variety of perspectives. IZAK (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Again, theologians decide about the subjective views which should be embraced by their fellow believers as a matter of true faith; historians decide upon objective facts from the past, i.e. seek to assess what really happened, based upon historical and archaeological evidence.
Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.
@Tgeorgescu: As I said, I am not into the Creationist vs the Evolutionist debate because as I said, no one was there at the time so anyone can think what they want. As for the field of History, it is not even a Social science, it is part of the Liberal arts. History relies primarily on eye-witness documentation or historical records. Whether the Hebrew Bible (Tanach) is a historical record depends on your POV, but there are enough Jewish historians and Christian historians who validate it as such. History only begins about 5000 to 6000 years ago with the invention of writing. Before that is Anthropology. IZAK (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
The point wasn't about creationism, it was about evidence: nobody forces theologians to obey or respect evidence. Unlike science, history, and so on, theology is free to ignore any evidence it does not like. A priori reasoning, rationalization, cherry-picking, denialism, etc., are perfectly OK inside theology. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: All I can make out from this last comment is that you WP:IDONTLIKE religion, which itself is a POV bias. IZAK (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I learned long ago that Wikipedia is not for my own opinions. So, it is not relevant whether I like or dislike religion—that has absolutely no bearing upon Wikipedia. Besides, some editors accused me of writing ads for evangelical Christianity. Like I was accused of being both pro-porn and anti-porn. If I write something at Wikipedia, it follows that it is a mainstream academic POV, it does not necessarily follow that it would be my own opinion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: Agreed. We finally agree on something. IZAK (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Suggesting that other editors are anti-semitic is unacceptable
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
And you know that. Doug Wellertalk 12:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Saying that someone has an "ax to grind against anything Biblical and even Jewish" looks pretty anti-semitic to me. Doug Wellertalk 15:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
June 2020
Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 15:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Unblock
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Hi Bishonen, I appreciate your concern, but at no time did you or anyone give me enough time to respond at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit warring, Aspersions and Canvassing by IZAK, in case you haven't seen it, I filled in my defense as follows: "@Ermenrich:(1) I have not been "edit warring" I made edits in good faith. At no time did I violate the WP:3RR, (2) and at no time did I call anyone an "antisemite". (3)User:Ermenrich displays an attitude of WP:OWN at The Exodus article,and my point was to introduce some Jewish studies content into the lead of the article, which he seems allergic to. (4) At no time have I violated WP:NPOV and WP:RS. (5)User:Ermenrich has an evident hostility to Rabbinic Judaism and marginalizes the Orthodox Judaism perspective." And, "@Zero0000: I was asking for help in editing an article which is permitted. It was not a AfD or CfD. It is not a violation of WP:CANVAS to ask other editors for their scholarly help. ". Thanks for lloking this over and please lift the block as I do not intend to edit The Exodus article in the near future. Regards, IZAK (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
None of that addresses your own unacceptable behaviour. And before you next try the "I have not been "edit warring" ... At no time did I violate the WP:3RR" excuse, please read WP:EW and understand what edit warring is (hint - it is not 3RR). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
@Boing! said Zebedee: They were minor edits and I was reverted before I could even give my explanation. There should have been a {{Controversial}} template placed on the article that I have not seen in a few years before this encounter, as a warning. IZAK (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Controversial, minor, whatever you think it was - you've been here plenty long enough to know not to edit war. If anyone disputes your changes, they *do not* need to wait for your explanation before reverting. And you *do not* need a template on an article page to warn you not to edit war. Anyway, if you disagree with my decline of your unblock request, you know how to make a new one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
@Boing! said Zebedee: It makes no difference to me in any case. I do not intend to edit The Exodus for the near future. It's enough that I have made my voice heard, my conscience is cleared. IZAK (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
The Exodus vs. the Nephites
Latest comment: 3 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion
[Comment deleted by author]
@Guy Macon: The major difference between The Exodus, and Creationist arguments, horses in America, and the sky falling, is that The Exodus was experienced and witnessed BY AN ENTIRE NATION of millions of people, and that has been recorded and handed down from generation to generation by that entire people, the Israelites/Jews, to this very day. The Hebrew Bible records that. It was not something made up one day in someone's imagination, like a novel. IZAK (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
No need to ping me. When I post a comment I watch the page for replies. Also, NO NEED TO SHOUT.
Let's examine your claims, using primary sources for the claims. The Book of Exodus gives us 600,000 adult men in the Exodus, plus however many women and children. Assuming 2 children per couple (actual families in the ancient past were usually larger than that) gives us roughly 2.5 million Israelites leaving Egypt (which had a total population of around 2.8 million), all of them leaving at the same time.
The Book of Mormon says that in the final battle at the Hill Cumorah, the Lamanites killed 230,000 Nephite soldiers. Horses are mentioned multiple times, and the Nephites even had horse-drawn chariots. This was supposedly around 350-400CE. So if (according to the primary sources) the Israelites in the Sinai Desert were a nation of millions, then it is equally true that (according to the primary sources) the Nephites in the Americas were a nation of at least a million.
[Comment deleted by author]
"the Lamanites killed 230,000 Nephite soldiers" is a fable because there are no "Lamanites" or "Nephites" around today to affirm or deny what happened. Nor did any Mormons see what happened with the "Lamanites" or "Nephites". On the other hand, the Hebrews aka the Children of Israel aka the Israelites aka the Jews did have the historical experience of leaving Ancient Egypt and they are very much around today as a people and nation. In fact they even have a festival that they have been celebrating for over 3,300 years from the time of the 1st Exodus known as Passover universally and historically observed by Jews with its Seder that commemorates The Exodus, so this is an unbroken chain of history reliably and meticulously handed down from one generation to another, and no one at any point "made anything up" and somehow by "voodoo'" got an entire nation of Hebrews/Children of Israel/Israelites/Jews to one day buy into a "myth"! It also happens to be that the Hebrew Bible aka the Torah records and affirms this and codifies the observances/commandments/mitzvot related to it. Secular anti-religious atheist modern-day scholars violate what we know on WP as WP:NOR and come up with far-fetched theories that border on what we here on WP call a WP:HOAX and WP:NOTMADEUP. IZAK (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Re: "The Hebrews aka the Children of Israel aka the Israelites aka the Jews did have the historical experience of leaving Ancient Egypt", no they didn't. You are asking me to reject the Mormon fable while accepting your fable, when the overwhelming consensus of scientists is that neither actually happened.
Mainstream scholarship does not accept the biblical Exodus account as accurate history.
No period in Egyptian history matches the Biblical accounts of the Exodus.
Egypt kept pretty good records, and there is no record matching the plagues of Egypt or the Egyptian military defeat described during the crossing of the Red Sea.
No contemporary Egyptian text mentions a large-scale exodus of slaves like that described in the Bible.
The Sinai Desert could never have supported the number of Israelites mentioned in Numbers.
[Comment deleted by author]
You are not paying attention to what I am saying. Why would ancient Egypt keep a "record" of its defeat? Have you never heard of Historical revisionism? For example, see how they tore down statues at the fall of Communism, or the fall of Saddam, or how statues of the Confederacy are being torn down in America today, history gets re-written by the "modern scholars" of the day every generation. So when talking of events that took place 3,300+ years ago of course there is a dearth of information. Secular History neither affirms nor negates the Exodus, because History is a limited tool. So from a Jewish point of we are not concerned because we have our method of recording history. Now I am not trying to convince WP of anything, I am only trying to faithfully depict what Judaism, Orthodox Judaism and Torah Judaism have to say. That's all. You don't have to buy into it. Now we come to the question if the Hebrew Bible aka Tanach can be taken as a reliable record of Jewish history. I say yes. You say no. So what? You are bothered that God made the Universe and that he created a talking snake. Well I know lots of humanoid "talking snakes" as Hitler was. So Judaism sees the Torah as not just history by also teaches parables and morality. IZAK (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
IZAK, with respect, on Wikipedia we follow the modern historiography to discuss the history of something. Scholarly consensus would be the determining factor here, per due weight. El_C 20:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
So what do you say to Jewish observance of Passover and Sukkot and Mitzvot? Are you going to re-write those articles according to "modern historiography" which is good tool in the secular domain but not in the religious domain. WP is not into WP:OR and about to re-write the beliefs and practices of every religion on the planet. IZAK (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
IZEK, Wikipedia reflecting what the scholarly consensus is —with an especial emphasis on 2ndry sources— cannot be original research, by definition. El_C 20:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I am not arguing that point. But we have a problem when it comes to religion, WP cannot re-write the religious beliefs and practices of any religion. In America for example, that is why we have Freedom of religion recognized by the entire word as a basic human right. As long as it can be presented in a NPOV. IZAK (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
IZEK, I suppose I just don't see what freedom of religion has to do with the due weight. El_C 21:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I always stick to WP:NPOV and WP:RS all the time. That's how I have survived around here for 17 years. I have to go now, ShabbatShalom! IZAK (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
You and me both. See ya. El_C 21:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXX, June 2020
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi IZAK,
I'd appreciate it if you'd stop pinging me/using the user template with me in replies to editors who aren't me.
Thank you!--Ermenrich (talk) 12:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Okay, no problem. IZAK (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Small note from a passersby about the ANI categories case
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I accidentally saw your ANI case, and just wanted to point out one thing: even if you don't see the WP:POV violations with your categories; consider that they are category clutter, because if such categories would be created for every religion, their numbers would be simply unmanageable (for using or editing). I hope I helped. Notrium (talk) 03:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
No problem, then just nominate what seems extra at WP:CFD. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Just a little friendly advice...by persistently arguing at ANI, you are not helping your case. Take it off your watchlist. AtsmeTalk📧 17:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I think we have reached the bottom of the barrel in any case. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Copying within Wikipedia
Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi IZAK, I've noticed in your creation of History of the Jews in X articles that you copy text from other Wikipedia articles for background sections. My understanding is that this should be noted in edit summaries per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. On a separate point, if you know of sources that could be used for History of the Jews in Malaysia that would be appreciated, as it has been perennially undersourced. CMD (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I thought I did, but then quoting from WP is WP itself. I will pay more attention to this. My first "source" is Googling in different ways and under different headings and searching through at least the first ten pages that Google comes up with, that way one comes across good articles and leads that are buried under a mound of junk information. Sometimes it is like looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack but more often than not it pays off. I will take a quick look though. Thanks for contacting me. IZAK (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I just took a look, at I would say that History of the Jews in Malaysia#References has enough citations for an article of this sort and this size. There are so few Jews who have been in Malaysia, that you are not going to do much better than that. It is a huge tangent in Jewish history. IZAK (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for looking. I realise it's a tangent, but I've previously found further information in blogs and similar, and it's somewhat disappointing that I've been unable to find similar information in reliable sources. CMD (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
As you know we cannot use Blogs on WP per WP:SELFPUBLISH. But if the topic grabs you, keep on Googling, new stuff is added and comes up all the time on the web. IZAK (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Blocked
Latest comment: 3 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion
You have been blocked sidewide for 48 hours for personal attacks and battleground editing, as seen here. Apparently merely pageblocking you was a poor idea. Bishonen | tålk 17:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC).
Note. IZAK, IMO I'm doing you a favor in blocking you from commenting further at ANI; the way you've been writing can only convince people more and more that you need a topic ban. But if you nevertheless do want to comment on something in that thread, please write it below, with an exact indication of where you want it to go, and I will move it for you. Bishonen | tålk 17:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC).
Thank you. Now I can take a WP:CHILL pill. I think I have said what needs to be said for now. Regards, IZAK (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
By the way, I don't see how here is a personal attack? IZAK (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm glad you feel you're done on ANI. But you don't see the personal attacks, really? You tell Ermenrich he thinks he owns articles, and imply that he rules them with an iron fist and attacks editors for their scholarly contributions? That he makes knowledgeable people fear to contribute? That editors, who you name, avoid these articles because Ermenrich (as well as other adversaries of yours — it's a limited group that could be in question) would blow their heads off, as they have done to you? I won't even go into your nasty accusations of treating editors like "Wikipedia Marranos." I'm surprised I have to tell you that those are vicious personal attacks. It's very bad for the editing environment to assume that much bad faith. Bishonen | tålk 21:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC).
@Bishonen: In response: "I'm glad you feel you're done on ANI." there are enough voices there now. Let the chips fall where they may. "But you don't see the personal attacks, really?" No personal attacks, just a blunt statement of the truth. "You tell Ermenrich he thinks he owns articles," he does, as that was my experience with him at The Exodus article. "and imply that he rules them with an iron fist and attacks editors for their scholarly contributions?" he does when they don't agree with his worldview, or POV. "That he makes knowledgeable people fear to contribute?" Indeed, they avoid editing Hebrew Bible articles when folks like Erminrich WP:OWN them. "That editors, who you name, avoid these articles" they do, the record shows it. Check it out. "because Ermenrich (as well as other adversaries of yours — it's a limited group that could be in question) would blow their heads off, as they have done to you?" what what else have they done to me? "I won't even go into your nasty accusations of treating editors like "Wikipedia Marranos."" It was the best way I could describe the situation. "I'm surprised I have to tell you that those are vicious personal attacks. It's very bad for the editing environment to assume that much bad faith." We will have to agree to disagree I guess. IZAK (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
[Comment deleted by author]
Not Atsme that was an error. IZAK (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: Stop accusing me of what you yourself are guilty of. WP is not a "religion" it is an online encyclopedia that reports all sides of the coin. IZAK (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Right, not Atsme. IZAK pinged Atsme along with Ermenrich, but the accusations were not leveled at Atsme in any way. Reading the whole context shows this. Bishonen | tålk 21:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC).
IZAK, you are wrong. We do NOT "report all sides of the coin" as if they are equally valid. Yes, we do report that all sides of the coin exist (See WP:WEIGHT), but we often report that one side or the other is wrong. As I explained to you in User talk:IZAK#Yes. We are biased., we don't report evolution and creationism, holocaust studies and holocaust denial, or the sociology of race, and scientific racism as "two sides of the same coin". We report that both exist, but we also report that creationists, holocaust deniers, and scientific racists are full of crap. Sure, we use nice language like "The methodologies of Holocaust deniers are often based on a predetermined conclusion that ignores overwhelming historical evidence to the contrary" and "Historically, scientific racism received credence throughout the scientific community, but it is no longer considered scientific", but those are just nice ways of saying that holocaust deniers and scientific racists are full of crap. As is your theory that the Angel of Death killing the firstborn of Egypt is a historical fact, but somehow the extensive records the Egyptians left failed to record such a major event.
[Comment deleted by author]
As I said, I do not delve or care for the above subjects you insist on bringing up. My concern is the veracity and respect for and of the Hebrew Bible, Talmud, Jewish Law and Rabbinical literature etc and that their texts should not be abused or lied about. As for rushing to ANI anyone who has tangled with me the last 17 years on WP knows that I have virtually never taken that route. If I have serious issues with an article or a category I revert them or take them to WP:AFD and WP:CFD and let the voters on WP decide. So I am not hot-headed or vengeful that way. IZAK (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
[Comment deleted by author]
Policy proposals
Latest comment: 3 years ago42 comments5 people in discussion
WP POLICY PROPOSAL BY IZAK REGARDING RECONCILING TORAH SCHOLARSHIP WITH SECULAR SCHOLARSHIP
During this time that I have for reflection I will be posting my ideas for an official proposed WP:POLICY of how to reconcile in a WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV manner that will allow for any articles that concern Hebrew Bible, Jewish Law, Jewish philosophy, Talmud etc articles to reflect their true origins in the the primary Jewish sources first, and allow for modern-day views at a later point in an article, not putting the cart before the horse. This has been causing conflict for years on WP with Judaism editors and secular Bible editors being in a cold-war type stand off. For example, The Exodus article has come to be dominated by a latter-day secular scholarship approach, using God's name as "Yahweh" when Jewish scholarship would never do that and in fact finds it highly offensive, preferring one of Name of God in Judaism often just "G-d" or just God. Please feel free to leave your views on this subject here, so we can collaboratively create a harmonious Wikipedia policy on this. An example of a similar prior discussion was the debate that took place on WP years ago not to use the term "Ultra Orthodox" which Orthodox Jews find to be offensive but instead to opt for the word Haredi Judaism. Thank you for your input! IZAK (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
NOTE: These are just rough ideas, in no specific order:
Name of God in Hebrew Bible articles: Main article: Names of God in Judaism. Virtually all English translations of the Bible refer to God as God, not "Yahweh" because in the Hebrew Bible God is mostly either YHVH or ELOHIM (See also Names of God in Judaism: Elohim). YHVH has resulted in Yahweh being used in some articles, such as The Exodus, but YHVH is in fact correctly translated as the Tetragrammaton in English and on Wikipedia. In Hebrew: י ה ו ה see Names of God in Judaism: YHVH and no one knows how to pronounce it correctly as far as anyone in Judaism is concerned. The two most common names for God in the Hebrew Bible are therefore י ה ו ה = YHVH and in Hebrew אֱלֹהִים = ELOHIM, but virtually all English translations of the Bible, both Jewish and Christian, translate both Hebrew names as God in their editions and therefore all Wikipedia articles about the Hebrew Bible and Judaism should use that name of God, meaning God, in articles.
Balancing an Atheism-based or Skepticism-based POV with a Religion-based POV is unavoidable sometimes in WP articles: Editors need to be honest about their POV and respectful before inserting it or imposing it on other editors. Those who are essentially Atheists or skeptics about matters of faith should not or cannot impose their POV on other editors, respecting their POV on WP, while editors who are religious and are faith-based need to allow other creeds and non-beliefs to express their POV in articles and discussions. WP:CHOPSY does not provide any guidelines on this matter. At all times WP:CIVIL must apply.
Mysticism is an important component of Judaism with its own concepts and terminology: Main Jewish mysticism, Category:Jewish mysticism, Category:Kabbalah, Category:Hasidic Judaism, most of which can barely be translated in coherent English, let alone be understood in secular academic circles and WP does not in any way discriminate against or think less of these subjects because of that.
Jews and Judaism are at a disadvantage in numbers even though they are the founders of the main Abrahamic religions: Even though there are only about 14 million Jews today, about 2.4 billion Christians, and 1.8 billion followers of Islam, yet because Judaism is the foundation of Christianity and Islam, Judaism is of equal importance and notability. Meaning to say, that any time a view of Judaism is cited on WP, it is not a "fringe or minority view" and is therefore always in line with WP:UNDUE policies.
Orthodox Judaism is today practiced by a minority of Jews, as the heirs to Rabbinic Judaism they uphold the classical teachings of the Torah: WP:UNDUE should not discriminate against it based on this minority status in relation to other modern streams of Judaism such as Conservative Judaism, Reform Judaism and by non-believing secular Jews.
Rabbis have been the teachers, leaders, authorities, legal scholars and authors in Judaism and of the Jewish people for the last 2,500 years (before that it was the prophets and kings of Israel and Judah), from ancient times to the very present and their views matter: WP should respect and strive to have their scholarly views on anything concerning Category:Jews and Judaism applying this as appropriately as possible, including Hebrew Bible and all Jewish Biblical and theological matters in a WP:NPOV and relying on WP:RS.
The views of Science "(from the Latin word scientia, meaning 'knowledge') is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testableexplanations and predictions about the universe" is on a different plane as Religion. Science is empirical and does not deal with Morality, Ethics, Values, all part of the Normative domain, which is the primary purpose of the three major Abrahamic religions see Relationship between religion and science: Thus while the Scientific method works for science it cannot be perfectly applied to a Monotheistic religion such as Judaism and its religious texts. Science does not deal with matters of Good and Evil (and certainly not with notions such as Heaven and Hell). This is a matter of great controversy in the modern world and therefore WP editors and writers should make sure they know the differences between Science and Religion before attempting to impose their own POV since classical Jewish scholarship does not accept much of modern Biblical criticism and scholarship and vice versa. Classical Judaism requires its adherents to observe most of Jewish Law based on the 613 Commandments including following a moral guide to living, see Category:Musar movement for modern day Jewish ethicism.
Discussion
[Comment deleted by author]
Good. I had The Exodus article in mind as a portent of things to come. Hopefully we can remain going steady with God. IZAK (talk) 02:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
According to Judaism, "Judaism has its roots as an organized religion in the Middle East during the Bronze Age. It evolved from ancient Israelite religions around 500 BCE." Our article on The Exodus mentions "the traditional dating to the second millennium BCE" and "Most proposals for a historical Exodus of any sort place it in the sixteenth, fifteenth, or thirteenth centuries BCE". So it appears that The Exodus predates Judaism by hundreds of years, and that our article on the Exodus should use the name of god used by the Israelites of that period, which unless I am mistaken was Yahwism: "the monolatristic primitive predecessor stage of Judaism in Judaism‘s evolution into a monotheistic religion".
[Comment deleted by author]
A RfC at Wikipedia does not change the academic consensus of mainstream scholarship. Wikipedia merely reflects mainstream scholarship, it does not aim to tell it what to do, it does not seek to reform it. The purpose of Wikipedia isn't to change the ways or the POVs of mainstream scholars. We kowtow to them, they don't kowtow to us. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
The Yahwism article is fine, as it discusses its subject appropriately. I don't see a problem. No need to remove anything there. I was referring to Hebrew Bible articles in general, such as in Category:Torah. IZAK (talk) 08:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Trust me: I saw editors who claimed that Wikipedia violates their human rights. I think they were all indeffed. According to xkcd.com I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express. So I would advise you not to plead freedom of religion because that's a very lame defense. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, changed to "POV". IZAK (talk) 09:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
To point 3. I’ve pointed out before you need to stop accusing editors who disagree with your fundamentalist point of view of being atheists. I, and I believe Tgeorgescu, are avowedly not atheists and it says more about your own biases than ours that you make statements such as “editors with an atheist-POV”. We don’t have an atheist POV, we have a neutral POV that follows policy.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying your views, even though I was not addressing anyone personally. I have now added in "or Skepticism-based POV " to point 3. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
To point 1. We use the terms used in reliable sources. When discussing the historical beliefs and historicity of the Exodus, that name is Yahweh or Yhwh/YHWH. This is true even for some very conservative publications.
Uses of Yahweh in the conversative (one of the few pro-Exodus historicity) scholars: Hoffmeier, James K. (2005). Ancient Israel in Sinai. Oxford University Press. ISBN9780195155464. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
These books were just selected at random from the bibliography at The Exodus, there are many more supporting the usage. In short, while it may not be appropriate when discussing modern Judaism, it is absolutely appropriate when discussing the development of Jewish belief in history, particularly during the Yahwism period.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I understand you have those sources, but I am pointing out that "Yahweh" is not used in almost all articles relating to WP Torah and Judaism articles that instead use the conventional word "God" as the name for God. By the way, according to the Bible, there is no such thing as a "Yahwism period" because there are two main names for God in the Bible YHVH and ELOHIM, and they each have their reasons and meanings. They arose at the same time. Although Genesis starts with ELOHIM and then switches to YHVH, there are good reasons for that, and it has nothing to do with "periods" in history. I know this is not what they teach at all modern universities, but the Bible preceded universities by thousands of years. IZAK (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Galen preceded modern universities by thousands of years; I suppose we should rely on him for medicine? In scholarship, newer is better.—-Ermenrich (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Don't mix apples and oranges. Orthodox Judaism goes one better, it believes that both older and newer are both great! But one has to define "old" as Torah and Talmud and "new" as in History of responsa in Judaism (as an example) that takes us to the 21st century in the here and now. IZAK (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
That’s not how scholarship or Wikipedia work, see wp:AGEMATTERS. Wikipedia and modern scholarship cannot assume that a source is always right because it’s old and is supposedly divinely inspired. If we did, fundamentalists of all sorts, not just Jewish, would overrun the place. Should we add the Tower of Babel as an explanation for Historical Linguistics? I’m sure you’ll say no, but the precedent you’re trying to set will surely lead to such things. In that sense, Galen and the Bible are very much apples and apples.—Ermenrich (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
By the way, it's not my precedent, I hardly ever edit Judaism and Hebrew Bible articles for your information. Usually I deal with categories. But when I do I try to keep a chronological order to a subject, not put the cart before the horse. First what does it say in the original old sources, then work your way to modern day scholarship, and present all views in a subject like Judaism. IZAK (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
A point of fact: it is not true that most English translations use "God" for YHWH. Mostly they use God for other names. For YHWH, some use Yahweh, some use Jehovah, and the majority use LORD (often in caps). Check Exodus 3:15 for example, here or here. However, I don't think we should use "Lord" in our own narrative except in limited contexts as it doesn't sound neutral enough. Personally I have no problem with "God" if the context makes clear which god is being referred to. But this is the only point on which I agree with IZAK. In my opinion, the proposition that a particular religious dogma should be given a special license to override our preference for secular scholarship is an attack on the integrity of Wikipedia. Zerotalk 09:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Right, LORD is used as the translation for ELOHIM, that is why universal use of "Yahweh" would be incorrect. There is no "the proposition that a particular religious dogma should be given a special license to override our preference for secular scholarship" because a religion-based POV already exists on WP willy-nilly as is most articles in Category:Torah and Category:Hebrew Bible and Category:Judaism. And there is no "attack on the integrity of Wikipedia" by pointing out its existing diversity. IZAK (talk) 09:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
No, you misread. Look at this example (Exodus 3:15).
ויאמר עוד אלהים אל־משה כה־תאמר אל־בני ישראל יהוה אלהי אבתיכם אלהי אברהם אלהי יצחק ואלהי יעקב שלחני אליכם זה־שמי לעלם וזה זכרי לדר דר
JPS (1985): And God said further to Moses, “Thus shall you speak to the Israelites: The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you: This shall be My name forever, This My appellation for all eternity.
You can see that God is used as translation of Elohim, and LORD as a translation of י ה ו ה. Zerotalk 10:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
That's because יהוה is pronounced as "ADONAI" (out of respect for the Divine Holy Name in Judaism) even though it is really only YHVH, just proves my point that YHVH should not be written as "Yahweh" when it can be used as both "God" and "Lord". IZAK (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
And the practice of pronouncing YHVH as Adonai started...when? Names of God in Judaism says "In modern Jewish culture, it is accepted as forbidden to pronounce the name with the (consonantal) letters with which it is spelled. In prayers it is pronounced Adonai, and in discussion is usually said as HaShem, meaning "The Name". The exact pronunciation is uncertain because -- although there is nothing in the Torah to prohibit the saying of the name and Ruth shows it was being pronounced as late as the 5th century BCE -- it had ceased to be spoken aloud by at least the 3rd century BCE during Second Temple Judaism and vowel points were not written until the early medieval period."
[Comment deleted by author, See edir sumarry for apology.]
3rd century BCE sounds long ago to me! I don't have or belong to any sect. Obviously Christians and Muslims have different interpretations of the Bible, that is why they are not Judaism. I never claim anywhere that my "interpretation of the Bible is the only correct one" you just read me that way. You say that I "keep asking Wikipedia to put your interpretation of the Bible over the findings of science" and that is false, it is not what I ever say. I try to present the views of Judaism and Orthodox Judaism in their own merits in their own context in their own terms first, and there is room for that on WP, as I have amply proven many times over. By the way, why are you so angry at me all the time? IZAK (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
You don't belong to any sect? Forgive me if I'm rather skeptical, given that you appear very much to self-identify as a Hasidic Jew. How do you square your claim that it's not your POV when you are trying to force Orthodox Judaism's POV on the name of God onto Wikipedia and with your rhetoric of being a Wikipedia Marrano? When you repeatedly tried to remove information from the article lead of the Exodus that contradicted your religion [6], [7]? Your edit summary here the Hebrew Bible and Rabbinical Judaism commentators are is a WP:RS and Primary source, not what some latter day prof claims in his fictional mind, which privileges wp:PRIMARY over WP:SECONDARY sources, evidences a very clear bias toward your own sect, as indeed does this whole proposal.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Nope, but thanks for the compliment, or is it insult. Increasing your stridency does not make you right. I am not Hasidic in any way. No point in arguing with you since you have made up your mind. By the way, just how many Hasidic Jews have you ever met or really know? IZAK (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Even if you aren't Hasidic, you haven't addressed any of the points I made. How are any of those things NPOV? Your edits are all in favor of Orthodox Jewish interpretations at the expense of other views.
I'll tell you what: my father-in-law would love it if Wikipedia only displayed an Orthodox Christian perspective. He'd love it if we labeled the Catholic Church a "heresy in Orthodox Christianity", removed any modern biblical studies on things like The Exodus or the life of Jesus and wrote that icons really and do truly work miracles and bleed, and that a Holy Fire descends on the Church of the Holy Sepulchre on Orthodox Easter. I'm sure he'd also want to make sure we all knew that Judaism has been superseded by Christianity and that Jews killed Jesus. How is his perspective to be kept out once we've decided that Orthodox Jews get to say how the encyclopedia should cover subjects? --Ermenrich (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
But we do have those articles on WP: Supersessionism, Orthodox Christian, Category:Heresy in Christianity, historical Jesus, New Covenant theology, Jewish deicide etc in any case. I am not saying that we violate WP:NPOV in Hebrew Bible articles. And there is no chance that WP will become Christ-pedia anytime soon either. But you have to realize that by saying that the Exodus and Moses and Esther are "myths" and "never existed" that in itself is imposing Biblical criticism as an "Inquisition" with its modern-day versions of "Torquemadas" in the guise of modern-day university professors doing exactly what your father-in-law would like to do to WP, but it is not what I am proposing at all. IZAK (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
How is writing what WP:RS and WP:RS/AC say on a topic an "inquisition"? And I suggest you read any of those articles, historical Jesus does not conform to what the Gospels say about him, it conforms to what wp:RS say. Compare also Gospel#Genre and historical reliability. We don't start by saying "Fundamentalist Christians hold the Gospels to be a completely accurate record of what Jesus said and did."
No one is forcing Jews to not believe anything, but Wikipedia reflects the academic consensus on a subject, and in this case, it's that no such persons as described in the Bible, a source written thousands of years after the events it purports to describe, claims existed. And you need to read the definition of myth, it doesn't mean what you think it does. If we describe stories about Shiva as myths, why can't we describe stories about Yahweh as myths? You are asking us to treat Judaism differently than any other religion solely because it's (evidently) your religion.
These last few points you've added are really beyond the pale. You've gone step by step to "Jewish views matter more" to "Orthodox Jewish views matter more because they're the more authentic Jews" to "Rabbinical views matter more". If you want a safe space to have your views confirmed, I'd suggest you go elsewhere. This is a wp:mainstream encyclopedia.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
You do not have to accept them, But they do reflect a "Judaism 101" approach. I recall when Wikipedia began close to 20 years ago, people would place almost anything up because there were no content rules. Over the years more expert editors got involved and started imposing more and more rules. Of course the situation today has changed, with millions of articles there is a need for more selectivity. But WP does not report only one point of view, it reports multiple points of view. I am going to make my 10 points a beacon for anyone who wants to know what Judaism has to say on a subject, I cannot impose it on anyone, even though maybe one day when the Jewish Messiah comes it will become real WP policy, until then we will have you and others adding in their comments. And please stop the bad habit of running to ANI over nothing, when we could have had this kind of discussion in the first place. I gave a few twists and turns (I did not violate any rules by the way) and you jumped as if who knows what hit you. Relax, WP is not the be all and end all of everything or anything, it's just an online Encyclopedia a digital figment in cyberspace trying to be readable and reliable and informative and enjoyable. IZAK (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
The person who's talking about an inquisition and living in fear as a Marrano is telling me Wikipedia isn't all that important and I should relax?
In my opinion there isn't really anything further to discuss. Your proposal is completely incompatible with wp:npov, in particular wp:due, wp:FALSEBALANCE, and wp:RNPOV. If the academic consensus is that the Exodus didn't happen the way the Bible describes, we report what the academic consensus says. Theologians, whether they are rabbis or not, are not historians nor archaeologists nor philologists, they are not qualified to tell us anything about actual history, that is whether 2 million people left Egypt under the leadership of Moses. They are only qualified to discuss the theology. There is nothing stopping any editor adding to the sections of The Exodus that discuss cultural significance of the Exodus or adding a section on theology. But that is not what you want. You want Wikipedia to "teach the controversy" and underwrite the Orthodox Jewish fundamentalist viewpoint. You have tried, in fact, to remove the opinions of reliable sources from the leads of an article, to places where unsuspecting readers won't see them.
This is just intellectual dishonesty and religious POV pushing, dressed in the language of "religious freedom" and accusations of other editors being inquisitors. This certainly isn't becoming policy.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
The Bible has lasted 3,000 years and it will outlive the skeptics. This reminds me of that old joke about the guy standing at the urinal and above it he sees written "God is dead -- Nietsche" and below that some wise guy wrote "Nietsche is dead -- God"! You will never understand Judaism, or any religion for that matter. IZAK (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Mormonism, Islam, etc
How about Mormonism, or Islam, or Adventism? Otherwise your proposal is just special pleading.
Dispute resolution won't do any good. The feedback you've gotten so far is the exact same kind of feedback that you would get in Wikipedia's dispute resolution systems. To simplify it somewhat, Wikipedia reflects the kind of scholarship that you find at leading secular universities, such as those mentioned at WP:CHOPSY: the kinds of things you would find taught at Cambridge, Harvard, Princeton, the Sorbonne, and/or Yale. If a view is considered fringe in those kinds of circles, you can bet that it will be considered fringe at Wikipedia. Now, that may not seem fair, especially if you believe the CHOPSY outlook is wrong. But that is the way Wikipedia has been since its inception, and it would be very unlikely if you could talk the Wikipedia community out of the approach that they've used since the beginning. As William Dever put it in "What Remains of the House that Albright Built?', "the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure." That's from William Dever, who is on the conservative side of much of the debate currently going on within mainstream biblical studies. The great majority of mainstream scholars have abandoned the idea of Moses as a historical figure. Alephb (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Quoted by Tgeorgescu. The idea is that at Wikipedia Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, Devil worshipers, etc., have equal rights. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
And @Bishonen: wonders why knowledgeable Jewish editors like @Ibn Daud:@Ar2332:@SamsonKriger:@Yoninah:@תנא קמא: and many others like them hide out on WP like fearful WP "Marranos" when you have the gall to insult them to their faces like that by telling them that Moses was a "myth". What I don't understand is why people who do not believe in God, judging by their views, are so obsessed with meddling in religious texts? Can't they find another hobby to keep them busy. At any rate, there is room on WP to report all POVs, but there has to be some semblance of a system as well when conflict arises. IZAK (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Awery, just a bit of housekeeping. When you post new comments to this thread, the newest comments need to be put at the bottom of the thread. That's the only way others can easily keep track of how the conversation has flowed. The Harvard Theological Review probably is a prestigious forum. On the other hand, the paper on Daniel that you want us to use was not published by the Harvard Theological Review. It was published by JISCA, an outlet for advocating conservative religious views. This fits with the general trend we've already observed here -- the folks saying that Daniel was written in the sixth century don't publish in mainstream outlets, generally speaking. It's entirely possible that MacGregor has published all sorts of stuff in reliable outlets. JISCA, however, isn't what most editors here would treat as a WP:RS outlet. When a journal is dedicated to a particular religious view, that matters. Just as, for example, Wikipedia does not make use of articles published in Journal of Creation when dealing with the subject of creationism. The question I'd like to see answered is, have any defenses of a sixth-century date been published in mainstream academic outlets. And if they have been, are they the work of a tiny fringe group of scholars, or do they represent a significant number of scholars. So far, it looks as is the 2d-century date for Daniel assuming its present form is the scholarly consensus, although of course there are hold-outs in the religious world, just as there are hold-outs on creationism. Because of WP:FRINGE, Wikipedia generally doesn't make much use of those who hold out against academic consensus. I don't want to speak for Tgeorgescu here, but I don't think he's saying that Christian scholars are automatically disqualified due to their personal faith. Indeed, almost all biblical scholars that Wikipedia cites are either Christian or Jewish. There's only a handful of non-Christian, non-Jewish biblical scholars out there. We don't sideline the views of Christian scholars on Wikipedia, it's that we sideline the views of WP:FRINGE scholars, those whose views have been overwhelmingly rejected by the academic mainstream. Alephb (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's not an insult, it's what reliable sources say. WP:MAINSTREAM scholarship either doesn't support the existence of Moses, or posits that if someone named Moses existed, he wasn't much like the Bible says. Myth doesn't mean that something isn't true or doesn't have a historical core. But you're not getting to get far arguing that we have to accept the literal truth of the Bible.
And you shouldn't make assumptions about what other editors believe.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Assume my approval SamsonKriger (talk) 00:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I'd be extremely amazed if archaeologists from Bar Ilan University and Tel Aviv University would teach their students that the historical Moses really led an exodus of two million Israelites from Egypt. IMHO, that is a fringe view there, as it is here, at Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Regardless, it is what Judaism believes and it is not WP's place to remake religions. We are here to first describe and explain what Judaism believes about the Exodus and Moses, then you can go on to all the modern theories you like. IZAK (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
But we do do that. The article begins by summarizing the narrative. An important part of the subject is the study of its historicity, and there is agreement in RS that the exodus could not have happened like in the Bible. Saying that isn’t “remaking Judaism”.—-Ermenrich (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
About finding another hobby:
My wife is an expert, among many other things, in Chaucer. She doesn’t “believe” in Chaucer, although she loves the texts and finds them personally important. There are professors in the university who teach the history of communism; most of them are not communists. Others teach the philosophy of Plato; they are not necessarily Platonists. Others teach the history of 20th century Germany; they aren’t Nazis. Others teach criminology; they aren’t necessary mass murderers. ... And so a scholar of Buddhism is not necessarily Buddhist (the ones I know aren’t); a scholar of American fundamentalism is not necessarily an American fundamentalist (one of my colleagues in that field at UNC is an Israeli Jew); a scholar of the history of Catholicism is not necessarily Roman Catholic (another colleague of mine in that field is, again, somewhat oddly, another Israeli Jew); scholars of Islam are not necessarily Muslim (neither of my colleagues in that field are); etc etc.
— ehrmanblog.org
So, yeah, I seek to impose WP:CHOPSY-supremacism because that is what Wikipedia is and always were. In centuries past, science had to answer to the court of theology. In our century, theology has to answer in the court of science. Even if you consider that a wilful choice, it is a choice that Wikipedia already made. Wiki-heretics are those who despise the teachings of CHOPSY. Beliefs pertaining to a particular sect may only be stated with attribution, never in the voice of Wikipedia. While the academic consensus gets the lion's share in every article and often gets expressed as fact, not as a mere POV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
And by the same token, the vast amount, tens of thousands, of articles in parent Category:Jews and Judaism shows that WP is big enough to include the opposite of you claim that "In our century, theology has to answer in the court of science. Even if you consider that a wilful choice, it is a choice that Wikipedia already made" is not true and does not hold water. And by the way, I have hardly edited in any of those articles I am just saying it as it is, WP allows for the Judaic perspective based on Jewish and Biblical sources. The horse has left the stable on WP in that regard a long time ago too. IZAK (talk) 08:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
As Guy Macon told you, Wikipedia will never say if Judaism is true or false. But when archaeological and textual evidence contradict your theology, Wikipedia rightly sides with mainstream historians. No religion is objectively true: religion means subjective beliefs. That a religion could be objectively correct is a figment of imagination. Wikipedia sides with objective knowledge. So declaring a correct religion in the voice of Wikipedia is simply not done. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Trust me, I know that WP will never be "Torah-pedia" and it will never be used by anyone who wants to know what Judaism really teaches. That being said, I agree with you so far as WP itself is concerned. By the way, can you prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that as far as Judaism is concerned: "That a religion could be objectively correct is a figment of imagination."? That should be interesting to see. IZAK (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines; rather, its purpose is to explain certain aspects of Wikipedia's norms, customs, technicalities, or practices. It may reflect differing levels of consensus and vetting.
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
Comprehendo? It ain't a WP policy! IZAK (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I never claimed I wrote WP:PAGs. However, I have only rendered explicit what was the unwritten norm for a long time. The credit for inventing a CHOPSY-based encyclopedia should go to Jimbo Wales. There is a difference between creating a social system and describing a social system. I could describe the life from Communist Romania, but it does not mean that I invented Communism. So, if the New York Times writes that it is not allowed to walk naked on the street, it does not mean that the New York Times made that law, nor that the claim should not be trusted because it is merely a newspaper and not a law treatise. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Please stop saying I own articles
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Is there some reason you keep accusing me of owning articles? You had one encounter with me at Sadducees, and then you mentioned me, without my having done anything whatsoever, as owning the Exodus. I didn't even revert you the first time, it was A.Parrot [8]. You'll notice there is a broad consensus of editors there, see Talk:The Exodus#Exodus as foundation myth. I am one of many and I make no claim to ownership. I'm not even alone in opposing your change to Sadducees, see [9]. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop leveling this accusation.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
[Comment deleted by author]
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
[Comment deleted by author]
Guy Macon—are you seriously calling someone an "asshole"? It is nice to see that IZAK is taking this with equanimity. In my opinion logic should always prevail over name calling. Bus stop (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
APOLOGY: I lost my temper and was uncivil towards IZAK. I have deleted the comment, but that does not change the fact that I was wrong to do that or excuse my actions. I apologize for my outburst. I should have behaved better. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Closure of ANI report
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
IZAK is warned that giving preference to religious scholarship over mainstream secular historiography is likely to be interpreted as a violation of NPOV.
IZAK is warned that canvassing is inappropriate, any invitations to content discussions must use neutrally-worded statements and must not selectively target editors.
IZAK is banned from adding religion-related categories that are likely to be seen as contentious, without prior consensus. If in doubt, IZAK should assume the need to seek consensus first.
@JzG:(Guy) Thank you for your meticulous reading of the ANI arguments and for your judicious outcome. Kind regards, IZAK (talk) 03:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
IZAK, thank you. I am glad that we were able to avoid mob justice in this case. I believe that all involved have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, and I hope this unfortunate incident will be an end of the difficulties. Guy (help!) 08:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hi! Yoninah suggested I reach out to you about an issue I brought up on their talk page. It was about something I noticed a couple months ago. Namely, the Wiki page on Jews is generally well-written, but has an odd limitation - the "History" section covers only Babylon and Rome, ending in 96 AD. In contrast, the linked page Jewish history has a much fuller treatment, from antiquity to the modern day, as you would expect.
It's weird that the main page has such a limited scope for such an important topic. I brought this up on the talk page at the time (also on some WikiProject pages), but nothing came of it. I tried to fix the issue myself, but Jewish history is so vast and I have so little general knowledge of it, that the task of summarizing 3500 years in a few well-written paragraphs was simply beyond me. It strikes me that you might be interested in fixing this issue, or know of other Wikipedians who are as well. Ganesha811 (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for contacting me. I don't have the time to focus on this right now. I suggest you try @Editor2020:, @Ar2332:, @Ibn Daud:, @Davidbena:, @Sir Joseph:, who are all WP:EXPERT editors in this field. Let me know how it goes, IZAK (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
@Ganesha811:, Jewish history is, indeed, a gargantuan topic to break-down, since Jewish history can, invariably, be described as the collective histories of all the countries of the habitable earth where Jews were scattered, each group comprising a small component in that overall history. It becomes a very complex issue when you think of it in these terms. I, too, do not feel that I am qualified to tackle this enormous task, so I'll excuse myself.Davidbena (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Please pay attention
Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Please pay attention to the following three edits: [12], [13], [14]. I really hope there is not going to be a fourth time. Debresser (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
@Debresser: I was not aware that it made a difference. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Can you cite where this rule is officially mentioned so I can note it. Feel free to make the corrections. IZAK (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Okay, now I see it. Thanks, if you come across any ones that I changed or misplaced, please correct them. It is hard to keep up with all the nuances. IZAK (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Superstition in Judaism
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Thanks for your invitation. I wouldn't know where to begin!
As far as I can see the article has no factual content whatever (except for the bit about passing between two women or two dogs) and might as well be deleted. One could conceivably do something based on Joshua Trachtenberg, but this would be in substance a completely new article and I don't think I would have the time. Best wishes --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 11:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for butting in, but the page is admittedly hopeless. Apart from the magnificent study by Trachtenberg, you can get a very uptodate treatment (and thorough bibliography) in the 2nd ed of the Encyclopedia Judaica 2007, vol.7 pp.95-113 in the article on Folklore written by Dov Noy. Many of the assertions left in the wiki text reflect orthodox belief, not actual practice or the compromises between folk culture and rabbinical rigour. Superstition is not simply 'foreign' or 'Amorite' (like kapparoth and tashlikh). The mezuzah in origin was apotropaic, though the two on my doors are, as I think is true of everyone who observes the custom, not there as a superstition.Nishidani (talk) 12:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you folks for your comments. Right now my focus is elsewhere, so I thank you for your kind feedback. IZAK (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXI, July 2020
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Debresser my feeling is that the ArbCom did not take any real sanctions against the pro-Chabad editors and not against Chabad.org in 2010, so the present proposal is weak in that case. I have no grudges I assure you. IZAK (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom indeed didn't take action, and IMHO for good reason! Debresser (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
minor typo correction
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I hope you don't mind but I made a minor typo correction in a post of yours. Of course revert if I've misunderstood. Bus stop (talk) 02:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue Issue CLXXIII, September 2020
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Notice of noticeboard discussion
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have proposed the deletion of Chavurah, of which you seem to be the main active editor. Mèþru (talk) 02:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
@Mèþru: By the way, I am not the creator or main editor of this article, you need to inform more editors. See my opposition to your proposal at Chavurah#Proposed deletion. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXIV, October 2020
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject Newcomer and Historian of the Year awards now open
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, December 2020
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Exodus; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Ermenrich (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Users with indefinitely protected user talk pages". Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)