Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Missing and stub articles - Help, please?

The following articles related to Jewish biblical interpretation appear to be missing or severely incomplete. Can anyone help me find more complete articles?

• Sadia Gaon
  • -> Saadia Gaon Jheald 14:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC) Thanks. Egfrank 15:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Mikraot Gedolot - says next to nothing about modern critical editions (e.g. Torat Hayim, Rav Kook Press) and doesn't even bother to list the commentators included in either traditinal or modern critical Mikraot Gedolot.
• Perush - the closest I can find is Pesher and Perushim. Neither article has much to do with the general topic of medieval and modern Jewish biblical exegesis. Pesher seems focused second temple period exegesis and says nothing about medieval exegesis. Perushim describes a group of followers of the Vilna Gaon.
• Peshat and Drash - this is a key concept in Jewish exegisis and the subject of much debate up to the present day, yet Peshat is nothing more than a stub and Drash simply leads back to Midrash.

Thanks in advance, Egfrank 10:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, there certainly are big gaps. Not sure what you've seen. For instance, there's Pardes (Jewish exegesis) and Rabbinical literature (aka Jewish Biblical exegesis). Hopefully, some better nuggets out there. Otherwise, happy gap-filling (so to speak). HG | Talk 23:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Manual of Style

I've spent some time this morning expanding the discussion of WP:NPOV and articles involving biblical text in our project's manual of style. I've tried to take into account multiple interpretative traditions, but I think it would be a good thing if many voices from many streams of Judaism are involved in this expansion. Egfrank 10:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, see above. IZAK 03:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi - what part of above? - there's lots there! Egfrank 07:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, the parts above about "Varieties of Hebrew and Yiddish" because the language issues and differences are also based upon serious divides in the premises and the Weltanschaungs (I am afraid of the words "points of view" but they do apply) of all editors who invarioubly come at things from multiple positions. It is best not to try too hard to squeeze everything and everyone into a "generic Hebrew" or "generic Judaism" on Wikipedia for the simple reason that no such thing exists in the real world, and such efforts are bound to fail as much as the efforts to introduce "Esperanto" as a "world language" fails to reflect the realities of the inherent differences to be found in the human condition.IZAK 09:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Midreshet lindenbaum speedily deleted?

I just happened to notice a bot which dewikified Midreshet lindenbaum because it had been speedily deleted. Isn't this a rather important study center for women? It is pretty well known in Israel among the women's yeshivot and has a number of references across Wikipedia. Anybody know anything about this delete? Egfrank 08:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• You are correct. It should not have been speed deleted. Let's take it up with the admin who did it, see User talk:Swatjester#Request you reintstate article. I found out who did it by clicking on Midreshet Lindenbaum (with a capital "L") and looking at the summary of what happened on that page (not the history page) and you can read for yourself who did it. Any WP:PROD (a quick deletion) can be contested, see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Contesting a proposed deletion, and Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Proposed deletions: "Articles deleted under this procedure (using the {{prod}} tag) may be undeleted, without further discussion, on a reasonable request. Any administrator can be asked to do this (or perform this action themselves)..." Thanks for noticing this. IZAK 09:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I undeleted it. This was probably a mistake; the administrator who deleted it was correct in noting that the article that existed at the time of deletion neither asserted notability nor provided sources and hence was elegible for speedy deletion under WP:CSD A7. However, it appears that if people are willing to improve the article things will be left here. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Weird original research on Nephilim

Since the Nephilim article falls under this project, I thought I might bring this to your attention. A new user recently started adding original research to the article:

From the main article (which I deleted)

“ It may be that the Elohim created the Nephlim by taking some semen from a male Anunnaki and using artificial insemination. And those genes still resurface occasionally in the homo sapiens population due to some interbreeding by various groups on the earth and this giantism remaining as recessive genes. ”

A snippet from the talk page (which I deleted because of it's forum-like quality)

“ It seems possible to me, that the Elohim may have stole some semen from the Anunnaki and used that to create the Nephilim so that they could live on the earth, as the pre-Olmec people did which they had transported to earth to mine gold for them. The pre-Olmecs out competing the Neanderthals by mating with everything they possibly could including monkeys, which led people to believe that mankind was descended from monkeys when they really mean that homo sapiens was a cross breed between these pre-Olmec super breeders, and Neanderthal Man. Neanderthal here before the arrival of the Elohim. ”

User: Rick S33555, who posted the info, claims this picture is scientific proof of an Elohim head on the moon (this is apparently a creature separate from the name of God). He also claims that there was a war between the Elohim and the Anunnaki with missiles! (see this edit) He further claims all of this info is backed up by scholarly papers written by people with PhD's, but never provides citations. Will somebody from here please join in on the discussion? --Ghostexorcist 12:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Draft him for Uncyclopedia. This sounds like a good satire piece. If there actually exists such a book we can leave it in the popular culture section but not in the main.Wolf2191 16:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirects needed for names of medieval rabbis?

While trying to wikify a list of medieval biblical commentators I noticed that the names seem to be using an inconsistant transliteration strategy. Often the first name is Anglicized and the remaining use a sephardic or traditional transliteration: e.g. Abraham Ibn Ezra rather than Avraham Ibn Ezra. Might we want to consider redirects for a variety of translations (and if so, which ones?) - it might help avoid unnecessary red links. Egfrank 10:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

IMO, at the very least any variation that's in the Jewish Encyclopedia (1906) (nb the JE project list), Encyclopedia Judaica (1972), Britannica (1911 or current), or gets a substantial number of hits on Google should get a #redirect .

Where names have traditional Anglicisations - eg Abraham, Judah, etc. - those should be the principal article titles, especially when they are the forms found in the references above. Jheald 14:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Varieties of Hebrew

See related subject Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English - for handling differences between American and British English, and other national varieties.

Hi Jheald: Your concerns do not have an "absolute" conclusion, because the issue you raise goes back to what "brand" of Hebrew pronounciation should be used in articles with Hebrew titles or names in them. There are users who would perfer only "pure" English names (e.g. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and not Avraham Yitzchak Yaakov [with variations, such as Abram, Izaak, Jakob Avrohom, Yitschok, Yaacov]) and then there is the debate between those who want to use current English versus scholarly English (Hasidism vs. hasidism) and they vs. those who use words based on modern Israeli Hebrew (Beth din vs. Bet or Beit din) or the debate between Sefardi usage vs Ashkenazi usage and the Ashkenazi usage is further split when editors insist on writing the name of Jewish subjects "as they call themselves" such as "Avrohom, Yitzchok, Yaakov, Moishe, Aharon, [Aaron or Aron], Yoel", and so on. The core debate is unresolved and seems will remain so, see the old discussions about Hebrew usage at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Hebrew) (with its three archives of discussion about the very issues you raise: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Hebrew)/Archive 1; Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Hebrew)/Archive 2; Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Hebrew)/Archive 3. I guess at the end of the day, because Wikipedia editors come from so may reliable backgrounds with authentic traditions then all must be given credence and ultimately there should be a context for any usage, so that it would not make sense to apply Hasidic usage to modern Israeli Hebrew or to force archaic scholarly Hebrew on Sefardic usage, or to use Israeli Hebrew transliterations for Haredi Judaism topics where the editors and authors have generally followed one convention (presumably the one they were taught in established schools). This also takes us back to Wikipedia's generally accepted rule/s about English usage that both American English and British English usage are legitimate and should not be corrected or modified in articles when one style has been more or less applied, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English:

"The English Wikipedia has no general preference for a major national variety of the language; none is more correct than the others, and users are asked to take into account that the differences between the varieties are superficial. Cultural clashes over spelling and grammar are avoided by using four simple guidelines.

Consistency within articles

Each article consistently uses the same conventions of spelling and grammar (e.g., British, Canadian); for example, center and centre are not to be used in the same article. The exceptions are:

• quotations (the original variety is retained);
• titles (the original spelling is used, for example United States Department of Defense and Australian Defence Force); and
• explicit comparisons of varieties of English.

Strong national ties to a topic

An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation. For example:

• American Civil War—(American English)
• Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings—(British English)
• Australian Defence Force—(Australian English)
• European Union institutions—(British English)
• Montreal—(Canadian English)

Retaining the existing variety

If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic. In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic. Where an article that is not a stub shows no signs of which variety it is written in, the first person to make an edit that disambiguates the variety is equivalent to the first major contributor.

Opportunities for commonality

Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English.

• In choosing words or expressions, especially for article titles, there may be value in making choices that avoid varying spellings, where possible. In extreme cases of conflicting names, a common substitute (such as fixed-wing aircraft) is favored over national varieties (fixed-wing aeroplanes [British English], and fixed-wing airplanes [American English]).
• If a variable spelling appears in an article name, redirect pages are made to accommodate the other variants, as with Artefact and Artifact, so that they can always be found in searches and linked to from either spelling.
• Sensitivity to terms that may be used differently between different varieties of English allows for wider readability; this may include glossing terms and providing alternate terms where confusion may arise. Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve well the purposes of an international encyclopedia.

Articles such as English plural and American and British English differences provide information on the differences between the major varieties of the language."

Thank you, IZAK 03:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Varieties of Yiddish dialects

Main article: Yiddish dialects

The same problems relating to finding a "standardized form" of Hebrew/Yiddish can be found enumerated and discussed at Yiddish dialects as it impacts on the above discussions. Thank you, IZAK 07:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Practical implications

Thank you, IZAK for explaining the complexity of the problem. The situation gets even worse if one adds in multiple systems of transliteration for sephardic pronounciation and traditional academic transliterations (e.g. the german preference for J as a transliteration for yod). However, it still doesn't answer my question because we can't possibly put in redirects for all these possible variants.

The current situation leaves someone guessing at which of the 20 or so spellings is actually being used and makes wikifying a Jewish article very time consuming. I'm wondering if we can pick one (or two) transliteration standards and just make sure that those always lead to an article? Or if we have one, make the link to it more prominent. I don't think it matters if the standard names are merely redirects or the main article. I think the issue is having a consistent rule for guessing what will be a valid link.

One proposal:

• follow let the creator decide for the main title (as done for English, Yiddish)
• document a selected transliteration scheme in the manual of style
• make sure every topic has either a main title or redirect using one of the standard transliteration schemes for modern Israeli pronounciation so that there is a consistent way to guess at a working link request that any article that is named using a different scheme be given a redirect with the standardized transliteration.

Egfrank 07:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Egfrank: I cannot imagine it would be that simple. From my experience, the editors who make the greatest contributions will not follow such instructions and will continue contributing and redirecting based on their way of pronouncing Hebrew/Yiddish. So since in recent years there have been many Haredi and Hasidic editors who contributed a lot of material, they have always tended to resist and defy any standardization and indeed have turned the clock back when they see names such as "Joel ____" for a rabbi and they redirect to "Yoel ____" (some might even go so far as to call it "Yoil" as they have changed many a "Moshe" to "Moishe") -- but I am not criticizing them really, I am saying that one needs to come to terms that a manuel of style will never be acceptd by everyone as binding policy. They will fight it and undo what it says (that is if they even bother to read it), it is like tampering with their religious principles which is tied in with their belief in God. So you may as well be talking to God as far they are concerned, about changing and enforcing one or two styles. Same thing with Israeli editors, they will always object to a way of writing Hebrew words that does not match modern Hebrew transliterations and pronounciations. Myabe you can back off a little and focus on something else? IZAK 09:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

All very good and wise points... this isn't really a problem that can be overlooked. An article that can't be found might as well not exist. I think the answer lies in wikipedia's cooperative and evolutionary nature - sure Yossele MegaHassid may feel pretty strongly about his rav's pronounciation... but then we have Yaeli from Israel who comes along and adds the redirects Yossele couldn't bear to add himself. And presto we have some consistency - Yossele finds the article under the name his rav taught him. Yaeli and the rest of us find the article using the standard. As time progresses and more and more articles can be found using the standard name. But it all starts with a standard that Yaeli can use when she's feeling a bit wiki-gnomish. Egfrank 11:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hi again Egfrank: There is no "standard" because what you call "standard" may be a serious deviation from Judaism's traditions as someone's Rav may have correctly taught them. Orthodox editors will not buy into an "evolution" of naming of Hebrew names into Israeli ones, they will attack them and run in horror to either change them or complain. So far there has been a cease-fire, do not try to start a civil war here, PLEASE. The Israeli articles use Israeli sounding Hebrew transliteration. And articles about most Rabbis, Haredim and Hasidism will often incorporate their Hebrew/Yidish sounding names. There is no use fighting this. Try to work on fixing up articles according to your stated interests about Reform topics and adding information there before you contemplate getting other (Orthodox) editors backs up for no reason. I was not referring to redircts, they are minor issues, I was talking about how articles with Hebrew names get bounced around when names are changed by each set of editors coming from different points of view and then that leads to whole new sets of redirects that no-one, least of all the creators of the articles anticipated. For example, in my over four years on Wikipedia, I think the Baal Shem Tov has had his name changed at least five or more times in the article's lead name. This is a little too much and such behavior needs to be stabilized and the way one needs to do it, from my experience, is to allow for a variety of possible pronounciations and transliterations in topic headings from the get-go which would also take away the focus from trivial superficial activities like arguing over how to name the Jews on Wikipedia to actually filling articles and biographies with real content rather than quible if someone is to be named "Moses" or "Moshe" or "Mosheh" or "Moishe" or "Meishe" as an example in the name of an article heading. IZAK 14:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If you aren't talking about redirects then I think we are actually in agreement. I think a standard for the actual article names would be a bad idea, impossible to enforce, etc. for all the reasons you have stated above. And it is entirely unnecessary given the ability to create redirects. By "standard" I merely meant a goal for how we find articles. We ought to be able to say somewhere: "if you can't find what you are looking for, try using X transliteration system (see ...)".

Really, I'm only concerned with the problem of finding articles. Even the progressive articles need to reference rabbis of the mishnah, talmud, gaonic, and all later periods - we may understand our textual traditional differently but we all rely on the same sources. Kol tuv, Egfrank 16:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Abir (martial art)

I think this article is realy strange. Probably you should ask you if it's not a hoax, please take a loock on this link.--Kimdime69 20:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Kimdime: Thank you for bringing this up. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abir (martial art). Thank you, IZAK 12:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Very poor Afd. Blogs are not reliable sources and certainly not as counter sources either. --Shuki 18:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I never said it was a source, just a way to awake skepticism.--Kimdime69 03:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Relationships between Jewish religious movements

There are currently several articles including the above, Jewish denominations, Schisms among the Jews, and criticism sections in each denominational article that address theological differences and organizational antagonisms in a somewhat scattered and overlapping way. Given this, I have come ot agree with others who have suggested that perhaps this material might better be consolidated into one article with only brief summaries or links in the others. Best,--Shirahadasha 03:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I am in favour of a merge. Most of them are POV vehicles of contributors who have long departed from Wikipedia (e.g. the famous RK). I think this can all be captured in one article, and I hereby nominate Shirahadasha to merge them all. Heh. JFW | T@lk 16:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

In principle, it sounds like a useful idea. However, there's a real risk that this would simply be a magnet for every editors' impressions about current movement relationships. Instead, it should be grounded on terminology -- started with an article title -- and analysis drawn from high quality sources, preferably with a structure from academic studies of the movements. My guess is that we would end up with one main article about Orthodoxy's relations with the non-Orthodox (aka "liberal") movements, and then remaining content within each movement (e.g., Conservative re: Reconstructionist, etc.). The main article might begin with the dual emergence of Orthodoxy and Reform in the late 18th Century, a big piece on 19th C Europe, and then sections such as what you all want on the subsequent American scene. Thanks. HG | Talk 18:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently working through Michael Meyer's book on the history of modern Jewish reform movements (Response to Modernity) and will be moving onto other sources when I finish that one. I think we can find ample material on this matter to avoid a set of opinion pieces. Egfrank 18:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

On reflection, I believe it would be useful to distinguish discussion of differences in ideas -- that, each side's intellectual POV about the other -- from discussion of behavior. The first topic is a topic in Judaism; the second, a topic in Jewish history. Integrating the two as the only presentation would create a result that might be a little bit like integrating discussion of the history of Richard Dawkins's social snafus with discussion of his ideas on the evolution or the atheism articles. Whether one thinks Richard Dawkins a nice person or not isn't necessarily relevant to whether his ideas are worth consideration; combining the two could be considered a original research synthesis. Clearly, atheists' intellectual critique of theism and vice versa is not the same subject as the history of the relationship between theists and atheists. Same here. Best. --Shirahadasha 23:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

There are many contemporary representations of Orthodox perspectives that would serve as reliable sources. It seems to me that we are, ultimately, reporting opinions. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Gee, you're sounding a bit cynical here. Besides Meyer, there's of course Jacob Katz and many others in various disciplines (Feiner, Ferziger, Ellenson, Bacon, Heilman, etc etc). I think they cover both arenas (history of relationship, intellectual/religious critique) without relying on WP editors to give their opinions of the primary sources. Cheer up! HG | Talk 00:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC) (oops, marcheshvan, what was I think?!)

Maybe someone can help

The scholar and gentleman Steven Goldberg of New York was generous enough to reply to an email I sent and to provide me with a portrait to put up at Wiki. Unfortunately, I didn't think to get him to sign a Gnu License in triplicate, witnessed by a JP, and delivered by registered mail, so naturally the image was removed for fear of breaking copyright.

I'm a little shy of troubling Professor Goldberg again. But I was just wondering if a long shot might work. Perhaps someone in this project has some family or social contact with the good Professor. Please drop a note at my user page if you can help. If I don't hear from anyone in a few weeks I'll shoot off the email anyway. Shalom. Alastair Haines 21:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't need it to be witness in triplicate (I assume that was a joke). Read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. The main thing is to make sure that he understand what an open license means and that he owns the copyright (the person who took the picture - not the person who the picture is of - owns the copyright). He must understand that not only can wikipedia use it, but anyone can use it for any reason also, even sell it and even modify it. Simple forward your letters (both the request and the answer - preferable together) to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org" where it is archived. If your question and answer are already clear ( he know that permission means that 1. Modification, 2. Redistribution, 3. Use for any purpose, including commercial purposes) and he says he owns the copyright you can simple forward the emails to wikipedia now. Otherwise you have to email him again. If you need help on how to phrase it read Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. Jon513 22:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Stations list

This article is identified as under the aegis of this project so I thought I'd bring its current condition to the your attention. There has been a big-time POV push there, and it badly needs a large platoon of sensible editors to drag it back to a reasonable state. Something tells me the editor responsible for the POV push is loaded for bear should it come to an edit war. For example, he recently called a {{unreferenced}} tag vandalism. (The tag was perfectly reasonable despite the large number of "references" given; all of them are either of dubious relevance to the controversial claims or unreliable.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

In what way are the edits by Rktect (talk · contribs) controversial? The {{unreferenced}} tag was added by a different editor on 7 June 2007 by another editor (diff), at the time when the article had no sources (as was the habit of its creator, FDuffy (talk · contribs)).

I see Rktect has been adding to the talkpage, so he may be amenable to discussion. I suggest you start by chipping away at the things that are demonstrably wrong. If Rktect reverts with no good reason, the article may need to get protected until you can discuss the problems sensibly on the talkpage without an edit war getting in the way.

Let us know how it goes. JFW | T@lk 09:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to cite one instance -- Locating Ramesses at Thebes isn't controversial? I guess not; it's just plain wrong, and no one but Rktect himself would argue for it. (The consensus location is the archaeological site of Pi-Rameses.) Ditto with the rest of this, including his definite location of the Crossing of the Red Sea at the Gulf of Aqaba. There is no "chipping away" at this; he's constructed a thoroughly integrated fantasy version of the scholarly consensus on the subject that either needs to be be rewritten wholesale or not at all, including an entire array of related fantasy articles such as Red Sea - Exodus station. I've been at Wikipedia long enough to smell edit wars before they happen -- religious fanaticism is a sure harbinger of one -- and I have too much on my plate to deal with one at the moment. I was hoping, as this project had laid claim to the article, that there'd be at least several people here who cared enough to do something about it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have the expertise to address the factual problems. If you think articles are truly "fantasy", send them to AFD. They will then get the treatment that they deserve. If you have compelling evidence that the Rktect version of stations list is original research, replace it by something better, while simultaneously conducting dialogue with Rktect on the talk page (Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle). If your arguments go unanswered or an edit war erupts, we can always get the article locked.

You are certainly entitled to our help, but being relatively incognisant of the "weird theories" that must be "out there" I will need more information on the problems you describe. JFW | T@lk 00:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Do we need a "Rav" article as well as a "Rabbi" article?

We already have a Rabbi article and a Rebbe article, and even a Tzadik article, but do we need a Rav article that is really a linguistic duplication of everything that could fit into the main Rabbi article. What are your views? Discussion at Talk:Rav#Rav means Rabbi in Hebrew. Thank you, IZAK 10:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Two articles in need of expertise

1. The newly created Jews and Judaism in Thailand could use work. I should know—I created it.
2. Jews of San Nicandro has a lot of commented out text (mostly stuff I dumped in there in case the articles I was reading should be deleted before their information could be incorporated into the text)...but also the Hebrew WP article on this community contains images and information that should be incorporated into the English WP article.

(Just in case anyone's looking for something to do... Tomer^talk 10:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC) )

Bible

A proposal has been made on Talk:Bible to split the current Bible article into two separate articles, Hebrew Bible and Christian Bible, with Bible becoming a redirect to Bible (disambiguation). Best, --Shirahadasha 05:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion has proceeded and proposals have been made to restructure and rewrite the Bible article. Please provide input into this discussion at Talk:Bible. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Criteria for deleting rabbis

Please see the current AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein where the question of deleting the biographies of rabbis is being raised. Thank you, IZAK 17:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Messianism:New Covenant

I seem to be sparring pretty one-on-one with an anonymous editor over whether the Jewish Messianism article ought, on the point "Jews will [in the Messianic Age] know the Torah without study" include a reference and link to the New Covenant. Some other editors weighing in to help achieve a consensus would be appreciated. Savant1984 04:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Attn required in article on antisemitic website

Input is needed on the article Dalit Voice. Users whitewashing the antisemitic website want to remove the cat Category:Antisemitic publications from the article. Specifically, conflict exists between this version [1] and this version[2]. A glance at the talk page shows a propensity of the article to attract fanatics, so extra pairs of eyes would serve the article well. Yitzhak Hudas 11:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

My edits are the ones that the above user is talking about. I believe that this user is a sockpuppet of the prolific sockpuppeteer User:Hkelkar. I take strong exception to the accusation of "whitewashing", which has no place in Wikipedia. I first came across this article through participation in the Wikification WikiProject. I'm no expert on Indian politics but it's clear that the publication it deals with is associated with some extreme-minority points of view, some of which are to my reading antisemitic. That's only my reading though, and the article needs to follow WP policies and just describe the views of the publication in neutral terms, quoting only reliable sources. It would indeed be very good to get more editors involved, which is why I just tagged it for an expert in Indian politics. Since there is also a dimension of antisemitism, I'm going to leave a message on the Antisemitism talk page too. I'm losing patience in edit-warring over the article and certainly have no wish to WP:Own it. Itsmejudith 11:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh and of course I am emphatically NOT involved with whitewashing the page on antisemitism. Itsmejudith 11:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Judith - any magazine that praises Hitler is almost by definition an anti-semitic publication - I really don't see how it could be otherwise. The minute one crosses the line from ideology to endorsement of subjugation or extermination campaigns and those who promote them(be it the extermination of Jews, Hutus or Darfurians), one has crossed the line from justice to hate. Best Egfrank 12:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

In the state I looked at it the article provides sufficient documentation that the publication is an anti-semitic one to justify the category. However, as long as things stay this way in the meanwhile, I don't see a problem with giving things a few days to see if an expert can be found to review the whole article. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The situation seems to have resolved itself - appropriate citations have been added and the categories Category:Antisemitic publications and category:Holocaust denial have been reintroduced. Egfrank 19:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Application of Category:English Jews

I'm by no means an expert, so I may be missing some nuance of definition or application, but is there any good reason to include in the various Category:Jews categories people with non-Jewish mothers who don't identify as Jewish? (Much less having any notability in regard to Jewish identity or Judaism, or being a professing Jew, or anything that'd otherwise make it into the article, but-of-course.) It appears to me that such people are not, by self-definition, by Liberal/Reform definition, and by Orthodox definition, which happen to agree, in such cases -- how to categorise people for whom those criteria disagree, I'll leave for another day's work. There's some especially enthusiastic such tagging (and re-tagging...) going on at Natasha Kaplinsky and Sharon Osbourne, I can't help but notice. If someone would have a look, I'd be obliged. Alai 21:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Alai: You have hit the nail on the head on this subject and I agree with you. There is no end to the types of bickering -- and the potential for abuse and chaos -- that this kind of ill-conceived categorization brings up. The questions you raise have come up many times in the past, and suffice it to say that Wikipedia's criteria are not those of any known Jewish denomination, let alone Halacha. You will not find unanimity here nor anywhere about who should on a list or category of Jews on Wikipedia. In fact I have long proposed that such categories and lists should be abolished altogether, see User:IZAK/Deleting lists and categories of Jews. Thank you, IZAK 11:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Owch -- and here was me hoping against hope for a no-muss/no-fuss resolution. Oh well. (At least in these cases: swap around the father and mother, and of course there's immediately a conflict between the different definitions.) Wikipedia seems to have an absolute mania for ethnic/religious categories, often which correlate not at all with the content of the article text: personally I tend to get a "why am I being told this?" feeling when I read the regulation six such cats at the bottom of an article that hasn't even touched on the data then alluded to. Perhaps in this case, the editor in question is really looking for a Category:People of Jewish descent type of category -- or would that just be an even larger can of worms? Alai 06:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for input: Notability of rabbis

Please see this at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Religious leaders: "There are sections listing criteria for politicians, athletes, entertainers, artists, but nothing geared toward measuring notability of religious leaders. The existing criteria fall short in that there are religious leaders who, by common sense, would seem notable by virtue of being the head/leader of a notable religious group, yet who would fail criteria such as "Commercial endorsements of demonstrably notable products". What criteria do others suggest for measuring notability of religious leaders, and do others agree with me that a section specifically addressing religious leaders is warranted? --MPerel 16:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)"

Agreed there, thank you, IZAK 11:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (religious figures) and join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (religious figures) on whether to have such a guideline and how to word it. Best, --Shirahadasha 13:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I just took a look at it - Shirahadashah, who made the decision that the proposal was rejected? Is this something that can be reopened? If so, what is the procedure? It seems to me there were entirely too few people involved in the discussion. At first glance the policy makes sense. Whether it should be folded into WP:BIO or stand alone is perhaps a separate question, but at the moment it exists in neither form.

The policy certainly fits my definition of who counts as religiously notable. The only small changes I would make have to do with the definitions of religious writings - I'm not sure as they stand they would include sources like midrash, targum, talmud, tosephta, medieval commentaries, folklore, or modern theological, philosophical, or middrashic reflection. Any mention or study of a figure in any of these sources would make the person notable in the eyes of Jews, even if never explicitly mentioned in the written Torah. So maybe I would replace "scripture" and "religious narrative" with "sources notable in the eyes of a religious community".

As for the objections on the talk page - I didn't understand them. Concordances and catelogs of saints and biblical figures regularly mention the names of figures who only appear once. And the number of saintly legends, folk tales, midrash, and literature that develop around figures mentioned once makes the claim that Uzzaiah should be excluded just because he is a minor biblical figure rather silly (just IMHO). The claim that policies should develop after the fact makes also little sense, especially when we have users like SwatJester running around and saying that no policy=no notability=ok to delete. Confused, Egfrank 14:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I see this tag has been added. Because I wrote the proposal, I don't think I can interfere here and I think you should talk with another administrator about how to proceed if you would like to rewrite and/or ressurrect it and proceed further. The individual who placed the tag was User:Kevin Murray, and you might want to drop him a note. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Shira, I am also concerned that the {{rejected}} template has been added to the Wikipedia:Notability (religious figures) page which makes it seems that this is already a closed subject when in fact the "opposition" here is actually cutting off legitimate debate and making it appear to be "illegitimate" hastily. I have put together a few opening remarks but I was afraid to post it until such time as we can get the {{rejected}} template removed so that discussion can progress freely for quite a time until there is broad consensus that the debate should close. This matter should be allowed to be brought to all the faith-based Wikiprojects and it should not be messed with by a couple of editors with a professed secular POV only. Thanks a lot for all your efforts! IZAK 17:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree with you Izak and am preparing a note for User:Kevin Murray's page. You are welcome to join me. I'm not as familiar with the administrator community - perhaps you can bring it up there? Egfrank 17:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Egfrank: Don't worry at all about admins, they are just ordinary Wikipedians who have access to a few more buttons. In fact an appeal from a sincere fresh User may hold more water than grumbles from me. But I will certainly follow up. Thanks again, IZAK 17:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added a somewhat lengthy note on User:Kevin Murray's talk page. I'd like to give him a chance to response before I appeal to an administrator. Yikes! I should have thought of that before I suggested we divide the contact effort! If you haven't yet contacted an administrator, you might want to wait too. It is always better when someone decides on their own to reverse something. Egfrank 20:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not doing anything about this till I hear more from you and others here, so do not worry. IZAK 21:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I already just removed the rejected tag before I even saw this. I felt it was premature and there was no consensus on anything because the discussion had barely even started. At any rate, let's discuss, invite interested parties, and come up with something. --MPerel 05:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Jewish history of Wales & N. Ireland needed

The series of articles on the History of the Jews in Europe is complete. All the European countries have articles, even if they are stubs for now. However there are still two more: History of the Jews in Wales and History of the Jews in Northern Ireland (see related articles History of the Jews in England and History of the Jews in Scotland) that are listed as countries in template {{|Europe topic|History of the Jews in}} that require someone to add information and start the article. If you are able to, your efforts would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, IZAK 13:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Did You Know... Siyum HaShas

The article Siyum HaShas had been expanded, and was selected for an imminent Did You Know... feature on the Wikipedia front page. Alansohn 17:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Bans on ritual slaughter edits by anon

There's an anon who's been editing Bans on ritual slaughter recently, and is trying to get more material about Jewish law into the article. The problem is that the anon doesn't understand Wikipedia, doesn't understand the formatting system, hasn't been able to figure out how to register a Wikipedia account, and doesn't write well. He'll make a dozen edits in a row and leave the article in a mess. Then someone adds a "cleanup" tag, then he gets reverted, and then he complains he's being mistreated. He even complains he's being censored by the anti-vandal bots; some of his edits were so turgid they were reverted by a bot. ("You retain erronous information, refuse edits from professionals in the field, and accuse people of being vandals based on automatic computer programs. Sort of a model for a nightmare totalitarian state.") I can barely figure out what he's trying to say. He seems to be wound up about some event in Bavaria around 1900 or so. If someone could give him some guidance, or get him hooked up with an appropriate Wikipedia project, he might become more productive, or more readable, or at least less annoying. See Talk:Bans on ritual slaughter for details. Thanks. --John Nagle 17:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Digging into legislative histories to make claims about why legislation was enacted would seem likely to be original research. --Shirahadasha 20:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi! The article seems to be riddled with information sourced form partisan websites of advocacy groups. The article listed "United States" in their "active bans" list and that content seemed to consist of an WP:ESSAY indicating why it should be banned in the United States. I believe the entire article requires re-writing. I expect there is a substantial amount of reliably sourced information opposing ritual slaughter, but the article seemed like a demonstration of WP:NOT#SOAP. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I've created a Request for comments on the article at Talk:Bans on ritual slaughter#Request for comments. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Who is a Jew?#Khazars

Please help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.193.233.66 (talk) 05:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Bolshevism & The Jewish Bolshevism & Żydokomuna

Very troubling developments at Jewish Bolshevism & The Jewish Bolshevism & Żydokomuna. Why three articles about the same antisemitic and hateful subject? Maybe it's time to look into this a little deeper. Thank you, IZAK 17:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Bolshevism was a very odd article. Its opening is about an epithet and antisemitic booklet, but the article is also about (genuine) Jewish Bolsheviks. It used to have sections about Jewish revolutionary anti-Bolsheviks in the nascent Soviet Union and the Bund, but they were recently deleted.

Ludvikus, who is responsible for The Jewish Bolshevism and has been heavily involved with both that and Jewish Bolshevism, has a knack for creating multiple articles about the same subject. He has created a dozen or more articles about various editions of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. He's convinced that each and every one is extremely important. Take a look at Template:"The Protocols".

His heart is in the right place, but it's hard to reason with him. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 3#Category:Notable or notorious antisemites. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 20:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Malik, thanks for the info. Sounds weiiiiiiird! Twenty articles about editions of the Protocols as if it was the "Bible" or something...oh yeah it is the "Bible"...of the antisemites. This will need to be explored. Thanks again, IZAK 21:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Protocols of Zion (imprints). Thank you, IZAK 09:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jewish Bolshevism. Thanks, IZAK 10:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Triennial Torah reading

Not much (anything) written about this in Torah reading or Parsha, although it is apparently a mainstay of Conservative Judaism.[3] Anyone else think it should have its own article including the origin/history and modern usage? Should it just be added into the existing articles? Kaisershatner 15:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC) See also:[4]. Am I just missing this info in the existing articles? Kaisershatner 15:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest starting with adding content to one of these articles with a brief mention and a link in the other. I would suggest creating a new article only if the amount of content and sourcing proves to be substantial. I understand Conservative Judaism is divided about its usage. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Triennial Torah reading has a lot of material. I don't have time to research a write up, but the basic outline includes:

• Ancient times: Alexandrian Jews (c. 300-700) I think had mixture of synagogues - some with one year and some with triennial cycles. For a lengthy and detailed discussion see either Elbogan or Idelsohn. I think some of the Eretz Israel Jewish communities were also on a three year cycle at that time, but I forget the details.
• Modern times: Progressive synagogues often go on a three year cycle - this lets them read through the portion in a leisurely way rather than the speed reading that is sometimes done by synagogues on a one year cycle. I don't know about conservative practice.

Kol tuv, Egfrank 22:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Triennial Torah reading I have heard is still pretty common in Sephardi communities. Tomer^talk 23:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

See this JE article. Tomer^talk 02:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Kaisershatner for taking this on. Tomer^talk 05:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hackjob underway at Bnei Menashe

Help would be appreciated. Tomer^talk 23:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Weirdness at Shalom...

Someone has added some of the most ridiculous sounding "etymology" I'v ever read at shalom#Etymology. Y'all might want to take a look... Tomer^talk 21:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You noticed the Shalim article too, right? John Carter 21:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The proliferation of nonsense seem to know no bounds. Tomer^talk 02:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any source for this but..

Genesis 14:8 "And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine; and he was priest of God the Most High."

Samuel David Luzzatto says he was a pagan (ומלכי צדק היה כהן לאל עליון שהיה אצלם גדול משאר אלוהות, כמו שהיה יופיטר אצל היונים והרומיים) and it may be that his city Shalem was named after his god shalim. Obviously this is all OR but it is a possibility. (BTW I didn't make those edits.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolf2191 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Luzzatto is of rather dubious respectability, on this subject, just as on most others. Chazal identify Melchizedek as Shem, certainly not a pagan (if he were, why would Avraham Avinu have accepted refreshments from him? why would he have given him a tenth of all he had? especially if, as Ramban says, it was a precursor to giving maaser to the Levim?)... Tomer^talk 03:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, the Melchizedek article is in serious need of work as well. It appears to have been heavily edited with a strongly Evangelical POV... Tomer^talk 03:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, Luzzatto's speculation is irrelevant to the subject at hand, namely, the etymology of the word "Shalom". Whether the name of Jerusalem might possibly have been derived from a Canaanite god whose name is a cognate (false cognate, I daresay) is of little importance in a discussion of the Hebrew word "shalom". Tomer^talk 04:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've gone and been bold and removed the entire section. In its present form it is beyond redemption. Tomer^talk 05:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, the text says explicitly Melchizedek was no pagan. It says what kind of priest he was kohen l'el elyon — היה כהן לאל עליון . Even Muslims would not interpret this as paganism, they'd say this was Allah. That's were I'd look for a source that would be accepted as NPOV, btw. ;) Alastair Haines 09:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

True enough, but there are those who say that that name for Hashem is an adoption of an older pagan idea of a "god of the highlands". When dealing with people who are bent on writing God out of the Bible, all sorts of weird ideas crop up and are immediately latched onto as "indisputable fact". Tomer^talk 02:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The generic name el precedes haShem's revelation to Moshe, but the tetragrammaton, as far as I know, is unique. The awful etymology that brough the word Jehovah into English, does have the redeeming feature that it distinguishes one and only one God, from the generic term god.

If contributors at Wiki provide unpublished speculations, it is right and proper to remove them. If they provide speculations that are published. We need to be contributing more solid evidence, so readers can see for themselves how speculative a particular point of view is. I'm keen to work hard to google decent sources, rather than censor people by deletion. It is hard work though! Give the readers all the facts, and the facts have a way of speaking for themselves. ;) Alastair Haines 03:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on the points you make, however I don't believe that removing a speculative etymology about the origin of the name of Jerusalem which really has no bearing on the origin of the word "shalom", constitutes "censorship". It's possible that the Ugaritic god Shalim's name was derived from the same root (I can imagine a flowery translation along the lines of "the fullness of the day" = "evening" => Shalim), but just because there was a Ugaritic god named Shalim or even a cognate Canaanite god "Shalom", whose name is speculated to have been the name adopted for the city Melkhitzedheq called home, does not have any bearing on the origin of the Hebrew word "shalom", any more than the German word de:Wand ("wall") has anything to do with the origin of the English word "wand", or German de:Sinn ("sense") has anything to do with the origin of English "sin". Tomer^talk 05:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

First, I find it offensive that you refer to Luzzatto as of "dubious" respectability. He was one of the foremost scholars of 19th century Wissenschaft. His "respectability" is evidenced by the recent conference in honour of his bicentennial including a memorial volume printed by Magnes. Sencond, I see no reason to believe that MalkiTsedek was not a henothist (See [5] that "it is generally uncontroversial that many of the Iron Age religions found in the land of Israel were henotheistic in practice.") It is unclear (in Chazal as well) whether Abraham gave or recieved the tithe.

The linguistic relationshp between Ugaritic and Hebrew is widely accepted. The German word Vant (as it is pronounced) indeed has no relationship to the English Wand, as the German Zinn has nothing to do with the English Sin but then the pronounciations are markedly different. In any event, I did not add the section and I agree with its removal but I dislike the way in which you phrased your disagreement. הוי מתונים בדיןWolf2191 17:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Why should you find it offensive that I regard Luzzatto as of dubious respectability, especially with respect to this subject? Unless you are Luzzatto yourself, I think you're internalizing my remark in a way that is, frankly, inappropriate. As to whether or not Melchizedek was or was not a henotheist, that kind of speculation is interesting perhaps, but completely irrelevant to the subject at hand (to wit, the etymology of the word "shalom").

Thanks for letting me know all about the pronunciation of German. The German word "Zinn", you are correct, has nothing to do with the English word "sin", but then again I was talking about the German word "Sinn", not "Zinn", which is something else entirely (and also unrelated). My point was just because something looks like a cognate doesn't always mean it is. Tomer^talk 21:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, a notable source. From Encyclopedia Judaica (2007): " It seems that the original name was Irusalem, and the meaning of the two words composing it is "to found" ("yarah") and the name of the West Semitic god Shulmanu, or Shalim. The god may have been considered the patron of the city, which had contained a sanctuary in his honor. The popular later midrashic explanation of the name Jerusalem as "foundation of peace (shalom)" is associated with the poetic appellations given to the city."Wolf2191 17:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Still no definitive connection between Shalim (or Shulmanu) and the word "shalom". And still no concrete connection between the origin of the name for Jerusalem and the etymology of "shalom". Not even from Luzzatto. Tomer^talk 21:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Category merge?

What is the difference between Category:Medieval rabbis & Category:Rishonim? Both pages have a link at the top which goes to the same page. Surely these should be merged? Chesdovi 11:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Alexander Lukashenko‎

I am disturbed by the recent comments made by the President of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko‎. Chesdovi 15:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Tefillin

I feel that Tefillin has now reached a point where it can be promoted from B class to GA class. I have added the GA nom tag to the talk page. Yossiea ^(talk) 18:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisting Ashkenazi intelligence as a separate vote

In a sweeping nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (history), the Ashkenazi intelligence article was not listed as part of an original group in the AfD until a later user mentioned the article and then the nominator decided to add it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (history)#One more? Ashkenazi intelligence. Unfortunately, by that time the nomination had already attracted a lot of negative attention with ten delete votes already having been cast making it essentially impossible for those only concerned with the Ashkenazi intelligence subject to be heard or noticed, and among the votes that are still coming in afterwards it is not clear if they understood what the serious tinkering additions by the nominator were all about, or if he was even right to do so. Futhermore, being "Ashkenazi" is not a "race" by any definition. The Ashkenazim are a cultural and historical group of Jews, not really even an ethnicity, consisting of a variety of Jews with a common religious and historical culture originating mainly from France, Germany, Poland, Lithuania, and Russia, so that Ashkenazi Jews are a recognized and respectable group, not a "race" in any way, so it is a mistake to match them up or compare them to any "racial" articles. For the sake of clarity the Ashkenazi intelligence should be removed from this nomination due to the confusion and the non-orderly and out of sequence manner in which it was included. The Ashkenazi intelligence article survived an AfD in February, 2007, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi intelligence. Based on the incorrect manner and negative timing that the Ashkenazi intelligence was included in the general vote about "Race and intelligence" it must be withdrawn from this AfD. If anyone wishs to have a new nomination, they can go ahead, but it definitely should not have been lumped with a set of articles not connected to it in content or spirit. Your input and intervention is requested. Thank you, IZAK 06:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

SEE: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Relisting Ashkenazi intelligence as a separate vote: "I think that pages should only be grouped together on XfD if all the following criteria are met: (1) There is a single place to discuss all the pages. (2) It is unlikely that any user will have diferent opinions about the pages. (3) They were all listed within an hour of when the discussion page was created. As the third criteria clearly wasn't met, I think that lumping it in here was the wrong thing to do. Od Mishehu 08:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)" Thank you, IZAK 19:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• The request was granted, see new listing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi intelligence (2nd). Thank you, IZAK 21:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Climate_change_denial

I noticed that the article Climate_change_denial is quite oddly named. After reading the talk page it became clear that some people are actually trying to equate those who don't agree with global warming with Holocaust deniers. This offends me greatly, I think it is horrible that people could equate such horrors with the debate on global warming. Please contribute to the debate on the talk page whether you agree with me or not, so some sort of compromise can be reached. (A compromise I would like to see the article renamed, and a mention of media use of "Climate change denial" in the article.) 64.230.7.46 17:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There are those in the algor cult who actually believe the two are analogous. Tomer^talk 19:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Algor cult. LOL. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 20:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You're offend by the statement "Several commentators have compared climate change denial with holocaust denial,[8][17][18][19] whereas others have decried those comparisons as inappropriate.[20][21][22][23][24]". How is this offense? It seem pretty clear that this is true with it being well sourced (I think 9 footnotes are enough for anyone!). In any event this is well outside the scope of this wikiproject. Jon513 16:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, Jon, the objection raised, especially worded in the way it is, is incredibly germane to this WikiProject. Your interpretation of the objection certainly takes it outside the scope, but your interpretation is not germane to the objection, nor to this WikiProject. In other words, if I were a judge, I'd say "overruled" with respect to your remarks here on this subject. Tomer^talk 07:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

First, I'm afraid this is going to be one of those discussions that I earnestly believe can be mostly settled by a few simplifying remarks only to find those remarks expand and complicate the discussion, but here goes.

Let me begin by entreating the editor who began this section to help us all facilitate communication by registering a user name. I had a quite a time determining whether you had raised any of your concerns on the page in question as well as here, but eventually determined that you did, although that suggestion doesn't seem to be going anywhere there. There are ways of formally proposing a name change, which you may wish to pursue.

Although you may be offended by the fact that some people are trying to equate deniers of climate change with Holocaust deniers, the fact is that there are folks who do equate them and others who decry those comparisons as inappropriate. This seems well documented in the article and a fact worth documenting there.

If you are interested in improving Wikipedia by recommending changes to the article in question, please be as specific as possible regarding what changes you advocate. --Steven J. Anderson 11:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not very experienced with wikipedia, so I'm not quite sure of how to go about making a proposal of that magnitude. I've read a couple of the wikipedia articles but also noticed that the article has allready gone through some sort of vote. I'm afraid of breaking the rules by instituting a vote immediately after one was completed, so I decided to comment here so people who know more about wikipedia could make some sort of proposal (or however it works) without stepping on any toes. I also decided this would be a good place to comment to ensure I wasn't just being a "wet blanket", if no one else is offended by it I will accept that I am overreacting to a non-issue. :) a solution I would propose would be to have the information contained in the article moved to a section within the "Global Warming Criticism" article or something of the sort. 64.230.7.46 23:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying here that the rhetorical comparison between "global warming denial" and Holocaust denial, a comparison favored by followers of Algorism, is not offensive. The comparison made by the PETA fanatics, many of them proponents of Rudolf Hess's diet (a connection I'm making, but can actually cite with reliable sources, many PETA whackos might find objectionable), is equally objectionable: their unspeakably offensive assertion that the consumption of meat is somehow comparable to the Holocaust. The thing is, the article is not saying that rational people who understand that the "global warming" hysteria is exactly that, it's saying that the whackos who believe in Algorism make this analogy, regardless of how offensive and morally and intellectually indefensible it is. Tomer^talk 08:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Law, ritual and ethics categories

Greetings. Does anybody else find the "Jewish law and rituals" category problematic? Numerous laws aren't ritual. Many rituals have little or no law. Plus, it's not a common or natural-sounding name. How about splitting into "Jewish law" and "Jewish ritual"? Of course, some articles may get both, but that's how categories are helpful!

In addition, there's a category of "Jewish ethical law" which also seems awkward and uncommon. Again, how about a distinct category for "Jewish ethics" (again, may include bezillion items unrelated to law).

Forgive me if this has been hashed out previously (please give me the discussion diff). Anyway, I'd be glad to help re-categorize, esp if there's a way to quasi-automate it. Thanks. HG | Talk 13:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Jewish practice seems like a possibile alternate name. It seems like an entirely reasonable division, and I would not support completely dividing the category.

Category:Jewish ethical law is my fault, I'm afraid. It was part of an attempt to diffuse Category:Jewish law and rituals, and deals with religious ethical requirements, not simply ideals and ideas. I'm not sure what a better name would be. I'm not sure that the category should stay as it is, either. --Eliyak T·C 03:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

While "Jewish practice" is fine for a Jewish audience, I notice that the overarching Religion category is "Religious behavior and experience". "Practice" is a bit ill-defined nowadays, since legal and scholarly usages can be divergent. I do appreciate that ethics is often halakhically regulated. My suggestion is to offer "Jewish law" and "Jewish ethics" as tags, which can be applied based on how a given topic is actually described in its article. (Ditto for the Jewish "ritual" or "practice" tag.) Input from anyone else? HG | Talk 04:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "practise" being ill-defined. I don't know anyone who has qualms about seeing a doctor who is "practicing" medicine, for instance. I think "religious practice" is similarly understood. The idea for "Category:Jewish practice" basically came from Category:Sikh practices and Category:Buddhist practices.

The main issue is that all mitzvot have "law," i.e. halakha, aspects. For mitzvot, law and ritual go together. Minhagim, though, I would think are mainly "ritual." But minhagim might fit better in a Category:Jewish customs (which noone, I hope, will think involves import taxes). --Eliyak T·C 06:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think "Jewish Law" fits bet. I an not quite sure what a ritual is. Jon513 10:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yo, Jon, from my end "ritual" is easy, see Ritual. Law is much harder to nail down, see 2nd footnote ;-) HG | Talk 20:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

"Jewish Law" is a fine translation of 'Halacha'. Ritual seems to be completely contained in halacha. (what ritual is not based on halacha?). There are however Jewish laws that are not in anyway a ritual. Jon513 16:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Jon513, think of all the Reform and feminist ritual that is not based on halakhah. See the work of Ivan Marcus or Harvey Goldberg. Even stuff that has halakhic seeds, like Bar Mitzvah, is hardly halakhah in its American instantiation. For more traditionalist rituals that aren't grounded in halakhah (though halakhah eventually tends to digest and colonize it), see Daniel Sperber's multi-vol work. HG | Talk 17:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of things which are not strictly halacha (Kipa, Bar mitzvah celebration, tu b'shevat seder) that are nevertheless found to some extent in halachic works and can be related to in a "halahic" way. I cannot think of any feminist of reform ritual that is not based at all in halacha. For example they may do something different on a passover seder, but that can still be included in the article Passover seder. I cannot think of any new holiday, or ritual that is not connected to an existent article which is at all "halachic". Jon513 22:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the basic question here is whether we want to have a set of categories that make navigation within an internal Jewish framework easier, or a set of categories that facilitate mapping Judaism into a comparative-religion framework through which outsiders see Judaism in comparison to other religions. The fact that Jews call the basis of what they do "law" and "custom" may be of no concern from a comparative behavioral perspective; if one wishes to discuss how Jews understand their own Judaism internally it may be of great concern. My suggestion is that WikiProject Judaism work with internal categories, and let experts on comparative religion focus on comparative categories. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Either way, "law" and "ethics" work well internally and externally as distinct categories (with some overlapping items). Regarding "ritual" -- you're forgetting one big advantage, if we use a comparative, scholarly term, then we don't have to fight over the competing internal categories. Anyway, my point was to divide Category:Jewish law and rituals, if you all want to explore an alternative to the "rituals" side, I'm game. (Custom won't work, btw. Minhag is describes the source of the rule or behavior. Ritual or ceremonial or liturgical etc -- these describe the type of rule or action.) Does anybody object to splitting up "law" from "ritual", regardless of what the latter is called? Thanks! HG | Talk 08:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Nominations of Texas Jews articles for deletion

See:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Simon
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam H. Toubin
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Levin (Businessman)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon family
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Simon (Businessman)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Cohen Community House
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Kessler
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosa Levin Toubin
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Theatre
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Freda

Hi Izak. My intention in nominating those articles for deletion was not to pick a fight or to delete valuable information. Someone posted notices questioning the notablity of these articles on the WikiProject Texas page so I took a look at them. I am a member of WikiProject Biography too, and I'm a big proponent of WP:Verify and reliable sources, and meeting WP:Notability. I honestly don't see how you can argue that the articles in question meet any of those guidelines. Most of the sources cited are geocities or earthlink user webpages, which are not considered reliable, and those valid sources (articles, Handbook of Texas), barely mention the subjects. If you really think that the sources are reliable, then make those arguments at the AFDs rather than blanketly stating that they are okay. Otherwise, if you can find reliable sources that discuss the importance of these people, then please incorporate them into the articles and see if you can convince others that the subjects are notable. Being a member of a minority religion or being a locally successful businessman (or both) doesn't make one notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Karanacs 19:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Dear Karanacs: Thank you for contacting me. I respect your expertise about Texas. I am not an expert on either Texas or about Jewish history in Texas. I also agree with all the principles you cite, however, I do not agree with the way you went about applying them in this situation. Please let us be very clear, in no way am I advocating that "being Jewish and being from Texas" or from anywhere is what makes such people notable by Wikipedia's standards. Futhermore, quibbling about reliable and verifiable sources and their acceptability is part of the give and take of life as a Wikipedian and these matters can usually be resolved. In one of the votes, I have summed up where I think you went awry here, and I shall repeat it here: So then the correct thing for you to have done was to (a) contact the editor/s of the articles you had questions and doubts about and (b) to try and work on combining them into more unified topics, and only as a last resort, (c) requested that they be merged into the History of the Galveston Jewish Community and History of the Brenham Jewish Community. Since these are non-controversial topics it should have been a fairly straightforward thing to do. Thank you very much for your sincere efforts, IZAK 20:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The editor was contacted about the notability questions and simply stated that the articles were important to Jewish history. I then googled each of the topics, and could find no reliable sources about them; therefore, they appear to fail the notability criteria. After that I prod'd most of the articles, and (s)he again repeated that they were important to Jewish history, and refused to discuss on the talk pages why that was when I asked for clarification. Most of the articles don't even attempt to establish that they are important in the local Jewish history, they just mention that the person was Jewish . Because articles that can't establish notablity don't belong on Wikipedia in any form (even if all of the information on the Toubins and the Simons were compiled into a single article, it could not estabilish notability), I brought them to AFD. I'm trying to WP:AGF, but I feel that some of your comments on the pages are implying that I brought the nominations in bad faith. It is the responsibility of the editor of the articles to establish notability, and (s)he refused to do so after being given several opportunities. Karanacs 20:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Hi Karanacs: I only came upon these articles when they were posted on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism, as have a few other editors, so it was impossible to know why all of a sudden someone had nominated for deletion an entire group of articles, which in turn raised some concern about why this had come about. I see that you were following the path that you felt was best and correct. But there may have been, and perhaps still are, a few other avenues to be followed. One is that you could have posted requests for clarification and help with your editorial dispute at both Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jewish history and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. The latter project is the most active and there are always a few excellent active editors there, some of whom are admins, who have both the technical and policy expertise as well as some insight into such topics. I am thinking of editors/admins such as TShilo12 (talk · contribs) Shirahadasha (talk · contribs) and User MPerel (talk · contribs) -- but I know, it would be hard for you to know this. The main point being is that there are other experienced and reliable editors familiar with Jews and Judaism topics of all sorts who can offer editorial assiatance to resolve disputes. It is still not too late to seek help from them and others like them. Thanks for giving this thought. IZAK 21:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I understand that these individuals may well prove to have historical importance and serve as good topics for future history papers on Texas or Texas Jewish history. The difficulty is whether this type of research currently exists. Wikipedia isn't intended to be the first place to publish new historical research, so if there hasn't been any previous historical work discussing these individuals and assessing their historical significance, Wikipedia may not be the place to publish their biographies. If some of them have already been covered by previous research, you could help us all by pointing this out. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Concerning the Rabbi Kessler article and questioning the reliability of its sources: One of the sources of information regarding him is on the Texas Jewish Historical Society website, who maintain their website at geocities.com. By their nature, non profits have limited monetary and man-power resources, so you will often only find many smaller state and regional non-profits maintain their websites "in house" and the cheapest way possible. This may be via hosting services such as mac.com, geocities.com address etc..etc... Some of the opponents of the article maintain that geocities.com is not reliable. While I do not debate many "personal" and "unprofessional" sites are maintained on the server, such a broad generalization as "its on geocities.com so it can't be worth anything" is a terrible mis-judgement. You can't tell a book by its cover, you can't tell a website by its URL. There are newspaper sources on Kessler and I am working on obtaining their online versions.

--- In regards to the Henry Cohen Community House article: I feel that at this time, with the available information currently on hand, the Henry Cohen Community House - HCCH - article should be merged into the Congregation B'nai Israel - CBI -article or History of the Galveston Jewish Community - HGJC - article...or maybe even both. Perhaps a redirect from the Community House article to CBI or HGJC is an order. If in the future, more information is gathered on the HCCH then a stand alone article may be warranted.

--- In regards to the way the deletions were handled: When such a large number of articles with at least some informational value, that are also interconnected, are questioned, I find it in poor judgement and poor etiquette to immediately mass-label them all for deletion. A more prudent and constructive route would be suggesting merging some of the related articles or a request that attempts be made to the articles expansion/additional sources. If, in time, they are not substantially improved, then the deletion route should be taken. Wiki has alternatives to deletion for a reason. AND by immediately mass labeling them all for deletion, it puts everyone on the defensive -- especially since these particular articles are about highly sensitive subjects (religion oriented). Nsaum75 22:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Nsaum75: One of the issues here also seems to be WP:BITE (short for Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers) which the nominator of these articles was perhaps not too careful to fulfil. IZAK 05:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • As has been pointed out, the person who created these articles has previously had articles deleted for being about non-notable people, so by now he should understand the requirements for notability. I made a good-faith effort to first engage the author and then to try to improve the articles on my own. The author refused to provide clarification and I was unable to find any information beyond what was already in the articles, which were sourced to either unreliable sources, was self-published material, or mentioned the individual only in passing. With the possible exception of the article on Rabbi Kessler, I still don't see what informational value is in the biographies, nor has anyone been able to point out any value to the information beyond the generic "they are important to Jewish history". Rather than debate the process for the deletion, it might be best to take an objective look at the articles in light of wikipedia's guidelins and decide whether a) the information is actually worth keeping and b) where it should go. Then, using wikipedia policies, make your case at the AFDs. Karanacs 14:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the input IZAK. I appreciate your explaination, sincere attempts to constructively resolve the situation and support in attempting to improve the articles to an acceptable standard. I was not an editor for most of the articles in question, but I do take a keen interest in what they represent as a whole (In fact, I was not aware of many of them until I saw the large list of related items proposed for deletion). But, regardless, whether editing an "online encyclopedia" or editing "real-life" book material, the way this situation was originally handled shows poor editing skills and judgement. Valuable and informative articles and literature come through collaboration, research and constructive criticism/critique. Bypassing alternative avenues (merging etc) which could lead to improvement and labeling something for deletion because its not "within standards" in its current state, does not serve anyone well and takes away from the value of the project as a whole. At the very least, if we cannot improve something ourselves, we should attempt to find someone who can. That said, no one is perfect, least of all myself. As with the material we are editing, we too can always be improved, if only we allow it. Again, thanks for your input and attempts to approach this situation from well thought out and collective process. Nsaum75 06:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Hi Nsaum: In response to someone saying that it is now up to me to improve the articles [6] at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Levin (Businessman), this is what I stated [7]: "Hi Sdedo, while I do appreciate what you are saying, please understand that I am not the creator of these articles, they are outside the scope of my current work on Wikipedia. However as a neutral third party between the folks in Texas who are fighting this out, I am reluctant to come down hard on such articles, because in my years on Wikipedia I have seen many articles start out like these, even smaller as stubs, and then they can grow or be combined into larger articles, which happens all the time. So in my view, these are good "starter" articles, which could have been tagged as such or with requests for better citations and sources. Seems that the nominator was not considering WP:BITE and that User Bhaktivinode (talk · contribs), whose first edit was on 21 March 2007 [8] and who happens to know a lot about Texas' history and is willing to write it up for Wikipedia, should have been given more mentoring and time to get his/her act together instead of being hit over the head with multiple AfDs to "teach him/her a lesson". There is a lesson for all of us here, I hope. IZAK 06:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)" Sincerely, IZAK 07:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Of course we don't want to go around biting the newcomers, but this is not the first round of deletions for this editor, either. In similar fashion to some other cases you can ask me about, we have an editor closely affiliated with a particular set of topics and zealous about promoting them. It doesn't help to let them keep creating many articles if they are mostly or even largely unnotable. The editor should be apprised as soon as possible of the fact that they're writing material that will eventually be deleted. This way they can either concentrate on sticking to WP:N or they can, if they choose, leave the project. But it helps no one for them to keep on blissfully creating unnotable material. Apparently this particular editor wishes to create a history of Jewish religion and culture in Texas in the early part of the 20th century. But something like History of the Brenham Jewish Community just doesn't seem even possibly notable in Wikipedia terms. Every single city on Earth could rate half-a-dozen articles on religious or cultural minorities if that were the case. I understand the motivation; my own great-great-grandfather wrote a history of his family, city, and church, and it's a fascinating artifact, but it's in not a single university library. This is really something that belongs on Wikibooks, and I will happily help this editor transfer material there. But it fails WP:N pretty hard. --Dhartung | Talk 06:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi Dhartung: Thanks for your input, but I do not agree with your last conclusion. Please see Category:Histories of cities in the United States, would you propose to put all of those and their many sub-categories, into "Wikibooks" as well? So what does an article about the History of the Brenham Jewish Community have to do with "Wikibooks" of all things when it is not even a book or claims to be such. So far, the growth of articles in Category:Jewish history has been fairly orderly and disciplined, and History of the Brenham Jewish Community (which could be renamed to History of the Jews in Brenham, Texas) fits nicely into Category:Jewish American history by place which is itself a sub-category of Category:Jews and Judaism in the United States by city. So your concerns and suggestions do not fit the scale or scope of these relatively small articles. IZAK 07:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This is all pretty simple. These articles do not meet the wiki criteria for notability, and should be deleted. WP:BITE is a separate concern and should be addressed on usertalk pages. If anyone feels that the original creators would be dissuaded from contributing further, I suggest contacting them on their pages and explaining how the system works. Sdedeo (tips) 19:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Another editor might have tagged these articles with Template:Notability and Template:Texas-stub, but the bottom line is that these don't appear to be notable subjects (with the exception of Temple Freda) and Karanacs was in the right to nominate them for deletion the way she did. Any editor who is concerned that valuable information about Texas Jewish history may be lost with the deletion of these articles would be wise to copy these articles to user subpages. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 19:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion Malik: I have filed all the articles pending a final outcome at Talk:History of the Brenham Jewish Community and Talk:History of the Galveston Jewish Community so that nothing will be lost no matter what the final verdict is. Thanks, IZAK 03:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Tomb of Daniel and Daniel's Tomb

There are two articles that need to be reconciled: Tomb of Daniel and Daniel's Tomb that involve questions about whether it's in Iran or Iraq as well. Please help, IZAK 09:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Tikkun Olam

I just looked at the Tikkun Olam article. It is so sad. It is just a little stub of a thing. It ought to be overflowing and pushing the limits of WP:LENGTH. Tikkun Olam is hardly a small topic for Jews - in fact, I think some would argue that the Jewish commitment to tikkun olam is the Jewish shining star. So I'd like to make a pitch, that this week we all go out and learn at least one itty bitty notable thing that can beef up this article. Kol tuv, Egfrank 21:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Ghetto

Could someone please read this article to see if the way Jewish ghettos are described is sensible? I noticed some comments on the talk page about describing Jewish neighborhoods as "ghettos" in the wrong context being potentially incorrect and offensive. I'm trying to make improvements myself, but I could use some help. futurebird 23:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Progressive Judaism

Want to suggest that a discussion here might be valuable. Would like to note that WikiProject Orthodox Judaism, of which I am a member, has been essentially inactive for many months; for months most entries on the talk page have been simply copies of entries made here. In addition, a group of people who had talked about forming a Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservative Judaism decided not to. Given WP:OJ's recent inactivity, I was wondering if it might be in the better interest of the community to make WP:OJ historical and consolidate everything here as opposed to splintering into a Wikiproject for every denomination. As another alternative, Wikipedia permits subprojects. (See for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible/Biblical criticism work group). Obviously people are free to make their own decisions, but I think it would benefit everyone to have an open discussion about what might be the best course of action and to consider some alternative views. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I absolute agree. I hate having to check two pages and having to decided which page is more appropriate when I want to post something. Jon513 13:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Egfrank (talk · contribs) corrected the title of this parargraph, which was originally "Reform Judaism".[9] Can you guys please make up your mind, or at least come to some form of consensus? The movement has been called "Reform" since its inception in 19th century Germany. The term "progressive" was clearly invented later.

With regards to WP:OJ, that WikiProject was always an attempt by the frummers not to have to deal with the non-Orthodox element. It is clearly defunct, at least in part because the most prolific editors from Orthodox background have remained with this present WikiProject. I see further fragmentation as an unwelcome distraction. I might question the legitimacy of certain branches of our religion, but we're still talking about essentially the same subject matter. The very last thing we need is a major edit war between our own Neturei Karta and them Reformers over a crucial Judaism-related article. Peaceful coexistence (preferably in the context of this WikiProject) is by far the most Wiki-friendly solution. JFW | T@lk 13:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak to the reasons for the Orthodox project has petered out as I am not a participant. I can however speak to the reasons for Wikipedia:WikiProject Progressive Judaism. No one wants fractured dialog - when User:A Sniper first proposed the project I was wary. However, it quickly became clear that we needed a place to collaborate and our user pages were just not the appropriate place for it. Both of us had the same feeling that the progressive/academic/historical-critical point of view is seriously underrepresented in the current project. There is a *lot* of work to do in bringing that material up to snuff - the confusion over terms is just one symptom, but there are many others and if participants care to hear them I will be happy to elaborate.

The second reason, quite frankly, is moral support. I think the orthodox editors may simply not be aware of how tiring it is to have what is common knowledge among the people you pray and study with suddenly be challenged as unjewish by one or more editors. Or how about the practice of adding "Orthodox criticism" sections to each and every movement article left of "Haredi". When I raised concern about that in a section above and in the Reform Judaism article I got absolutely *no* response. Add the fact that every complaint about those sections on Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism has been shouted down and met with cries of WP:NPOV or WP:Notability and you might possibly see why a newbie progressive editor is likely to walk away. The only reason I'm still here at all is that I have years of progressive-orthodox dialog behind me and I know these things eventually work out once everyone "gets" the idea we all care about God, Torah, and Israel even if we don't agree with the details of how to go about it.

As for the term progressive/liberal/reform Judaism - I agree it is confusing, especially if you are trying to be sensitive. Unfortunately, it is a necessary confusion. Over the last two centuries thinkers associated with the "progressive movement" have variously been called "reform", "liberal", "progressive".

Unfortunately, it is quite difficult to associate any particular meaning with at least two of those terms. In Germany the left was called reform and the right wing of the movement was called liberal. In the UK *liberal* meant left and *reform* meant right - exactly the opposite of Germany. As for the term "progressive" I do not know when it evolved, but about half of the regional organizations (including Germany and Israel) have chosen "progressive" to refer to themselves locally and collectively they also prefer that name. Its use also helps us avoids the appearence of taking sides when talking about countries such as the UK where "Liberal" and "Reform" still refer to separate organizations (both consider themselves "progressive"). Wikipedia is a global information resource, so User:A Sniper and I felt that we should honor that global preference by making the official name of the project "Progressive Judaism". However, in deference to the fact that those with a more local perspective may feel more comfortable with their local name, we also gave the project two aliases: Wikipedia:WikiProject Reform Judaism and Wikipedia:WikiProject Liberal Judaism.

If you are confused about which is the "right" term to use, (1) you will always be OK using the term "progressive Jew" (2) if you are in an area where one of the three terms is in common use, using the local name is also OK. Similarly, it is completely appropriate to use the term "Reform Judaism" when when writing about contemporary US or certain congregations in UK progressive Judaism. It is less appropriate when making statements about progressive Jews around the world or about the organizations, beliefs, and practices of the movement as a whole. Egfrank 17:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know Progressive Judaism was in any way allied to the Historical-Critical school. Thanks for setting me straight. I can speak for the situation in The Netherlands, where progressive communities call themselves "Liberal" along the board, and even their national organisation (Verbond voor Liberaal-Religieuze Joden in Nederland) uses "Liberal".

I didn't quite get your point about "Orthodox Criticism". If criticism is notable, then obviously this should be included. That does not mean that a blog post by someone with a black hat is automatically relevant. Reform Judaism developed as a breakaway from mainstream Judaism, causing a number of reactions. I would be interested to see not just Orthodox Criticism (e.g. "Eleh Divrei ha-Brith" on circumcision) but also reactions (such as the ban on religious weddings in synagogues in certain countries, a ban on putting the bimah in the front of the synagogue). Provided sufficient sources are provided, this is exactly what an encyclopedia is for. JFW | T@lk 19:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment on including "reactions" in criticism sections: I think a stand-alone article on the history of relations between Orthodox and Reform Judaism would be worth writing. My suggestion, however, is that criticism sections of articles on the denominations themselves focus on matters of belief and practice, apprising readers of the basic differences in key ideas and beliefs and the reasons for that disagreement. WP:NPOV requires only presenting both side's views on the topic at hand in a dispute; it does not require presenting every gram of dirt each side is able to dig up about the other. In encyclopedic discussions of political movements the intention is to focus on intellecual and cultural differences, and not to highlight every allegation every party hack made about the other candidate's mother. So here. The purpose is to shed light, not to amplify noise. There have been acts of violence between Orthodox and reform individuals and groups over the years, and in Europe both sides sought to get the government to outlaw the activities of the other, sometimes successfully. My intention is not to censor an appropriate article on such matters, but to keep articles on religious beliefs and practices focused on religious beliefs and practices. I recommend we remain focused on "views" in articles on general Jewish subjects. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason the "Orthodox criticism sections" are off putting lies in the question of "what is in dispute?" - The articles on the different movements simply exist to describe the movements. They aren't claiming that movement X is the right Judaism. Hence the only thing that can or should be in dispute is the definition of the movement itself or possibly the designation of the movement as Jewish.

Are the "Orthodox criticism" sections disputing the definition of the movement itself? The section in the Reform Judaism article certainly isn't. Rather it seems to exist as an opportunity to say "NOT ALL JEWS AGREE THIS IS JUDAISM" . We are including this as a Judaism article, but some of us don't really believe it should exist as such....movement X is a heretic offshoot that shouldn't really be called Judaism.

There is a fundamental imbalance here because Progressive Jews could never, ever reciprocate by adding similar "Progressive criticism" sections. Remember, we believe in pluralism as a part of our religious commitment to Klal Isreal.

But suppose Progressive or Conservative Jews did reciprocate. Is that really what we want? Will that really create a more reliable encyclopedia? In the name of WP:NPOV, do we really want each movement to go around slapping its "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval/Surgeon General Warning" on each movement article? The only place it can lead is to angry debates about who cares more about the tikkun olam/survival of the Jewish people/mitzvot/God/... Hardly the stuff of encyclopedias.

Perhaps you have to live in Israel to see how nasty it gets. The only thing that loses in the end is Torah -- literally. In the late 1990's on Shavvuot, I participated in an egalitarian minyan off to the side of the Kotel. Some may remember the news accounts - around the time of the fourth aliyah a large swarm of black hatted haredim surrounded us and began throwing milk bags and stones (hitting at least one child). As we headed out under police escort, an "enterprising" pair of Yeshiva students threw a large cut-off sprite bottle full of coffee grinds from the windows of Yeshivat Poret Yosef at those of us who were guarding the Torah. Only the mantel of the Torah prevented the scroll from being stained with coffee and hatred. Perhaps they only meant to hit us - but ultimately all Jews are inseparable from the Torah. Hit each other and we cannot help but hit the Torah too.

There has got to be a better way to deal with the fact that some movements don't consider other movements legimate. Egfrank 01:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the the only way Wikipedia can deal with a notable dispute is to report it, as neutrally as possible, without personal bitterness. I'm not sure Reform Judaism has no criticism of Orthodox Judaism. If nothing else, Orthodoxy's claim to be the sole legitimate form of Judaism appears to be disputed. Perhaps the Reform movement has reasons for disputing this that might be articulated in a criticism section of the Orthodox Judaism article. Finally, numerous articles currently simply say "Reform Judaism doesn't do X" somewhere near the end. They might better explain why Reform Judaism doesn't do X, perhaps even why it doesn't think X a good thing to do. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I would oppose sanitising critical views from Reform articles. If the criticism was made in a reliable source and widely publicised, then why is it POV to mention that? Of course physical attacks are not the answer, and please notify me if people make personal attacks here on Wikipedia just because you represent the Reform/Progressive POV - I will strike mercilessly.

I totally agree with Shirahadasha that articles presently do not adequately represent Reform/Progressive practices. Scrupulous sources and serious explanation (e.g. on Jewish services) are urgently required.

I gave some examples of historical Orthodox criticisms to Reform changes in practice. I cannot imagine why we should leave out Eleh Divrei ha-Brith, which was signed by most of the prominent rabbis of Germany in the early 19th century. JFW | T@lk 20:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Response to both User:Jfdwolff and User:Shirahadasha - I absolutely agree that we need to discuss the differences amongst the movements. I disagree with the way we have currently structured it. There is more than one way to skin the WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE cat. The current structure implicitly sactions the orthodox position that one movement is normative and others are subject to its judgement. I think we need a structure that acknowledges that there are two competing views of how the movements should be viewed by one another. As for Eleh Divrei ha-Brith - does that really belong in an article on contemporary progressive judaism, or rather in an article dedicated to the German Reform Movement and the conflicts it engendered?

I'd like for us to brainstorm some alternatives before we decide that the current structure is the only way to handle this issue. Egfrank 21:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)\

The original question here was the relative merits of separate WikiProjects vs. a single WikiProject Judaism. Perhaps discussion on whether and how to address interdenominational theological criticism deserves a separate track. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as a bit of an outsider, there are a few serious advantages to having all the Judaism groups be interrelated within the one Judaism project. A single banner, which would still allow for separate task force assessments, isn't that hard to create; several people have in fact done so. This reduces the amount of talk space page taken up by the banners, and several of these articles will likely be relevant to more than one Judaism project. Also, it can make contacting all the related projects easier. A simple message to this page, as opposed to all the separate Judaism project talk pages, is easier for all parties involved to see and reply to. Lastly, the single project name will also, generally, help foster a bit more cooperation than "dueling projects" tend to. I'm busy for a week or two, but at the end of that time I could try to create a single project banner for all the Judaism projects, like WP:MILHIST and several of the other bigger projects have. Would this be an acceptable measure to the rest of you? John Carter 23:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello All. This is my first posting in awhile. I only want to add support for Egfrank in the efforts to explain the progressive project and the reason it exists. As for myself, I am motivated by the need to clarify, with accurate references, the historical perspectives of the classical Reformers - Israel Jacobson, et al: philosophy, theology, politics; why they matter and what they had to say. As for Orthodox criticisms included in the Reform page, I could offer so many negative quotes from the Reformers about the Orthodox that it could be a page of its own...but is there a point to it? In some ways comparing the orthodox mindset with that of the progressive is trying to contrast sawdust and sand. From a distance both might have similar characteristics, but they are fundamentally alien entities - in my opinion, anyway. The progressive movement offers 150 years of distinct Jewish thought, even if on this very page it is insinuated by users as being foreign to Judaism, which is hopefully offensive to the majority. Best wishes, A Sniper 18:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• I fully agree with User:Shirahadasha; User:Jon513 and User:JFW that splitting up Judaism projects based on the Jewish denominations has bever worked over the long run on Wikipedia because they tend to die out once the initiators leave or become less active, and they also seem to be avoided by those who may feel that they are being forced into a "domain" that is not free of a certain POV whereas the Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism, with over 200 members, is all inclusive, non-judgmental, and editors do not feel that they have to join or be pressured by any POV within the project or that any "higher-ups" of that project will over-ride them. IZAK 07:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• I completely agree with User:IZAK that the Judaism Wikiproject should not be split up as it will avoided by people who do not identify with the Progressive Judaism and force people to choose labels and is not inclusive Java7837 12:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Progressive Judaism isn't just a POV - it is an intellectual and organizational tradition within in Judaism. A significant and notable body of scholarly and academic material exists on this topic. The project was formed to make sure that the material relating to Progressive Judaism is accurately represented and reported upon within Wikipedia using the highest academic standards possible. This is quite different from a POV pushing exercise. The project takes no position on the ultimate truth of the progressive position or any other.

You have expressed a rather significant interest in the topic to date (or rather its non-existence). I invite you to become an active member of the project. You will be most welcome to express your views and sources. Kol tuv, Egfrank 07:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"Bukharan Jews" vs. "Bukharian Jews"

In case anyone is even vaguely interested or even remotely knowledgeable about the subject, I have gotten myself entangled in a discussion at Talk:Bukharan Jews#.22Bukharan.22 vs .22Bukharian.22 over the correct English ethnonym. This is the culmination of a slow and subtle edit war that places POV over RS, and has been ongoing for approximately 2 years. Input from some cooler heads would be very welcome (at least by me). Tomer^talk 05:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Tomer, I added my views, see [10] Thanks as always, IZAK 09:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, I have now worked on and filled the new Category:Bukharan Jews. Thanks, IZAK 08:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The user LeeMulod333 has moved the page to Bukharian Jewish, a terrible title, in an attempt to subvert the page move without going to WP:RM. Would someone with that awesome power please revert this? The talk page was left at Talk:Bukharians in an intermediate move. --Eliyak T·C 22:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't want the guy to get into too much trouble, but he really is beginning to try my patience. He's already accused me of being the cause of antisemitism, and doesn't seem to understand fundamental principles about naming conventions and original research. I don't want to hold him down and flog him, but at the same time, his activities are becoming quite disruptive...he's inserting patent falsehood into the article and deleting whatever he disagrees with as he goes. He has finally brought forth a couple of citations, which is good, but he whimsically removes other {{fact}}s whereëver it pleases him to do so. I brought this up here because I'd rather not have to file a formal RfC, but he's quickly headed down that road. It would be nice if some other editors could attempt to reason with him. Tomer^talk 23:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

He has now made a complete mess. You can no longer get to the discussion page from the article page. I'm going to do my best to undo it, but I may need help. Tomer^talk 00:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the problems he created as best I could without violating GFDL. He is still intently pushing his "Bukharan is wrong!!!" POV. I have no desire to come even close to violating 3RR, but it is very trying to counter his blatant POV-pushing w/o doing so. I am generally a very calm and easy-going person, preferring to consider myself very even-keeled, but this fracas is coming close to driving me over the edge. He doesn't bother to try to address anything I say on the talkpage, preferring instead to try to override whatever I've said by a blatant appeal to emotion concerning how I'm "disrespecting him" and "disrespecting Bukhar[i!]an Jews" with everything I say. He admits on his userpage that he's 16 (which is 2 years older than I'd actually pegged him at...I don't know whether that's a good thing or not), which puts me in a real quandary. I don't want to stifle him, but at the same time what he's doing is completely contrary to practically every principle that holds Wikipedia together. If anyone knows any of his relatives or community leaders, it might be good to appeal to them to try to talk some sense into him. That's about all I'm left with. If this continues much longer, I might be driven to try to do so myself. Tomer^talk 04:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

User:The Haunted Angel request for adminship

This admin candidate has a Nazi emblem on his user page. Any thoughts [11] about his fitness for adminship? I'm not Jewish and I thought it was very ill judged, he considers it a joke ('I copied this box from another user's example, because I thought it was funny') and hasn't seen fit to remove it despite several complaints in his RFA. Perhaps he's right and I'm completely off base here, or perhaps not. Nick mallory 15:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hebrew calendar

This article needs an overhaul; it was WP:FARCd. However, I'm posting here to note that it doesn't mention anywhere in the article what today's Hebrew date is. Shouldn't that be in there, and isn't there a way to autocalc this, much in the way that {{torahportion}} updates according to the week? I just think it's silly to have a huge article about the calendar and not have a little box somewhere telling us what the date is. Good idea or bad one, and anyone actually know how to do it? Kaisershatner 14:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I was working on this problem, mainly to automatically determine the English dates for Hebrew holiday articles (and avoid mistakes related to day/night etc.). The current situation is something of a mess. {{molad}} is supposed to spit out the molad for the current/any Hebrew year. {{total chalakim}} is supposed to help it. I don't know if they actually do this or not. It's not as easy a problem as it seems, but if anyone wants to work on it, by all means.

By the way, {{torah portion}} is updated manually. --Eliyak T·C 21:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Eliyak, thanks for the reply. Torah portion is updated manually? Kol haCavod! Kaisershatner 13:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

For your attention: Judaism in Northern Ireland

While I appreciate that Judaism is not a huge topic here, perhaps for obvious reasons, it might be worth pointing out that the only Synagogue in Northern Ireland is a stub article. Unfortunately, I know very little about Judaism, though I have heard that it's influence was at one time quite strong - particularly in Belfast. Belfast even enjoyed a Jewish Lord Mayor, by the name of Sir Otto Jaffe, who was elected twice to that position.

I hope some of you can give due consideration and are able to help fix it. I will surely help also, out if I can. I see that an article on the history of Judaism in Northern Ireland is also lacking in Wikipedia.

Feel free to contact me on my talk page with regard to this. Cheers. --Setanta 07:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• As IZAK has mentioned above, the only History of the Jews in Europe articles that are still completely missing are History of the Jews in Northern Ireland and History of the Jews in Wales. I would point out that History of the Jews in Andorra, Monaco, San Marino and Liechtenstein are barely more than stubs, and Vatican City/Holy See, is also missing. A number of "dependency" articles are also missing, and most of those that do exist are, in fact, redirects (not that there's anything wrong with that). The point I'm making here, is that I'm not sure there is enough "History of the Jews in Northern Ireland" that is sufficiently independent of the "History of the Jews in Ireland" to warrant an article. While the history of N. Ireland has certainly been distinct from that of the Republic since 1916-1921, I'm not sure that the history of the Jewish community there is significantly separable from, nor sufficiently distinguishable from either the History of the Jews in Ireland or the History of the Jews in the United Kingdom...at least not to warrant an independent article. This seems borne out by the fact that the History of the Jews in Ireland article mentions, as one of the 5 synagogues "in Ireland", the synagogue in Belfast. Unless there's sufficiently distinct history of which I'm unaware, it seems to me that the best approach would be to make History of the Jews in Northern Ireland a redirect to History of the Jews in Ireland, and to remove any acrimony, a statement in the introduction to that article clarifying that the article concerns Jewish history for the whole Island, rather than covering exclusively that portion of the Island encompassed by the Republic. The situation for Wales is quite different, inasmuch as there are synagogues in Casnewydd/Newport, Llandudno/does-this-have-an-English-name-?, Caerdydd/Cardiff, Abertawe/Swansea, and Rhosan-ar-Wy/Ross-on-Wye...more synagogues than are found in all of the fair Isle, in a much smaller area, with a significantly smaller population, and not exclusively located in population centers as in Ireland. I don't know, historically, what makes the Jewish history of Wales "different", but I can see on the surface sufficient differences to make the snap judgment that the history of the Jewish communities in Wales is significantly different from the history of those in Ireland (although Jewish history in Wales may very well simply be an extension of Jewish history in England, even as shallow as post-WWII, for all I know). Enough of my pontifications. Regards, Tomer^talk 08:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Tomer, just to be accurate, many of the Jewish histories for the European "Dependencies, autonomies, and other territories" are still missing (see the History of the Jews in Europe template at the bottom of that page) and the ones that are there are actually redirects to the main articles that some of those "Dependencies, autonomies, and other territories" are connected too. So there is still more to do, but to find decent historical information about Jews in very obscure places is like hunting for metaphorical mice under the rug, a very hard job. IZAK 10:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Come again Setanta: Did you just state that "Judaism is not a huge topic here" -- very funny! Why do you think anyone would want to talk to you after insulting this WP:JUDAISM project? IZAK 08:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm now to the point where everytime I see the name IZAK I get a knot in my stomach. Do you have anything nice to say to anyone? OBVIOUSLY Setanta was trying to be helpful, and the quote actually referred to here in Northern Ireland, not here at this project! Perhaps jumping to this false conclusion is an explanation as to why what you've written about Reform vs. Progressive is so off the mark. A Sniper 10:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Please do not use this talk page as a sniping range. Thanks. Tomer^talk 17:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Tomer, I frankly don't know if you're referring to me or to IZAK. Is IZAK's comment to someone who just stumbled on to the project, in an effort to help, the norm that goes unnoticed? Cheers, A Sniper 12:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
      • It was meant to be light-hearted. It's after noon, so I recommend a round of beers. Who's with me? Tomer^talk 18:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
        • SORRY, Tomer - I have never exhibited any sort of attitude on here before, and I guess I'm getting hung up in my own frustration. I should have noticed your humour - I guess it is time for the pub. It is still the aftershock of seeing that user write that my faith was only created to justify eating bacon. Cheers, A Sniper 13:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Hello A Sniper: At no time was I adresssing anything to you personally since I know nothing about you and you know nothing about my beliefs. But your attack against me here by name does violate WP:NPA. You are personalizing discussions and that is not good. It also may show that you are incapable of a WP:NPOV when the subject of "your faith" comes up since you feel it gives you the right to lash out at others who state things that you deem to "violate" that faith that you hold so dearly, when indeed I have never done that to you, nor do I intend to. I respect you and I like you, but what does that have to do with being critical and analytical of any ideas and notions on the table? You seem to not realize that talk pages are for just that, talk, and that means that editors are allowed to discuss matters openly and crtically, as long as we can all agree to WP:CIVIL. It is not "me" that is criticical of Progressive or Reform Judaism, I have nothing personal at stake nor do I care either way, but the fact is that Orthodox Judaism does have opinions on these kinds of subjects (like if it is permissible for Jews to eat pork, and the role of many other such mitzvot) all of which are true and valid and none of which has anything to do with me or you personally as Wikipedia editors in any remote fashion. Remember, (a) PLEASE do NOT shoot the messenger because you hate the message and {b) WP:AGF! I look forward to having constreuctive discussions with you and not reading these personalised outbursts that are maybe better suited to instant messaging but definitely do not belong in these pages of dignified scholarly give and take. Thanks a lot, IZAK 00:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
            • "All of which are true and valid?" That's NPOV? I have merely reacted to what I've seen you write personally, such as the negative comment to the Northern Ireland user (whom you may or may not have misunderstood) or your repartee with Egfrank that illustrated what I would imagine are your own, personal views. However, there is no need to continue this and I'll stick to editing. Best, A Sniper 19:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
              • Why do you enjoy twisting my words out of shape when that is not what I was talking about? When I stated "All of which are true and valid" I was referring to the fact that "Orthodox Judaism does have opinions on these kinds of subjects" which is NPOV. I was not referring directly to the comments in parenthesis "(like if it is permissible for Jews to eat pork, and the role of many other such mitzvot)" which were in parenthesis because they were examples, and which in any case are also true and NPOV about Orthodoxy which is what I was stating. You seem to personalize every tiny comment that is critical of Reform or Progressive Judaism. If I took personally every insult against my beliefs I would be dead by now. Honestly Sniper, is it my fault that User:Setanta was not clear in his opening sentence? He is after-all coming to this WP:JUDAISM project page and then he says "While I appreciate that Judaism is not a huge topic here" so why shouldn't I think he was a wise guy? In any case he has aplogized/clarified below for his ambiguous introductory words. You must have a very poor impression of me, and I hope I can win your confidence over time. Really, I am not the "Cookie Monster". Kindly be more tolerant. After all your outbursts against me, I have still not uttered anything personal against you, and why should I. As they say in sports "play the ball not the man"! Happy writing and editing. Thanks again, IZAK 02:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[de-indent]
Firstly, apologies for any misunderstanding IZAK or anyone else may have suffered - A Sniper was correct in his assumption that, as a person from Northern Ireland, I was referring to my country rather than to this Wikiproject, or to Wikipedia. As the creator of a couple of Wikiprojects myself, I appreciate the amount of work and effort one can put into them, and how useful they can be... which is why I decided to appeal to anyone here (at this Wikiproject!) who might know about the history of Jewish peoples in Northern Ireland.

Thanks for your response Tomer - food for thought. Certainly I think perhaps an article should be created for re-direct to the Jews in Ireland article - at least temporarily. Although I know next to nothing about Judaism, or Judaism in Northern Ireland, I am aware that the Jewish community were quite active in building up the financial and economic core of Belfast in some way - as distinct from the more regional effects with regard to the island. Belfast suddenly found itself a capital city in 1921, amidst much civil unrest and major structural changes. People such as Gustav Wilhelm Wolff and Otto Jaffe helped build up industry for the region that became Northern Ireland, and I suspect work and effort put in by Jewish people didn't stop after Northern Ireland came to be. A look at List of British Jews and List of British Jewish politicians might be useful in determining some of the impact the community had on Northern Ireland.

I recently came across a publication of pictures from the 1920s, in which (I was mildly disturbed to see) Fascist organisations existed here.. which led me to wonder about the plight of the, until that time, growing Jewish community in Northern Ireland (particularly Belfast). Were Jewish people forced to move to London during or after the Second World War? Were many refugees settled in Northern Ireland before or during the war and the Kindertransport etc? To what extent did the pre-WWII wave of anti-Semitism affect the people of Northern Ireland? What happened to all the Synagogues (there used to be on on Great Victoria Street and therefore all the Jewish people in Northern Ireland? Right up until the recent Troubles, were we have apparently the Provisional IRA on the one hand, seemingly aligning itself with the PLO and some of the various Loyalist terrorist groups having aligned themselves with Isreal.. and the social and political undertones therein.

Surely if I can write a good paragraph merely asking questions about it, then a start-class at least article could be written on the History of the Jews in Northern Ireland. I would propose that such an article start with a summary of the pre-Northern Ireland history from the geographical Ireland article and anything that can be gleaned from the British Jews article, and then the specifically NI-based history follow it thereafter. Once the article exists, other people who have knowledge in respect of Northern Ireland may well add information.

While you may consider there not to be enough information "that is sufficiently independent of the History of the Jews in Ireland to warrant an article", I would suggest that there very well may be! :) --Setanta 01:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Setanta: So why don't you go ahead and start it and we'll try to look it over. You seem to have more than a head's start in terms of some basic information for such an article. Sorry about misunderstanding you, so I am glad you have clarified your ambiguous opening remarks. IZAK 02:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I might get around to starting the article then, some time in the near future. I'll post back here if I do that. Cheers all. --Setanta 03:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I've created an article stub for Joseph Chotzner, the 1st rabbi there, and filled out more info on the Belfast Synagogue. Maybe folks could help w/appropriate categories etc? Thanks. HG | Talk 04:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Why wait? Also created a stub with misc info for History of the Jews in Northern Ireland, hope Setanta doesn't mind. Thanks. HG | Talk 04:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this is great, Setanta, IZAK, HG, & Tomer. I attended the Belfast congregation once and recall there was a short-lived television drama/comedy in the 90s about a Jewish man living in Belfast. My Uncle was a member of the Cork synagogue and I recall there was something about it on the net. There are also American companies who used to advertise on the web about Tours of Jewish Ireland which brought coaches full of Americans to the few synagogues throughout the island. All the Best, A Sniper 22:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Great work HG! Exactly what I had appealed for. I hadn't expected such full and quick action to be taken though! :) I'm off to tag the articles for the Belfast and/or NI WikiProjects now. I'll maybe see if I can enhance any of the articles soon too.

Sniper if you can recall any info about that TV show, it might be worth following up.

I've only just now noticed WP:JH!! --Setanta 03:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks muchly. Ciao, HG | Talk 19:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the references section for the stubbicle as well as I could, but questions remain... What does "JE etc" mean, and what is "EJ"? I have an idea, but those "citations" raise more questions than they answer. Tomer^talk 18:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

<meekly> That would be me. JE = old Jewish Encyclopedia (public domain, online) and EJ = Encyclopedia Judaica (1971?). I think those are the Belfast entries. I've also found quite a few more sources for both the shul and the History of the Jews in Northern Ireland, so enjoy! HG | Talk 19:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, at this juncture, I would think that further discussion should now be carried out on the new webpages. The category is Category:Jews and Judaism in Northern Ireland. Thanks and kudos to Setanta for approaching and encouraging us. HG | Talk 19:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Salonika

Hi, I wrote this french article witch is now a featured article, I thing it should be good to translate it in english and more generaly all articles about the jewish diaspora should be improved. Only History of the Jews in Poland is a featured article. As you maybe know the english wikipedia is the key one, there is little chance that over wikipedias will improve this type of articles if you don't do it.--Kimdime69 19:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've copied the Google translation of the French version to User:Eliyak/History of the Jews of Thessaloniki. Anyone can feel free to edit it there, after which it can be moved to History of the Jews of Thessaloniki. --Eliyak T·C 08:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Gender and Judaism

As an article on a field of academic study, the article impeccably meets Wikipedia requirements as the field is not covered by any other article. The difficulty comes when it comes time to discuss substantive topics. Perhaps we can avoid a content fork situation, with parallel articles covering subject matter from completely different points of view. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Choice of venue

I've put a note on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Gender Studies as well as other project pages that have claimed this article included this article in their scope. I've also added a Judaism project template to the page - to give us a fighting chance of getting included in discussions started by other projects.

I also wonder - given that there are four different projects laying claim to expressing an interest in this article - whether or not we should move this discussion to the article talk page itself. Another reason: to deal with this issue we will probably need to discuss matters and ideas that will affect the development of this article. Egfrank 04:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• No need to see it as an issue of "laying claim" -- let everyone feel free to add information. If it passes the acid tests of logic, verifiability, accuracy and be reflective of all the arguments in a NPOV fashion then the article can grow. Let's see what happens. IZAK 07:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I should admit that I wrote the initial draft(s) and put in maybe 3 WikiProject templates. I assumed that each project would be happy to be associated with the article. I don't believe this is a controversial thing in any way. Most discussions should be on the article Talk, anyway. Thanks. HG | Talk 18:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Jewish subversion

I'm a little concerned about the new article Jewish subversion. It was created within the last couple of weeks and doesn't look to me like it's anything but a POV fork of certain aspects of antisemitism. Thing is, the text can be defended as not that heavily POV, just documenting the fact that certain accusations have been made. But, look at the two external links, both to antisemitic websites. the user who created the page has also linked Antisemitism to it. Additionally he has an extensive history of blocks. --Steven J. Anderson 20:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

My head is spinning. Tomer^talk 23:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish subversion. Thanks, IZAK 07:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

May I ask what exactly my block log has to do with this? Did I get blocked while editing Jewish-related articles, or did I get blocked for entirely different reasons? How do you connect my block log with this article anyway? As for the external links, that is what I found when I Googled it. I didn't even read the text, so don't bother accusing me of an antisemitic agenda. And yes, it is linked to antisemitism. Isn't that because this is what antisemites accuse Jews of? What is your point? I think this is an unfair way of portraying me as a Wikipedia editor. You should Assume good faith. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 00:11 04 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

Kindly note that the comments about "Block logs" were made by User Steven J. Anderson (talk · contribs) and not by me. I am not concerned with who you are or your history on Wikipedia. My only issue is with the Jewish subversion article. In fact I did not even know about this discussion until after I had nominated the article and then saw the discussion here, so certainly from my perspective I have assumed good faith. Thank you, IZAK 03:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to you, Izak ;) — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 14:40 05 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

Jewish exodus from Arab lands

Two problems:

1. None of the "current Jewish populations" are cited except a general citation to here, which is, itself, at best, a secondary source. If someone has access to the resources cited there, please verify the numbers and cite them in the article as appropriate.
2. More troubling, on several levels, is the fact that the article currently mentions the pre/post populations of Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan--Muslim countries, certainly, but not Arab, and these countries' stats are not given with appropriate context. Nor are other Muslim-majority countries' pre/post populations discussed, e.g., Albania, Azerbaijan and the CAsianReps. Fully cognizant that the history of the Jewish populations in non-Arab countries is quite different from that of Arab countries, I have recommended on the talk page that these countries' Jewish depopulation be discussed separately, along with a discussion of the exodus of Jews from certain other countries post-statehood. Some mention is made in the Beta Israel article, but it warrants barely a passing mention in the History of the Jews in India article, a country that has lost like 95% of its Jews to emigration post-statehood. I have also proposed, without substantiation, that the reason why these Muslim-majority non-Arab countries are included is because of a poor choice in naming, not only of the article, but of the phenomenon itself, through a conflation of "Arab" and "Muslim". If this is the case, then it may well be appropriate to keep the article with its current contents, and perhaps even with its current name, but clarification should be made in the article itself that the name is not a genuine reflection of the whole picture it purports to cover.

Thoughts? Tomer^talk 02:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Head for the Google button! IZAK 03:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Jewish canon or Bible Canon

I just came across the Jewish canon article. What to make of it is the big question. It draws partially from the Jewish Encyclopedia article. Maybe the entire Jewish Encyclopedia BIBLE CANON article should just be reproduced in its entirety? Thanks, IZAK 06:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks fair enough to me. Perhaps a few too many namechecks for Mr Barber. But it's a nice, well referenced piece of his that's being cited. The scholarship seems to be entirely mainsteam. And things have certainly moved on a bit since 1905. What's you focus of concern? Jheald 10:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jheald: My real focus of concern is how to ultimately reconcile the content of articles such as "Jewish canon" and the similar more detailed "Bible Canon" material in the Jewish Encyclopedia with the outlook of Rabbinic literature reflecting the "Rabbinical Eras" as depicted in the {{Eras of the Halakha}} template, especially those of the Rishonim and Acharonim. Any thoughts? IZAK 11:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

So you'd like to see this article renamed Hebrew Bible canon or something similar, to distinguish it from the wider canon of Jewish writing? Jheald 12:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No, more like Masorah of Torah, see Masorah and Torah articles as a somewhat imperfect start. IZAK 09:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see that you have jumped the gun and moved the article to Development of the Jewish Bible canon, which is an improvement, but the content and intent are far from desirable from a Torah Judaism perspective. IZAK 09:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The article, like many articles based on the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, both is woefully out of date and, (as IZAK notes and is particularly concerned about), fails to take or offer the Orthodox Jewish understanding of the traditional Rabbinic point of view either seriously or accurately. It seems to me that this can be addressed by updating both to provide more up-to-date academic scholarship and to better reflect classical Orthodox understanding of the subject. As to the apparent duplication of the articles, IZAK, why don't you propose a merger and add merge tags to the articles, and we can discuss whether or not to merge there as with other merge proposals? I would recommend posting a notice of the protosed merge on WP:BIBLE and perhaps WP:RELIGION as well as here. I think WP:BIBLE in particular needs to have input into Bible-related article reorganizations. Best, --Shirahadasha 15:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

(1) AFAICS The article isn't based on the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, beyond a couple of 2-line quotes to 19th Century thinking, down in the references. The article seems to extensively discuss current scholarship.

(2) There is no merge being proposed -- there's no possible candidate for a merge, that I can see.

(3) AFAICS, there's no conflict with Orthodox views. What is this distinctive Orthodox understanding you have in mind, of how some books came to be included in the Tanakh and others were not? Jheald 23:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Jheald: Indeed, User:Shirahadasha has grasped what I was implying. The true Orthodox perspective is vastly different to anything in any of these academic sources. Even the Jewish Encyclopedia devotes time and space to the "Rabbinic [i.e. what would be called the "Orthodox"] perspective" of many Biblical subjects, see for example the articles in Category:Biblical characters in rabbinic literature which were mostly added by User Java7837 (talk · contribs) and which I had the pleasure of helping. IZAK 03:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Question for Shirahadasha: I am not sure what you are referring to concerning "apparent duplication of the articles, IZAK, why don't you propose a merger and add merge tags to the articles, and we can discuss whether or not to merge there as with other merge proposals" and your other suggestions. My intention is to keep this discussion here for now, since what would be the point of globalizing these complex issues with editors (on other projects) who study the Bible with/from non-Judaic sources? IZAK 03:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

IZAK and Shirahadasha - I think a cited (e.g. appropriate talmudic or rabbinic references) write-up of the traditional view of the development of the canon's development would be great! Why don't you both work on it? (Im lo achshav, aimatia?) The best way to get a view included is to add it. (I would recommend writing it as a separate section rather than as a critique of the historical-critical view). Once its in place it will be easier to work on an appropriate WP:NPOV framework that includes both points of view without prejudice. Egfrank 05:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Egfrank, I see that you are becoming ever the Wikipedian. Mazel Tov ! By the way, the word "canon" not only does not exist in Judaism, but Judaism regards it as anathema. Catholics have "canons" but Jews have a Masorah, see the first Mishna in Pirkei Avot: משה קיבל תורה מסיניי, ומסרה ליהושוע, ויהושוע לזקנים, וזקנים לנביאים, ונביאים מסרוה לאנשי כנסת הגדולה IZAK 09:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Canon is the "neutral" academic term in English for the list of books that a tradition considered authoritive. It implies nothing about the origin of those lists or the process by which they were authorized.

Also only certain orthodox Jews have a problem with the word. There are plenty of orthodox Jews in Bible departments of modern academic institutions that use the word in order to communicate with their collegues (NYU, Bar Ilan, Hebrew University). I don't think the word would be out of place at Brovenders or David Hartman's institute as well - both of which are considered orthodox. And the non-orthodox streams of Judaism (which are also Judaism) feel that the word "canon" is constructive and helpful. If there are some reasons why some orthodox dislike "canon" and prefer "Masorah", I'd include that in the write up too.

Yes I know that mishnah - but there is a lot more material than that - for example, there are debates about the relative status of various writings including Megillat Ester (some rabbis didn't want it in the cannon because it doesn't mention the name of God anywhere). Anyway, happy writing (I really do hope you take this on). Egfrank 10:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I moved to Development of the Jewish Bible canon to match other pages spun out from Biblical canon, namely Development of the Christian Biblical canon, Development of the Old Testament canon, Development of the New Testament canon. If you think it's not quite right, one alternative name might be Codification of the Tanakh.

The emphasis of the article is very much on what we know (or don't know) re the question: Which texts were included when? That is the question which links this series of articles. The emphasis is not on the (much bigger) question of what we know (or don't know) about What might have been written in each text and when? (Nor the important issue of the continuity of how it's been preserved since). Those are much bigger questions, which need article(s) of their own. Jheald 14:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

cleanup

the article Aaron ben Meïr needs to be cleaned up. Seems to me like a copy-paste from the Jewish Encyclopedia. Jon513 15:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

JE credit added. Jheald 16:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)