Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Importance

Can someone assess Dmitry Salita for importance?--Epeefleche (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done -shirulashem (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

thank you.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Allen Klein

An editor is trying to WP:CENSOR the fact that Category:American Jews applies to Allen Klein. This editor is on his/her second revert. Please keep an eye on this article. --GHcool (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The Divine Name in Articles

Hello, I am wondering why people insist on writing the literal name of G-d (i.e., the four-lettered one starting with Yud). As an Orthodox Jew, this upsets me. They are wonderful articles and is writing the Name of G-d really necessary? I doubt anyone outside of Judaism would know that the Name means the Name of G-d. Dovid 75.186.59.82 (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Dovid, Can you provide examples? shirulashem (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's one example: Books of Kings. This issue is systemic in the Hebrew Bible articles. --Eliyak T·C 02:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the article. -shirulashem (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. The policy states "Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms." Catering to this is the same as removing the name or images of Muhammad from articles at the request of an editor. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ghostexorcist: you're obviously correct, and I did take that into consideration. Perhaps I should have clarified on this page, for the record, that I made those changes NOT for the same reasons that they were originally brought up here. I reverted back to "God" instead of the Divine Name, as noted in my edit summary, because the sources that the article takes from all use "God" and not the Divine Name. Coincidentally, it's kinda similar to Jimbo blocking out the Rhodes kidnapping issue, where Jimbo said, “We were really helped by the fact that it hadn’t appeared in a place we would regard as a reliable source,” he said. “I would have had a really hard time with it if it had.” In our case, if the Divine Name actually was used in the sources, I certainly would've had a hard time justifying my change. -shirulashem (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That is understandable then. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Elijah translation help

Working on Elijah - Elijah's chair has a Hebrew phrase but I can't translate it completely - to me it looks like "Zeh Ciseh Elijah Zachor LaMuv" - "This is the chair of Elijah, Remember ___" Can anyone give me a little push here? Kaisershatner (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The first part is correct. The last word is "LeTov" which means, literally, "remembered for good" -shirulashem (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I guess the problem is my eyes, not my Hebrew... Kaisershatner (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Jewish surnames category deleted again; see discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_July_6#Category:Jewish_surnames. Badagnani (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Template Changes

I have made a proposal to change one of the templates. Please see the discussion here. -shirulashem^(talk) 15:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Changes to popular pages lists

There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:

• The "importance" ranking (for projects that use it) will be included in the lists along with assessment.
• The default list size has been lowered to 500 entries (from 1000)
• I've set up a project on the Toolserver for the popular pages - tools:~alexz/pop/.
  • This includes a page to view the results for projects, including the in-progress results from the current month. Currently this can only show the results from a single project in one month. Features to see multiple projects or multiple months may be added later.
  • This includes a new interface for making requests to add a new project to the list.
  • There is also a form to request a change to the configuration for a project. Currently the configurable options are the size of the on-wiki list and the project subpage used for the list.
• The on-wiki list should be generated and posted in a more timely and consistent manner than before.
• The data is now retained indefinitely.
• The script used to generate the pages has changed. The output should be the same. Please report any apparent inconsistencies (see below).
• Bugs and feature requests should be reported using the Toolserver's bug tracker for "alexz's tools" - [1]

-- Mr.Z-man 00:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

BCE and CE

Is there a guideline anywhere about the use of BCE instead of BC and CE instead of AD? Debresser (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOS says

AD and BC are the traditional ways of referring to these eras. However, the CE and BCE is becoming more common in academic and some religious writing. No preference is given to either style. Use either the BC-AD or the BCE-CE notation, but not both in the same article.

Is there a documented consensus which to use in Judaism related articles? Debresser (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no definite consensus but many Jewish editors have expressed a preference of using CE/BCE in WP:JEW articles. Given that MOS does not give a preference, perhaps we should try to set a standard on this WikiProject. JFW | T@lk 18:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That was my intention. If feasable. Debresser (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Israel lobby

Template:Israel lobby has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. GHcool (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Add article to project?

Shouldn't Biblical Hebrew be a part of this project? Debresser (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand what it practically means for an article to be part of a project. If you want to edit it, go ahead. If you think that an issue related to it would be of interested to those in this project, you can post something here. If you want to put up a banner on the talk page page, go for it - but it certainly isn't worth fighting over, as banner on talk pages don't have any effect on anything or anyone. Jon513 (talk) 11:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Khazars needs eyes again

Someone is trying to add what appears to be WP:OR and synthesis to Khazars again. Please see Talk:Khazars for examples of the latest. Extra eyes would be appreciated. -- Avi (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in terms of the Y-chromosome genetics, their summary looks to be pretty much on the money. The present state of the article is a POV disgrace. Jheald (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sanity check needed

Hi all -- I have collided with someone on the Felix Mendelssohn article who is quite insistent not only that this famous composer was not Jewish, but that it is "offensive" to categorize him as such. I'd like a sanity check from you. Is this true? As far as I know, and I've read, the general histories of music have it as "he was a Jew who converted to Christianity" -- and indeed our article has him in both categories, as it seems it should be (as well as his sister Fanny, of course). The Jewish Encyclopedia certainly has a substantial biography of him. At least this person hasn't called me a "Nazi" yet (he did in January). Thanks for your help, Antandrus (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a bit of literature on this that I've read over the years, and I always remember getting the impression either that Felix Mendelssohn was embarrassed about being Jewish or didn't really want anything to do with Judaism. Even if my impression is mistaken, for some reason the fact that this issue has come up, where another editor doesn't want the Jewishness mentioned, doesn't totally surprise me. As far as Fiddleback's assertion that there is somehow a difference between being a Jew in the US versus the UK, I am quite afraid that he might accurately describe the perception of some Europeans, and specifically those in the UK. As has been reported, there was recently a case where the British courts came out with a ruling where the court appears to claim the ability to determine who is Jewish. Shocking indeed. According to the laws, customs, and traditions of Judaism for centuries, one need only meet one of two conditions to be a Jew: either you're born Jewish or you convert. Once one of those two things happen, the individual is Jewish. -shirulashem^(talk) 19:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Akiba or Akiva

Your input will be appreciated on Talk:Akiba_ben_Joseph#Akiba_.2F_Akiva. Debresser (talk) 12:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Worrying move

A section of Judaism and Christianity was moved to a new article Jewish theology of love. I have reverted the move, and recommend somebody Afd that article, for the reason I stated in both articles' talkpages. Debresser (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

80-90 % of it is about Judaism, with only 10-20 % of inter-cultural material with Christianity. It cites at least two prominent modern Jewish writers and gives plenty of references in sacred texts. Because it is primarily a disseration about Jewish teachings, I felt that it did not belong in an article about Christianity and Judaism. For this reason, it should not be deleted as well. ADM (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There can't be even 10-20% of it in an article named Jewish theology of love. I do agree with you that Judaism and Christianity should be shortened.

And then there is the problem of this Franz Rosenzweig being far too prominent a source over there. Debresser (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: I think we should continue the rest of this discussion on the article talk pages. -shirulashem^(talk) 12:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I have re-arranged the page and removed un-needed references to Christianity and the author Franz Rosenzweig. It looks much better now than it did in the original version of the entry. ADM (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Niddah, Mikvah, MyMikvahCalendar.com Links

Hi, We have to build a consensus if the links belong on that article or not please let us know your opinion on talk pages for mikvah and niddah. --Ntb613 (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Spam. Remove on sight. JFW | T@lk 16:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Relevant and contributing, as I have stated my opinion before on Talk:Niddah#www.mymikvahcalendar.com_link and now on Talk:Mikvah#Spam_links as well. Debresser (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The Thirteenth Tribe

Would someone knowledgeable about the Khazar issue please look at the history of The Thirteenth Tribe‎? Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It's just a silly (but interesting) little fringe theory that has never been considered remotely credible, largely because it's probably impossible to prove, but also because there's no real convincing evidence. There are also people who believe the Earth is still flat, you know. -shirulashem^(talk) 20:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation page for Rashash OR direct reference to the Sar Shalom Shar`abi

On Rashash there is a rolling edit war between those who feel that it should just direct to Shalom Sharabi, with Samuel Strashun being mentioned in a hatnote, and those who prefer a disambiguation page. As an Ashkenaz I automatically associated "Rashash" with Strashun rather than Sharabi, and I have been in agreement with Hanina (talk · contribs) that a disambiguation page would be most appropriate. An anonymous editor continues to disagree. I suggested that he post a message here to get others' opinions, but so far this has not happened.

The question for the panel: what is better? A disambiguation page or a redirect to one of the two people known as "Rashash", with a hatnote pointing to the other's page. Please comment on Talk:Rashash. The page itself is currently semiprotected given the repeated edits against consensus. JFW | T@lk 16:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be a disambiguation, but I think this discussion belongs on the talk page of the disambiguation page with a comment here notifying WPJudaism editors that the discussion is taking place. -shirulashem^(talk) 16:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

With something that speaks that strongly to people, the true disambig page is the way to go, IMO. -- Avi (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Shirulashem, this is exactly what I've done. JFW | T@lk 19:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

As an Ashkenazi with a Temani wife, I am in favor of a disambiguation page. :) Debresser (talk) 08:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disambiguation says clearly that "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)"." So I call upon all editors to regard this subject as closed. I have posted a similar post on Rashash. Debresser (talk) 08:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That is the very issue... there never was any extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic. In fact, JFW speaks of Askenaz vs Sefard (Sefaradi really)... which shows the intentions behind the patronizing "consensus". Because of the 3 weeks, I will not comment further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.111.130 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 21 July 2009

Why is it so critical to identify a primary topic? As Debresser wrote above when quoting the policy, not only does there not have to be a primary topic, but the mere fact that such a disagreement is taking place indicates that there might not be a primary topic at all! I don't think we need a whole pilpul anymore as to which is the primary topic. Let's just compromise, leave the disambiguation page, and shalom al yisroel! -shirulashem^(talk) 20:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

ואגלי להון תרע תיובא ואחוינון דיהכון באורח שלם וקשוט

שלום על ישראל 84.109.104.170 (talk) 08:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Rabbi Olshin

Can someone help out on the page about Rabbi Yerucham Olshin. I believe he is notable enough to have a page but I don't have sources or info.Nerguy (talk) 02:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Jewish ceremonial art

After creating a page for the Lindo lamp, I realized that there was no category to put it in. So I created a category for Jewish ceremonial art. I also notices that Jewish ceremonial art had no page. Major museums collect Jewish art. major artists produce it. For many centuries, there was little art that was "Jewish" except for the extremely beautiful illuminated hagadot, beautifully molded kiddush cups, etc. Many of these objects and artists/craftsmen merit pages. But the page for the whole categlryof objects needs to be written and I welcome the participation of anyone with an interest in the topic. It doesn't seem like a bad Tisha b'Av project.Historicist (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Judaism's view of Jesus

Would appreciate someone with knowledge and a new perspective to help us craft the correct lede. Does Judaism have a reactive view of Jesus, a non-view of Jesus, a largely negative view, an indifferent one? Anyone have a clue? Kaisershatner (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC) I should add, please be willing to read the long talk section pertaining to this. There has been a lot of debate. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a very complex, nuanced issue. I will explain on the article's talk page. -shirulashem^(talk) 14:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Kind of a mixture of all the above -- which I'm addressing on the article talk page. See you there!SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Abraham Goldfaden

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Abraham Goldfaden/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hebrew Centuries and Hebrew Years

I was looking at the unreferenced articles list, and came across one for a Hebrew Century. The user User:Rickyrab has created a whole lot of article stubs (see [[Category:Hebrew_year_stubs]]) for both Hebrew Centuries and Hebrew Years, and I am not sure if they are required.

Obviously the folks in this project would be better judges of this, so I leave it to you for your consideration.

Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jewish history. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Alcohol in the Bible

I have done a GA Reassessment of the Alcohol in the Bible article as part of the GA Sweeps project. My reassessment can be found here. I have found that the article does not meet the current GA Criteria and as such I have placed it on hold for one week pending work. I am notifying all interested projects and editors of this in the hopes that an editor will come forth to work on the article. Should you have questions or concerns please contact me at my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Request: Outline of Judaism

Eu.stefan, has done an amazing job on the Outline of Buddhism.

See also Outline of Christianity, Outline of Islam, and Outline of Hinduism.

There's a big gap in the religion branch of the outline collection, as Judaism is not covered.

Is there someone here who is knowledgeable enough about Judaism to create an Outline of Judaism?

The Transhumanist 22:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for help

Could someone help with the development of an article on a group called "True Torah Jews" a google search of this term puts this group of orthodox jews at the top of the search (note that they are against zionism). There is not an article on this group in Wiki and would like to remove the redirect and start one, excellent Q & A section Please start research on Q & A first as other sections are alarming.Snettie (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Tower of Babel

Shouldn't Tower of Babel be added to this project? Debresser (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Divine providence (Judaism)

Just a quick note, the above was forked from Divine Providence, which was rated C-class and high importance. I added the project banner to the fork but placed it as Start class, making a call on whether the fork itself meets this project's C-Class guidelines is something I'd rather have the project itself make. Best, MLauba (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Help on The Bible and history

Two users, User:PiCo and User:Cush, are attempting to insert anti-Israel propaganda into The Bible and history ([2]).

Some choice selections:

was founded on the belief that Jews had lived in the land of "Israel" (a name found only in the bible by that time)

Factually untrue, and the placing of Israel in quotes demonstrates bias.

joint project of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society and the Va‘adat Shemot (Names Committee) to rename Arab Palestine according to the template of biblical Israel, replacing all Arabic place-names with Jewish names.

In most cases the Arabic names were corruptions of the original Hebrew names. In other cases, they were corruptions of Roman names which had been given to Jewish towns. For example, Shechem was called Neapolis by the Romans, and is now called Nablus by the Arabs. Ashdod was renamed Isdud by the Arabs. For a good overview and a chart of Ancient names vs. Modern Arabic names vs. Modern Hebrew names, see "Ancient Place Names in Israel", by Daniela Santus, University of Turin, Italy.

the settler movement, which justifies its encroachments on Palestinian lands

Use of the judgemental term "encroachment" and accusations without any support.

Some Palestinians have retaliated by arguing that they, and not the modern Jews, are the genuine descendants of the ancient inhabitants of the land

In other words, for the Palestinian Arabs, it's "retaliation". They are simply victims retaliating.

I'd appreciate it if some of you would drop by and help, both on the discussion page and on the article itself. -Lisa (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Someone (not me) has proposed a merge of Satan into Devil discuss at Talk:Satan#Satan_merged_into_Devil.3F. I am circulating this among relevant boards. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Your input would be appreciated

I'm having a flaring argument on Talk:Christianity_and_Judaism#Sin. For the sake of building consensus, please have a look and state your opinions and/or take action. Debresser (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Haredi vs "Ultra-Orthodox", again

Please see Talk:Modi'in Illit#Ultra-Orthodox/Haredi. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I offered my nuanced opinion there, even if I admit mine is not the majority point of view. Debresser (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:18, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

I've subscribed the WikiProject for Article Alerts. If everything works as it should, the alerts will be at Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Article alerts, and they should be updated daily. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

A reminder that's it's generally a good idea to give a link to the alerts from your main page. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Editor changing spellings being discussed at ANI

Could anyone who knows Hebrew spellings please look at this ANI discussion about Yaron Livne (talk · contribs)'s spelling changes? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Help needed

Bug at Template:YU Roshei Yeshiva. Chesdovi (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidate: First Roumanian-American congregation

First Roumanian-American congregation is a Featured Article Candidate. Comments welcome here. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yom - Tov Lipmann Heller's Biography

I was perusing through the pages here. I wanted to see what was going on with my 12th great grandfather's page and I saw a few glaring omissions, mistakes etc. For starters his name was Gershon Shaul Yom Tov Lipman. One of my cousin's went to his grave and did a lot of research, would it be an acceptable source? http://web.mac.com/lmort/Vivian_Kahn_Family_Website/R._Yom_Tov_Lipman_Heller.html --Saxophonemn (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That is something the Jewish world does not know about, but I guess we could use your cousins article, yes. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Debresser (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I have continued this discussion on the article's talk page, as it's more appropriate there. -shirulashem^(talk) 21:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Jews for Jesus

An editor has come along and purged almost the entire Jews for Jesus page, re-writing it in what the user states is a less POV way. but it is now ambiguous and somewhat sympathetic. The changes have all been made so quickly that no users have yet objected. I don't intend to get in an edit war trying to stave off the gross editing on my own. Any help appreciated. Best, A Sniper (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

As always, thank you Malik. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The editor in question has made a request at the neutrality board - all assistance appreciated in keeping that article's NPOV. Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Call for editors to help manage religion related content

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Coordination of activity. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

HELP NEEDED "The Bund On Wikipedia" Project

{{helpme}} I need help creating subpages for my proposed Task Force that will be on WikiProject Judaism and possibly WikiProject Organized Labour. Even when I read the directions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces, I can not figure out how to create it. Can someone help me? Thanks. --Eliscoming1234 (talk) 19:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"The Bund on Wikipedia" Project Task Force

--Eliscoming1234 (talk) 03:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Gedaliah

I was curious about the Fast of Gedalia which led me to Gedaliah's page. I was wondering if there are clearer dates for when Gedaliah lived to the time of assassination and if the article is suppose to be a biography of this biblical politician. Govvy (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Marc Garlasco

Hello Everyone. A big favour: There is a zealous effort at Marc Garlasco to purge all references to NGO Monitor. Without endorsing NGO Monitor, or having an opinion on the group one way or the other, the reason three users are attempting to have NGO Monitor purged as being unreliable is that the group offered criticism of Human Rights Watch's Garlasco and his anti-Israel bias, not to mention Garlasco as an avid collector of German/Nazi war memorabilia. If you check out the talk page you'll find a link to the move to purge NGO Monitor at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Thanks. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Robert Pinsky

Would somebody who actually cares about the issue care to debate the editor who is removing his jewishness from the lede? 98.248.33.198 (talk) 03:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I must admit I'm surprised - I thought somebody would have attended to this by now. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yom Yerushalayim

FYI, the page has been moved to Jerusalem Day for some odd reason, even though numerous move requests have already been turned down. Yossiea ^(talk) 13:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

CfD of possible interest

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_9#Category:Antisemitic_propaganda — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Semitic user?

I think there's a user making anti-Semitic edits. Who do I contact? --Silvestris (talk) 04:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you elaborate a little? Is the editor making antisemitic remarks on a Talk page directed at another editor (or any other person)? Do you think the editors' contributions suggest an antisemitic bias? Please provide a little more information. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's the user Soledad22. I think his edits suggest an anti-Semitic bias. Some examples: [3][4][5][6][7][8] --Silvestris (talk) 05:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all, try to assume good faith, even if it seems hard. Some of these edits seem solid to me (for example, the edit to Franz Boas: it's not appropriate for an encyclopedia to suggest that a scientist is like a Nazi). Others are questionable. Based on my review of some of Soledad22's other edits, though, I do wonder whether we have a white supremacist on our hands. (In one edit, she/he wrote the Aryan Brotherhood advocates "white solidarity" instead of "white supremacy".)

Okay. So how do you deal with an editor like this? When appropriate, revert her/his edits. Be sure that you're reverting to a version that is (a) supported by reliable sources and (b) in compliance with relevant Wikipedia policies, such as WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. If not, edit the article to improve the old version by taking out any OR and making it NPOV; add sources if necessary.

When you reverse Soledad22's edits, or anybody else's for that matter, you should explain why in the edit summary; better still, explain why on the Talk page as well. Be very careful not to revert more than 2 or 3 times in any 24-hour period; limiting yourself to 1 or 2 reverts is the best policy (see WP:3RR for details).

If you find that this isn't enough to resolve conflicts with Soledad22, there are several different ways you can proceed. But I suspect that this will probably keep her/him in check. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I find this a hard case. On the one hand these edits mainly try to achieve neutral language. And they make a good case for that. On the other hand, it is suspicious that this editor seems to be making few other edits. So far so good, but definitely something to keep an eye on. Debresser (talk) 06:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

So I basically agree with Malik Shabazz (as usual). I'd advise to refrain from undoing any edits past or future, even the less clear improvements, as long as they don't go blatantly the other way. After all, Wikipedia is a balance. Debresser (talk) 06:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hanukkah / Nayrot

Is there any verifiable information on Nayrot, a pre-Hanukkah solstice celebration? Here is what I found: [9], [10], [11], [12]. --Kalbasa (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Article that seems to be chock full of original research

Misuse of antisemitic accusations. Thoughts, AfD worthy? -- Avi (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Has anybody contacted the article's creator about using secondary sources? The article as it stands is a mess, but I think it's a notable subject. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies related to prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood. Somebody's POV is showing . -- Avi (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Holocaust_denial#this_is_an_absurd_article_and_should_be_removed.

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Holocaust_denial#this_is_an_absurd_article_and_should_be_removed.. Thank you. Nsaum75 (talk) 08:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

There's nothing to debate over. I've posted on ANI about this. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

anti-Semitic source may lead to anti-Semitic articles

There is a new AN/I thread watchers of this article may wish to see:[13] Slrubenstein | Talk 18:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Jewish philosophy

Could somebody take a look at the Jewish philosophy article? Compared to this edit [14] of 22 September, it has been growing hugely, and I'm not at all sure about the focus or tone of the new material. I suspect User:Jimharlow99 might need some mentoring on this, but that probably needs to be from somebody better qualified than me. Jheald (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is now beyond 200k and still growing. The latest additions include Samuel Ha-Nagid Gaonim discussed primarily in terms of who claims to be descended from him! What was previously a well-focussed, good and important article is being destroyed. Will nobody step in? Jheald (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The Thirteenth Tribe and Khazars

We have an editor who seems to be intent on magnifying a fringe POV and whitewashing the ridicule that established scholars have demonstrated for this fringe theory. More eyes on the following articles would be very helpful:

• The Thirteenth Tribe
• Khazars

-- Avi (talk) 05:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Can someone please take a look at the recent edits at Khazars? Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Another Jewish-related category eliminated

See discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_October_26#Category:Jewish_inventors. Badagnani (talk) 06:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC at The Holocaust

Because we were unable to reach a consensus at The Holocaust, an RfC has started there. The link is Talk:The Holocaust#RfC: Should "The Holocaust" be moved?. Singularity42 (talk) 13:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Animal rights and the Holocaust

Fresh eyes would be appreciated at Talk:Animal rights and the Holocaust/Archive 1#Category. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

List of religious organizations

Hi. The article List of religious organizations is in need of serious help. It was in an abandoned state and discussed for deletion, however I feel it has strong potential to become a useful list. But it needs lots of help and collaboration. Is someone of you interested? --Cyclopia^talk 23:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Shulchan Aruch

Can someone please explain to User:Gilabrand why the Shulchan Aruch is citable, because he/she just doesn't get it, and regards its viewpoints as mere trivia, to be deleted from articles as fluff. Newman Luke (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide some example so we can see what exactly is the subject of the debate before getting involved? --Bachrach44 (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I presume Newman Luke is talking about the rather heated exchange he and Gilabrand are having at Talk:Jewish wedding. I don't see where Gilabrand asserts that the Shulchan Aruch is not citable, however, he does rightly point out that it is a primary source and secondary sources are preferred. So far as his criticism of the writing style is concerned, this opening sentence: "A Jewish wedding is not merely a wedding that happens to involve Jews; Judaism has quite distinct traditions surrounding marriage." is, well, pretty bad. Having said that, I think both the talk page and the article could benefit from a little more light and less heat from knowledgeable editors. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Jewish-American labeling

I am not Jewish or a religious activist, just interested in fairness. According to a Google site search, all of these names are described in their intros as being a "Jewish-American businessman." I see, however, that in the Ivanka Trump article, she is just described as an "American businesswoman" and further down in the article that she is Jewish, having converted prior to her recent marriage. Shouldn't she be described as a "Jewish-American businesswoman" or, to be consistent, all the others revised to just "American businessman"? I defer to the experts on this. Thanks. 5Q5 (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Hebrew considered harmful?

A user on the page Jehovah has just removed all instances of the template {{Hebrew}}, which was being used there to wrap Hebrew text (it switches to a slightly larger Hebrew font, more appropriate to the size of WP's English text, and more readable).

Another user has supported this, citing this March 2008 discussion at WP:Help desk [15].

Should all instances of {{Hebrew}} now therefore be considered harmful? Or can this be worked round, and the more readable size of Hebrew text be restored? Jheald (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The size is fine. The mistake was that somebody removed the HTML coding. Debresser (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Soncino Talmud Links

Please see User talk:Dauster#Soncino Talmud Links. -- Avi (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Latin America

Request that other editors, perhaps an administrator, take a look at the Mexico and Puerto Rico sections of this article. The article has been tagged with needing citations but an editor, User:TruthRevealed33 (with little edit history), keeps insisting that each and every sentence in those sections needs to have a {{fact}} or {{dubious}} tag attached to it[16]. --Nsaum75 (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Merger question

I want to merge Tattenai and Tatnai, but I'm not sure which spelling to use as the main page. Help? Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the Encyclopedia Brittanice has Tattenai, I would stick with that. Debresser (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

A Google search also turns up 45,000 vs. 1,700 finds in favor of Tattenai. Debresser (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Done--thanks! Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for help

Howdy, In trying to brush up Lipa Schmeltzer I added an infobox and I can't figure out what is wrong with it. I also added a bunch of sources on the talk page that can be used to flesh out a very sad little article. I've got to get back to work or I'd do it myself. Joe407 (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done Debresser (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Solomon's Temple

Could someone please take a look at Talk:Solomon's Temple#"in Jerusalem"? I've asked a question there about the wording of the article, and so far the only answer I've gotten is from someone who I suspect knows less than I do. - Jmabel | Talk 20:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems

Resolved

to me. Debresser (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Cush is insisting that the term temple applies to the Mishkan, and in fact any place where people worship is called a temple, and therefore, Solomon's temple is not the "first" of the two temple's. He does not agree that in Judaism there were only two Holy Temple's. While he is correct that other places may be called a temple (a synagogue for example may be called a Mikdash), there needs to be a clear distinction made on WP between the Batei Mikdashot of which there were only two, and other places of worship called "temple". Shlomke (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The Nathan, son of David article

Hi, the Nathan (son of David) article has seen a lot of attention from an editor (or group of editors) with very particular views on the subject. The 'Jewish Interpretations' section is, in essence, a very convoluted and unencyclopedic 'essay' about, well, it's hard to tell, frankly. I don't know what to make of it, so I figured that I'd make mention of it here. Knyght27 (talk) 08:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Good call, I think. I've pruned it... almost to ground level! Feline Hymnic (talk) 11:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Marriageable age in Judaism

This article has been placed for deletion (not by me). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marriageable age in Judaism. Newman Luke (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Judaism: not just a religion

For over six months, the Judaism article has said:

Judaism (from the Greek Ioudaïsmos, derived from the Hebrew יהודה, Yehudah, "Judah";[1] in Hebrew: יַהֲדוּת, Yahedut, the distinctive characteristics of the Judean ethnos)[2] is a set of beliefs and practices originating in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), as later further explored and explained in the Talmud and other texts.

This was true

• a month ago[17]
• two months ago[18]
• three months ago[19]
• four [20]
• five months ago [21]
• more than six months ago[22].

This is what I below refer to as the consensus version.

On November 9, Navanlos changed "set of beliefs and practices" to "religion."

On the Talk page, she provided this explanation:

• "The reason for the change was just for the sake of uniformity and matching other big religion articles such as Christianity and Islam."

I do not think this is a good enough reason to change consensus. I also do not think that discussion over the course of one day is enough to change consensus. Finally, I think a change in consensus should invluve the use of reliable sources.

I provide as complete an explanation of my pattern of consistent reverts as possible on the talk page here. The simplest reasons are:

• Judaism is unlike Christianity and Islam in that it refers both to a nationality and a religion. To understand Judaism one must understand why these two elements are inextricable. But in this regard Judaism is quite unlike Christianity or Islam
• I provide three sources. One is from a historian who says that Judaism during the Hellenic period referred to many things besides religion. Another is from a theologian who says that the observant Jew ("Halackic man," one who observes Jewish law) shoud not be characterized as the "religious man." The third is from a theologian who argues that Judaism is not a religion but a "civilization."

There is a long history of reverts. I would rather not continue this revert war. I would rather have a discussion informed by sources. But Navnlos and Sniper have refused any attempt at discussion. There attitude is just that "it's obvious" and so my views doi not merit any kind of consideration.

I appreciate input from others Slrubenstein | Talk 03:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: I now saw that the proper place for discussion about this subjet is probably Talk:Judaism#Page_protected. Please post there. Debresser (talk) 06:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles in need of attention

Articles in need of attention:

• Safek Brakha Daoraita
• Birkhot Hanehanin

These articles are written in the style of a Pilpul Shiur. I would propose deletion but the author put in a tremendous amount of work, so I'd like to hear what others think. Shlomke (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Someone already went ahead and nominated one of them, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safek Brakha Daoraita. IZAK (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD for CD on Terezin Music

Hi ... just fyi, there is an AfD now for consideration of deletion of an article on a CD with the music of Terezin, here.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge

I just suggested that Jewsweek be merged to Benyamin Cohen. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Genetics article title?

Should this be Medical genetics of Jews or Medical genetics of Jewish people? Which do people prefer? Tim Vickers (talk) 03:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggst the latter. This is about as subjective as one can get, but my sense is: Jews use the word "Jews" when referring to one another/themselves, but don't like it when non-Jews use the word; Jews prefer non-Jews to use the word "Jewish." A big generalization, too, but this has been my experience. Maybe like in some families where you refer to your father as "daddy" but use the word "father" when talking to people who are not members of the family. The two words mean the same thing but are used by different people in different contexts. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that fits with what other people have told me as well. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Illness among Jews

Possible merge? Opinions here please. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Jewish Museum

Please help convert Jewish Museum from list to article. It is very useful to have a series of articles defining each of the types of museums. Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 12:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

But it is a disambiguation page, meant to have the format of a list and not an article. Debresser (talk) 12:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for a Conservative opinion

Howdy, I just added a section to the article Religious response to ART addressing the views of the Conservative Jewish movement. Can someone here fact check it for me or maybe offer additional input from the perspective of the conservative movement? Not being in the movement limits my perspective and knowledge. Thank you, Joe407 (talk) 06:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Five current Judaism AFDs

Please see:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bashert
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child marriage in Judaism
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forbidden relationships in Judaism
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illness among Jews
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marriageable age in Judaism

Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• FYI:
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bashert (the result was merge to Shidduch -- not an accurate resolution because the term "Bashert" relates to the broader concept of Divine providence (Judaism).)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child marriage in Judaism (the result was merge somewhere. It's now a redirect to Jewish views of marriage#Child marriage, which is accurate enough.)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forbidden relationships in Judaism (the result was keep but with proviso of "closing this AFD as "keep" does not mean consensus is against merging anything anywhere", thus Arayot was merged and redirected to this.)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illness among Jews (the result was no consensus, now renamed as Medical genetics of Jewish people.)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marriageable age in Judaism (the result was merge to Jewish views of marriage#Child marriage which is accurate.) IZAK (talk) 10:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Make it six: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish fundamentalism -Lisa (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

From below Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mishk'vei ishah -- Avi (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Judaism should have all sorted Judaism related AFD's. Yossiea ^(talk) 19:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no harm in listing notifications here if editors wish to and want to make the effort, it's simply a short cut to a broader discussion, and often there is follow-up editing to do after those AfD's like merging articles and incoroprating materials. From experience it seems that not all editors are that dilligent to moniter both sections. IZAK (talk) 10:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to thank IZAK for listing AFD's here. Many folks do not keep a watch on AFD listing but do visit this page. Joe407 (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Mishk'vei ishah

Complex new article Mishk'vei ishah, spun off from Leviticus 18 article, that gives it a Hebrew name but relies almost entirely on modern scholarship, needs input. See talk page there. IZAK (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mishk'vei ishah -- Avi (talk) 08:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The final decision was Delete. All material from this article inserted into other related articles was later removed as well and the original material that was removed by Newman Luke (talk · contribs)'s controversial edits were re-inserted. IZAK (talk) 10:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeshiva's

Howdy, Over the past half a year I've been making an effort to improve a lot of the articles about yeshivot. I've seen many of them that burn 3 paragraphs or more explaining what is a standard yeshiva curriculum and daily routine. And they all act as if they are the WP article about Yeshivas. Should I leave Carteret_Yeshiva or Mesoras Mordechai (just examples) as is with it's lengthy descriptions of yeshiva life and yeshiva learning or should these be cut down to "Hey! This is a yeshiva!" and let people click on the wiki-link? Joe407 (talk) 04:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Cut down, for the obvious reason you mentioned that it is redundant. Debresser (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that it depends on what they're writing. To just describe, like the yeshiva article does, that there are three zmanim, or about iyun vs. b'kiyus, etc. or to write out the daily schedule does seem unnecessary. On the other hand, every Yeshiva considers itself unique in certain aspects, and even if those differences are relatively minute, they should be respected. Also I think its fair to allow a brief summary of what the curriculum covers, without going into details. Just my opinion.Geshmakster (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Anybody knew that some call "b'kius" - "gersoh"? Debresser (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The only phrase I will take issue with is "considers itself unique". With WP, I would like to see some (at least) quasi-objective statement of uniquness. If my yeshiva learns Gittin or Shabbos I don't think that is particularly notable. On the other hand if my yeshiva learns Chulin and focuses on training shochtim - that is notable!

The article on Chofetz Chaim yeshivos has a section titled Characteristics. There, while it does not bring sources, the article does explain why the yeshiva(s) are unique and deserve an article in an encyclopedia. Another example is Yeshivat Har Etzion which explains its value system as it's notability. Otherwise, I feel that we do not need to read about "morning seder is ________ given by Rabbi _____" Joe407 (talk) 01:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: This edit is an experiment in reducing the need for every yeshiva to reiterate the same curriculum as every other yeshiva. I put in a link to the main article, Yeshiva, for those who want to read more. I am doing this in the hope that it will force people writing about yeshivos to focus on the notability and uniqueness of each yeshiva and not just fill up space or use WP to advertise their institution.

Please offer any thoughts or comments on this effort and any suggestions or help towards improvement would be great. Joe407 (talk) 06:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

YeshivaWorldNews

I added a RFC at the WP:RS noticeboard for YWN. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#YeshivaWorldNews Yossiea ^(talk) 01:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge post AfD

Could someone who knows the topic carry out the merge of Bedikah cloth into Niddah? Ta. Fences&Windows 01:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bedikah cloth, this article was REDIRECTED and ALL content MERGED, kept and inserted at Niddah#Checking by bedikah. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I have made some minor additions, based on my knowledge as a rabbi. Debresser (talk) 10:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Fences&Windows 17:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC Second Temple

An RfC regarding which archaeological categories the Second Temple should fall under is currently underway here. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 10:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there a consenseus here?

I would like to see if we can achieve a consensus as to primary, secondary, and tertiary reliable sources, and update the manual of style accordingly.

Acccording to WP:PRIMARY, any "religious scripture" is a primary source. I would like to exclude from wp:Judaism comparisons between Judaism and other religions. I also believe that the trunk that units the branches of Judaism is the tanach.

I propose that apochrichal works and other works not canonized by the Anshei Knesset HaGedola, are not to be considered primary sources in relation to WikiProject Judaism.

Secondary sources rely for their facts and opinions on reliable primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources if they have been published by a reliable secondary source.

In my opinion, the material discussed in the article Rabbinic literature should be considered reliable secondary source material.

Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias or other compendia that mainly summarize secondary sources. For example, Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source. Tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources.

In my opinion, The F&W Jewish Encyclopedia and the Eisenstein compendia (not yet available in english) are reliable tertiary sources. The Encyclopedia Talmudit (Vol.1 is available in english) is reliable, but copyright issues are unclear to me.

WP:Verifiability#Reliable sources describes the criteria for assessing the reliability of sources. Articles and posts on Wikipedia, or on websites that mirror its content, may not be used as sources. Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebele (talk • contribs) 14:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Tubalcain

At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#Suggest an article for Tubalcain (currently a disambig) it has been suggested that Tubalcain be given his own article. I have to agree that based on what little I know of the subject that there seems to be enough material to start one, including the speculation that he might simply be Cain under another name. I am currently adding what information I can readily find to the his entry in List of minor Biblical figures#Tubalcain, but would appreciate any help or input on the subject. John Carter (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

How can there possibly be speculation that someone explicitly described as the descendant of another person is that other person? - - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That actually happens rather a lot in mythological stories, which some regard this as. The story in one group is altered a bit, including giving a slightly different family tree, by another group, and some third party comes along later and tries to reconcile the two. But I do remember reading in some biblical commentary that there was thought that they might be the same person. In any event, I only mentioned that as one item relative to the subject. If anyone would be interested in helping develop the content in the list to the point where it could be spun out, I think we would all welcome it. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Moral agency in Judaism

This article came up at DYK, but we'd like to have some people more versed in Jewish matters have a look at it. The article relies on the Jewish Encyclopedia, which is quite a bit out of date, and on primary sources. In addition, I think the title doesn't accurately reflect the subject matter. Ucucha 00:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Problem editor?

Newmanyb (talk · contribs) is editing numerous articles. Now I understand why he is changing 'Old Testament' to Hebrew Bible', but he is also changing 'Genesis' to Hebrew Bible, changing quotes (eg Lord to YHWH when the cited source says Lord), etc. I've asked him to use edit summaries but he's ignored that and continued editing. Could someone please take a look at his edits and see if they see a problem or if I'm just misunderstanding what he's doing (although he still needs to use edit summaries). Thanks. I'll notify him of this discussion. Dougweller (talk) 09:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Nefesh B'Nefesh needs your help

Our article on Nefesh B'Nefesh (organization that encourages Jewish people from North America and the United Kingdom to emigrate to Israel) could use attention from Project members. It contains a lot of content that seems dangerously close to adspam, and should probably be somewhat re-organized (for example, it has separate section headings for many different aspects of the organization which should probably be combined or omitted unless the article becomes rather larger). Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Please keep an eye on Żydokomuna

There appears to be some whitewashing going on. -- Avi (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, many editors of the Polish-Jewish articles as well many of articles relating to Jewish history and life in Eastern Europe have been prone to whitewashing articles in open frenzies of Historical revisionism and often outright lies of which they serve as conscious live prime examples all over Wikipedia for years already. They are a tiresome and belligerent bunch constantly violating WP:WAR; WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND; WP:NOR; WP:NOTMADEUP and more. IZAK (talk) 05:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Dov Hikind

A user is going through Dov Hikind and other related persons adding a charge of censorship for having American Express revoke the merchant agreement of David Irving, and going to David Irving's page and adding a "victim" of censorship blurb. Yossiea ^(talk) 14:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

In semi-related news, the user created an article called Financial Censorship, which is now up for AFD, I believe he put Dov Hikind and others, into that category. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Financial_Censorship#Financial_Censorship Yossiea ^(talk) 18:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Template need?

Is there a need for a template for articles whose titles indicate that they are discussing "Judaism's view" on a topic but are primarily based on secular sources? Something along the lines of "This article represents the secular Jewish view and may not accurately represent the traditional Jewish view"? I am concerned that many people may be coming to wikipedia to understand the traditional point of view and that is often missing or not accurately represented, in my opinion. Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, what about when I see an article written from the point of view of the Fullerbuller Chassidim, and I don't think they are traditional, so I put that template on the article as well? I think it's a good idea, but there obviously is cause for concern. I am almost positive, there would be some misuse of the template.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yossiea (talk • contribs) 13:22, November 30, 2009

For the record, using a pejorative name to as a representative name for an Hasidic dynasty is completely uncalled for. Please strike that. -- Avi (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I just meant that there might be some misuse if for example a litvak thinks an article is written by a YU guy or a YU guy tags an Israeli entry by a Chardal guy. But I do think it's a nice idea but it is open to misuse. (I'm not calling any chassidim fullerbullers, I am surprised you never heard of the term. Now I'm running through all the names in my head to see which ones you think I'm referencing.) Yossiea ^(talk) 19:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Would phrasing the lead in such a way as to make it clear that the article deals with secular Jews rather than religious views, and maybe categorizing them as such, fill the same purpose? John Carter (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned more by articles such as the ones Newman Luke (talk · contribs) has been creating recently, which purport to explain Judaism's view on a given subject, but more often than not use secular encyclopedias as their sources with little to no mention of the classical Jewish sources. I do not argue that the views put forth by more modern scholars have their place in each article; I am concerned that an uninformed reader will think that the views listed (e.g. Dr. So-and-So from the university of Heidleberg) represent the traditional Jewish view and its development from Biblical times until now. Personally, I think many of these articles are too detailed for Wikipedia, but as long as we aregoinf to discuss Jewish views of a topic, we 1) should ignore neither the traditional nor the modern perspectives, but we should ensure that there is no confusion between the two either. -- Avi (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, Wiki is not Jewfaq. The issue is coming up with a template that is NPOV and will pass muster. (perhaps labeling the article academic, instead of secular might be easier.) Yossiea ^(talk) 19:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; but for WP:NPOV purposes, we should not unintentionally misrepresent various opinions as universal in the cases which they are not; that is all. -- Avi (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yossiea, why wouldn't "Chassidim" be "traditional?" Bus stop (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Bus stop, minhagim that began only 200 years or so ago may not be considered traditional when looking at the 2000 years or so of halakhic development, at least I think that is what Yossi is driving at. -- Avi (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Correct, and also, it might lead to some opinions not being called halachic based on the person doing the tagging. Although the more I think about it, the less chance I see of this happening with halachic articles. Yossiea ^(talk) 19:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Avi, I would equate traditional with being basically observant which Chassidim basically are. Bus stop (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, my concern was that a kalte litvak might not think so and tag it, but I don't think it'll actually happen so I'm not that concerned about YWN vs. VIN fights on Wikipedia. Yossiea ^(talk) 19:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Bus stop, Being that there are dozens and dozens of strains of Observant Jews today, "traditional" should reflect something that is observed by the vast majority, if not all. For example, not eating gebrokts is mainly a Hasidic tradition (and the Kaminetzky family, of course) and the non-eating of it on Pesach woyld not be considered traditional, whereas the prohibition against chometz on Pesach, which has been in force for millenia and is stil observed by ALL observant Jews, should be considered "tradtional". Does that make sense to you? -- Avi (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Note, that in an article section discussing Hasidic tradition, then non-eating of gebrokts SHOULD be traditional, as IIRC, almost all Hasidim abide by it (except for Acaron Shel Pesach, but now we're getting too detailed.) -- Avi (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I was just asking for the purpose of clarification. One observation I would make is that it seems "traditional" is yet one more word in the lexicon of the not-quite-perfectly-defined terms in use in these sort of contexts. Bus stop (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

A template isn't necessary as long as sections are properly headed "Academic" or the like; the key here is to properly represent what is in the article. -- Avi (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

A one word heading is a step in the right direction. It may be even more helpful to more fully indicate the sort of perspective that the following paragraph is intended to be based on in a short but descriptive sentence. Bus stop (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

There are articles, the Kabbalah article is the example I know best, where the traditional and academic views are mixed together in a way that makes things very confusing. I was never able to think of a good way to separate the two, but it would help if such a way to separate them could be found. 173.52.187.133 (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• In my opinion such a template is not needed. If needed we can always use the regular {{POV}} template, and explain the matter on the talk page. Debresser (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with Debresser. In any case, the correct procedure in an article is not to create a mixture of all views in violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, but each serious notable view on any subject within any article must be outlined accurately. Hence there should be sub-headings for "Classical perspective"; "Orthodox perspective"; "Reform perspective"; "Secular perspective" etc etc etc. Many articles need the {{Cleanup}} and {{Article issues}} templates more than anything else. Finally, if people really want the absolute "Orthodox only" view they should NOT be coming to find it on Wikipedia, but rather they should seek out a local Orthodox rabbi/synagogue/outreach program/yeshiva to get that because Wikipedia gathers all views and it so happens to be that because of Judaism's long and complex history there are many varying serious and notable views on almost every subject within it. There are no easy solutions, and every editor must be prepared to raise the level of accuracy in each article.IZAK (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, but we need to be careful to identify the notable views as to their provenance, and not unintentionally misrepresent academic perspectives as the traditional or more modern denominational perspective. -- Avi (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Agreed! One of the greatest problems that some editors have is that they fail to follow the guidelines of WP:SYNTH especially in this regard, and most are ignorant of some fundamental rules in scholarship of knowing the difference between primary sources and secondary sources and that the latter do not trump or over-rule the former in terms of presentation and priorities. Thus if writing an article about any topic in the Tanakh or in the Talmud or in Halacha, the first and foremost priority is to express and state what that primary source states in and of itself, following the natural main line of Jewish scholarship as expressed in and by the Tanakh+Mishnah+Talmud+Rishonim+Acharonim+Shulkhan Arukh without imposing on it latter-day POV interpretations without first clearly delineating what those primary sources actually state. IZAK (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

79 new images from the Jewish Museum (New York)

FYI, Category:Wikipedia Loves Art at the Jewish Museum (New_York). Please help integrate these new images into Wikipedia articles. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

new article Kehilla (modern)

Please review. It seems unfinished and otherwise not sure if it refers to a specific or general framework. --Shuki (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Conjugal obligations and rights in Judaism

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conjugal obligations and rights in Judaism, more POV-pushing by User Newman Luke (talk · contribs) depicting Judaism in negative lights. IZAK (talk) 08:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think its rather badly behaved of you to present the link in anything other than a neutral way. WP:MEATPUPPET expressly forbids this.Newman Luke (talk) 05:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review of Mishk'vei ishah

Seems that User Newman Luke (talk · contribs) cannot let go as he institutes a "deletion review." Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 30#Mishk'vei ishah. (Original AfD result was to Delete, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mishk'vei ishah.) IZAK (talk) 09:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think its rather badly behaved of you to present the link in anything other than a neutral way. WP:MEATPUPPET expressly forbids this. Newman Luke (talk) 05:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Newman Luke

I am becoming very concerned about this user's edits. They seem to consistently have personal opinion/research woven into them and they substitute accepted traditional sources with non-traditional ones when explaining the traditions themselves without clarifying the difference. I will inform the user of this note, but I believe that the user may have an ulterior motive in his or her edits, and they bear watching. I am still uncertain if an RfC is called for, but I would like the opinions of other people who spend a lot of time on Judaism articles. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 03:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

This is almost frightening; Newman Luke believes that the New Testament is a valid source for articles discussing Judaism's view on a topic. Please see the edit summary here! -- Avi (talk) 04:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The New Testament is a valid source for information about the first century. Just like any other thing written in the first century. To discount it is just blatent pov. Jesus was a Jew, allegedly, so too was, at least at first, Paul. Their views are Jewish views, from the first century, just like Josephus is for slightly later, and Hillel and Shammai for slightly earlier. As it happens the only reason I put those references in is because the source article on the Jewish Encyclopedia had them in.

But for you to regard it as frightening is a really bad demonstration of bad faith, and your own willingness to put your personal view above neutrality.

Furthermore, your attempt to call for WP:STALKING is really very much against the spirit of wikipedia. Therefore....Newman Luke (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Newman Luke, but the New Testament was written by a generally anti-Judaic group—including Paul—whose portrait of first-century Jewish practices and beliefs cannot be relied upon. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Please go and read Jewish Christians (the historic meaning of that term), and Ebionites, and you'll realise that generally anti-Judaic is not a universally accepted point of view by any means.

Also, I'd say that in terms of professional historians, a source from the 1st century is somewhat more reliable than one from the 5th, even if the 1st century one is dubious. But that's irrelevant. The citation is made by the Jewish Encyclopedia, a professional encyclopedia, which clearly thought that these cites from the New Testament were valid here. Newman Luke (talk) 05:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

With the possible exception of the author of Matthew, the New Testament writers were not Jewish Christians or Ebionites (both groups fell out of favor when Paul turned the Jesus sect within Judaism into the new religion of Christianity). And none of the authors of the New Testament were professional historians. So what exactly is your point? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what the specifics are of this discussion, but the Bible is not considered here - Wikipedia that is - as a reliable source for historical events. If it's being used as one, it shouldn't be. Dougweller (talk) 06:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Newman, when will you stop personlizing the discussions and deal with the real issues at hand which is your clearly-stated intention to totally obliterate any views you don't like, particularly if you suspect they may be coming from an "Orthodox" perspective as you have made abundantly clear again and again on your talk page and elsewhere, as an example please review User talk:Newman Luke#What do you mean by this? and more. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 05:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

MfD

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#User talk:Newman Luke/Editnotice. -- Avi (talk) 15:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Avraham

I am growing concerned that this user is utterly unwilling to obey WP:NPOV, by insidiously attempting to attack anyone who upholds it, if by doing so it fails to censor things that Avraham finds uncomfortable. I believe that the user may have an ulterior motive in his or her edits, and they bear watching. I am still uncertain if an RfC is called for, but I would like the opinions of other people who spend a lot of time on Judaism articles. Thank you. Newman Luke (talk) 05:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I can haz cheeseburger? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

In plain English, please, not slang. Newman Luke (talk) 05:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me a smile, Newman. -- Avi (talk) 05:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps somebody can give this guy a kick, and kick him off Wikipedia? Debresser (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• User Avraham (talk · contribs) (Avi) has a sterling reputation on Wikipedia. He is unfailingly polite and fair, and has gained the respect of mainnstream Wikipedians to become an admin because he is reponsible, hard working and abides by all the rules of Wikipedia. On the other hand, User Newman Luke (talk · contribs) is prone to undertake a variety of demeaning WP:NPA when he does not get his way, and even resorts to attacks on streams of Judaism, such as Orthodoxy, that he openly and shamelessly has needlessly scorned and denigrated, as discussed at User talk:Newman Luke#What do you mean by this?. IZAK (talk) 05:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Image identification?

Unknown symbol

I just moved a bunch of images to Commons, and one of them was a photo of an unknown symbol in Pittsburgh's Hill District. The uploader was unsure of its meaning and speculated that it was a Jewish symbol, possibly some for of the Star of David. I'm not convinced. Is anyone here familiar with this symbol?--Blargh29 (talk) 06:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like something inspired by a Star of David, but is likely to be nothing more than ornamental. Debresser (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Kosher salt? Koshering salt?

Before someone gets themselves blocked for a really stupid edit war, I'd appreciate some calm and well-considered discussion at Talk:Kosher_salt#Page_move_warring. --Dweller (talk) 13:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Synod of Mainz (Jewish) article

There is a new article about the Synod of Mainz (Jewish) in 1233, by User Newman Luke (talk · contribs). Particulalrly bothersome is the concern that it may well be that the sole purpose this article was posted from the Jewish Encyclopedia is because it contians a Takkana that was supposedly stated at the height of the murderous Christian Crusades (to restore Christian control of the Holy Land were fought over a period of nearly 200 years, between 1095 and 1291) that requests "that no Jew should show bad faith toward a Christian, nor be guilty of counterfeiting" that from experience with User Newman Luke, he may twist it around and then falsely allege that "aha, you see, Jews were showing 'bad faith' to Christians" with no word of the historical context and climate of fear and danger at the time that this was at a time in history when Jews were being mercilessly killed by the tens of thousands by marrauding Crusaders. Would it be possible to review it in order to ensure that it adheres to both the views of Judaism and to WP:NPOV of history. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have both moved and completely re-written with a modern secondary source and encompassing the many synods of the times. Of course more work, and further appropriate sources are always helpful. Please see Takkanot Shum and its talk page for more. - Avi (talk) 08:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Zealot Temple Siege

Requesting an article assessment for the Zealot Temple Siege article. Thank you. Noraft (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Chabad 12 year old user

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Per wikipedia policy regarding self-disclosure of personal identification of a minor, I have oversighted the diffs. The race, creed, gender, or background of the child is irrelevant for this purpose. Further discussion of various editors' issues with other editors or background—real or imagined—may be discussed elsewhere. -- Avi (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Something to be concerned about: Please take a look at this User:Hayesgenius, a twelve year old Chabad-Lubavitch child editor on Wikipedia, in his edit history [23] he leaves information about who he is and what he's doing in violation of WP:NOTMYSPACE for a start. Looks like a troubling development. In your professional opinions and as a Wikipedians do you think it's safe and correct and SANE for kids to get involved like this, even post their personal pics in violation of WP:NOTFACEBOOK? Will Chabad now send even 12 year olds to the Wikipedia "front lines" because many of them are online so much? This needs some guidance and guidelines. Please take a look. IZAK (talk) 03:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

IZAK, please consider dropping your jihad against Chabad. It reflects very poorly on you.

Many new editors make the mistake of revealing too much information about themselves. A fair number of editors, including some admins, have pictures of themselves on their User pages. There are also a good number of editors who are minors.

What we've got is a young editor who, in his own words, "got an account on Wikipedia in order edit Chabad, jewish or any articles that need some cleanup." You should be welcoming him to this WikiProject, not talking about him like he's some sort of enemy. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Malik, there is no battle and he is certainly not an enemy. I have not addressed any comments to him, I am seeking consensus from ADULTS who should show responsibility. This is a kid, nothing to do with the topic of Chabad. Does Wikipedia need his pre-Bar-Mitzva photo uploaded at File:Sholom Myers.jpg? IZAK (talk) 04:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

If there's no battle, why are there "front lines"?

Does Wikipedia need three pictures of User:Jpgordon and two of his dog? Editors are given a lot of leeway in terms of what they can put on their User pages. In fact, WP:USERPAGE specifically mentions photos as something permitted on User pages. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Malik, are you saying that I am killing people now, because that is what Jihad is about? If so that is a HUGE violation of WP:AGF, WP:NPA, literal violation of WP:WAR and a pure libel. Withdraw it and grow up. IZAK (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

If this has nothing to do with the topic of Chabad, then why did you put "Chabad 12 year old user" as the header and "Will Chabad now send even 12 year olds to the Wikipedia "front lines" because many of them are online so much?".

He's online for nearly a year. What made you so worried about his pre-Bar-Mitztva photo now? I see a pattern here. Shlomke (talk) 05:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Um Shlomke, ever heard of sechel and achrayus? It will be evident what my over-all concern is soon, in the meantime, I came across it now, so it worries me that a parent thinks it's ok for his 12 year old son (actually he was 11 when he started) to post his name and that of his father, it's in the kid's edit history, upload pics of himself and his father, puts a "Chabad rabbis" tag on his page, and everyone thinks this is normal and ok? This is coming from a Chabad 12 year old, I didn't make that up, so that is what he is, I don't edit Hindu or Muslim articles, but if I came across an 11 or 12 year editing there, I would be worried about the kid and his online safety and speak up about it, I think he should be blocked and told to go home and learn some Chumash and Mishnayos and says Chitas and help his mother and siblings and not hang around in a dangerous place online, not to mention the credibility of his work. I would certainly not be pointing fingers at the responsible adult who speaks up and gets shot down for doing so. Is this a kindergarten we are running here or building a mature online encyclopedia? Do you think it's ok that this Chabad kid is allowed to make a joke out of Wikipedia. Would you let him edit Chabad.org or any other Chabad site or blog? What would you think of Chabad.org if you knew a 12 year old had tampered with it? You'd say it's fine or you'd try to get help for the kid and get him away from the cyber-controls? Think it over. IZAK (talk) 06:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Block him until his bar-mitzva.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Izak, AFAIK there is no policy against teens editing WP. If that is all that worries you, you can call up his father and tell him what he is doing. You still did not answer the question though, if this has nothing to do with the topic of Chabad, then why did you put "Chabad 12 year old user" as the header and "Will Chabad now send even 12 year olds to the Wikipedia "front lines" because many of them are online so much?". On the contrary, if you were worried about his privacy you wouldn't point editors to his contribs where he posts private info about himself, that has already been removed by another editor. Shlomke (talk) 06:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

He created the bio about himself and we have to deal with it. His father thinks it's great or does he not know? The kid is 11 or 12, he's a minor you know, and BOTH his parents are legally responsble for him. What do his grandparents and rebbeim think, that he should be doing this? If he was my child or student he would be in trouble. He is not an invisible ghost, it's the result of his own doing. I'm addressing myself here to the Jewish talk section and to two Jewish admins. He is from Chabad, he gives his name and his father's, it's in his edit history and he uploaded pics of himself and his Chabad rabbi father. He says he learns with Chabad online and it's known that Chabad kids spend more time learning Torah online than from any other groups, especailly from shluchim in far off places. This one kid could invite in his entire army ("Tzivos" as Chabad calls them) of friends, and presto Wikipedia will have 3,000 Chabad kiddy and teen editors overnight ranging in age from 5 upwards. Would Chabad.org let 3,000 Chabad kids from age 5 and up be editors on it? This is a bad development for many reasons, for both Chabad and for Wikipedia -- do you want all those Chabad kids to read the million and one articles about every zenus, sinas Yisroel, to'eiva, krumkeit, apikursus, kefira, avoda zora and davar assur etc etc etc that only mature adults should be able to handle? And do you want Wikipedia to be flooded by kids who have NO objectivity and will write the lesson of that day they learned in online cheder? Do you think that is normal? How dare you question anyone responsible who is thinking rationally and logically, when this is an absurd and irrational situation, like a kid who is allowed to roam on the (cyber) streets (of the information super HIGHWAY) under-age, no evident adult supervision, with (cyber) predators and real antisemites all around, in the dark far away from home and the parents are not called on it, and you make it sound like it's "wrong" to question the whole meshugas of it? Only Chabad is commited to its kids learning online on such a global POV scale and therefore the name of Chabad cannot be left out because this kid does not come alone and unattached he is a product of something far bigger and more complicated. If you cannot grasp that, what can I do. It is the Chabad editors who should call up his father and yank the kid off Wikipedia before he makes a bigger laughing stock of both Chabad and Wikipedia. IZAK (talk) 07:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Your long and drawn out responses don't help you much. If you're worried about the teen then it has nothing to do with Chabad. He hasn't even edited in two months. The fact that you made this a Chabad issue shows what your really up to. You have a huge problem with Chabad right now and are doing anything to put them in a bad light. BTW, did you say "How dare you"? You have some temper. Shlomke (talk) 07:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Very funny. You don't like short responses, you don't like long responses, in fact in any way I will respond you will not like it, you have made up your mind that I am some sort of "enemy" when I am striving for simple fairness and WP:NPOV and to stop the obvious, blatant, even reckless and haughty pro-Chabad POV drift that has gone on long enough. And yes, when it comes to the safety of an 11 or 12 year old boy who has been reckless enough, due to his childish immaturity, to post his life on Wikipedia, I do say, how dare you be so flippant about the life of an innocenet child and just carry on with your pointless defenses. If you knew about this child's page for a year already and you let it slide by, then that is not responsible behavior. In fact Debresser helped to fix the kid's page up, even as he questioned his title as so young a "rabbi" -- is that the kind of bedlam and silliness you wish to see Wikipedia descend to? I have said what I have to say and don't be so stubborn. IZAK (talk) 08:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No Izak, it's not funny at all. I appreciate responses that are short and to the point, like most editors do when using this page. I haven't made up my mind about anything about you, and certainly not that your an enemy (the fact that you think in these terms once again shows what you're up to). I don't like repeating myself: Your motive here is obviously not about the teens safety or you would have left out the part about Chabad. This is blatantly obvious to anyone reading your post. Shlomke (talk) 13:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I have finally posted User:IZAK on WP:ANI. This post and the accusation in it, is what filled the cup for me. Debresser (talk) 12:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

@IZAK: Please see essay WP:CHILD. When someone self-identifies as a child and posts personally identifying information, please try to avoid posting threads such as this one that bring attention to this information. Since you've already contacted an administrator (Jayjg), I suggest leaving it up to him to handle the situation. Since you say the information is in the edit history, maybe no action is needed except avoiding mentioning it anywhere else. If you're still concerned and want to take more action, I suggest emailing an administrator or oversighter, to avoid posting any more messages on-wiki that would draw attention to the information. Other than privacy concerns as described in the essay I linked to, users are permitted to post a reasonable amount of information about themselves on their userpages: that's quite usual on Wikipedia; see Wikipedia:User page. I hope people will try to avoid linking to this thread. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm more concerned that Izak seems unaware that minors are welcome on Wikipedia as editors with the same rights as anybody else; as a matter of policy, Wikipedia does not discriminate on grounds of age. Belittling the efforts of teenage editors is certainly not civil, but then Izak has left civility in the dust long ago. I also remind people that there is no policy about how much personal information a minor may post, and there is no policy against pictures. Admins may exercise judgment on a case-by-case basis, and in this case Avraham seems to have done so for reasons best known to him; but there was no a priori reason to raise the issue. And why are we discussing this here, anyway? What has it got to do with this project? I propose that this entire section be deleted as irrelevant. -- Zsero (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove previous section?

I propose that the discussion immediately above this one be deleted from this page. It is irrelevant to the project, and always was, and was started here for a disruptive purpose. If this proposal is accepted, then this meta-discussion should also be deleted. -- Zsero (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Zohar

I just undertook a major revision of this article. However, I am not an expert, and would appreciate any more sets of eyes as are available to check my work, make suggestions, and generally contribute. Many thanks, Kaisershatner (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Um, Kaiser, if by your own self-admission here for the world to read you declare that you are "NOT an expert" on the Zohar what in heavens name are you doing undertaking to do a "Major revision" of this most complex and abstruse, prone to controversy, article for???!!! Would any sane person say it's "normal" for an editor who by his own self-admission is "NOT an expert" to do a "a major revision" on Einstein's Theory of relativity or admits that he's "NOT an expert" on Brain surgery or Astrophysics and then be allowed to undertake a "major revision" of those articles if he admits he ain't no expert??!! You need to perhaps spend time in WP:SANDBOX, try learning more about WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:NOR before trying to undertake huge jobs you admit you are not qualified for. IZAK (talk) 06:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Izak, I may not be an expert in Kabalah, but I do speak English and also know how to copyedit. Removing duplicated sentences, poor grammar, uncited assertions, POV, and other gross errors does not require that much expertise, and I have been around WP and WP:Judaism long enough to know how to do that. Also long enough to know that suggesting you check out WP:DICK is probably a waste of time. PS, if you have time for some constructive editing at Zohar that would be helpful. Best wishes, Kaisershatner (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that (1) you are welcome to see for yourself what "damage" I have done to this unreadable POS article that was a poor cut and paste job from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia: [24], (one couldn't even find a list of the actual contents of the Zohar in the article as it was written before my edits), and (2) my understanding of WP Judaism is that it is supposed to be a place where we can collaborate on improving articles pertaining to Judaism, ie, a place where one can come freely to ask for help without being pilloried for having the good sense to ask, (3) a helpful hint: next time you suggest someone check out the sandbox, consider scanning their number of edits and contribs first. (4) I'd suggest you review WP:BITE but after five years and 16000 edits I'm starting to feel less like a novice. (4) As a side project, why not take it upon yourself to revert all of my changes to Zohar, Maimonides, Hebrew calendar, Amidah, the Maharal, Talmud, Torah, Torah reading, Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and triennial cycle, just for starters. I can give you a more complete list of my major Judaism-related edits if you need it, and I freely admit I am not an expert in any of these subjects either. Maybe I should have waited for an expert such as yourself to donate the gift of his time and wisdom. But then again, im lo achshav eimatay? Kaisershatner (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, suggest you review WP:DGAF, achshav. Its just not worth it to be angry and/or stressed over this. If you know what you're doing (and from what you said, it appears you do, then DGAF what IZAK thinks. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 19:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Kaiser: Thanks for the list of all the areas you have edited next time I look them up. I don't have limitless time in any case. It is frightening to think that people will undertake to seriously edit subjects that they brazenly admit right here in public that they are not experts in. For example, how do you know when you deal with a concept that may not have a direct quote in an article and you decide to cut it out or re-arrange it that it may indeed be one of the most central and key ones in that article awaiting a source to be written in but in the meantime it's 100% valid and reliable without any citation or source inserted yet? This is like saying, that being handed all the tools of surgery and being dressed up like a surgeon, but lacking a medical school background, you would still undertake surgery, prescribe medication and "heal" the sick. I dunno, I would never do it, but I guess you would if you had the interest even though you lacked your own self-admitted "expertise" (and remember, it was you who came here openly declaring that you are "not an expert" but you were going to edit the Zohar article of all things -- so what did you expect? a medal or to get some rational guidance?) But I suppose given that we have many alert experienced and knowledgeable editors, if you had done any major damage some of them would have picked it up by now or is everyone asleep? Happy Chanuka to one and all! IZAK (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Side note: IZAK - it seems quite out of character for you to rip someone a new asshole in this case. Your Dec 9th edit was IMHO uncalled for in its language. You always have good points but in the future you might want to double check how you choose to express them. Joe407 (talk) 11:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Noraft, thanks for your excellent advice. Cram it, IZAK :) You are still welcome to help me improve the encyclopedia, though, starting with Zohar, if you have some constructive suggestions (I am not an expert, and perhaps there are things I have missed). Chag sameach to the project, and my apologies for being quick to anger. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Kaiser: Take it easy. There is no "anger" at work here. You should interpret my comments in light of my pride and expectations for all Judaic subjects. The mere fact that anyone can come along and make edits is a two-edged sword, on the one hand great things can be added on the other hand great harm can be done. Gone are the days when any one editor could roam over all aspects of Judaic subjects, the best we can do is when we come together here we can speak our minds freely and not be told to "shut up" when expressing valid concerns. I doubt if any subject-area on Wikipedia tolerates edits over the long term by any self-admitted non-expert editors by now. The days of free-wheeling editorship are long gone and we must all submit to serious oversight and criticism whether we like it or not. I cannot join you as you snap your fingers to come to points XYZ, but at least I can express real concerns here. Have a happy Chanuka! IZAK (talk) 09:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

IZAK, I apologize for my angry comments. I have no doubt that your goal is to have the best possible articles here. What set me off is your suggestion that my editing Zohar was like someone treating it as their myspace page, and your ignorance of, or indifference to, my contributions. (Would it make sense to look at my edits to Zohar before disparaging them?) To me it seems we here should encourage people to ask for help and to know when they are not experts in a subject, and to guide and teach them if we are lucky enough to understand better. That IMO would be more in the spirit of this wikiproject. Finally, I am reminded that "He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty," (Prov. xvi. 32), a teaching I for one have continually failed to live by. At the same time, there is Bava Metzia 58b to consider. Of course, IANAE. Best regards, Kaisershatner (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Appeal to lift censorship

There is a major problem with Ethiopian related issues. Any time scholarly evidence is presented on the sites above suggesting that there was a Hebrew and Israelite presence in Ethiopia and Arabia before 586 B.C.E. it is almost immediately censored. It is clear from the Sheba-Menelik Cycle of the Kebra Nagast that its Old Testament references pre-date the 7th century B.C.E. and the Sabaean inscriptions at Adi Kaweh, Wukro, Ethiopia (below the alleged grave site of 10th century Queen Yodit) twice specifically mention Hebrew as subjects of three queens of Sheba. In conjunction with Chaim Rabin's linguistic work [1951] suggesting that there was an ancient Hebrew presence in Asir and Hijaz, and Noldeke's shock at the antiquity of the Ethiopian word for the Ark of the Covenant plus the Sabaean origin for the word "Falasha" [Biella 2004] and the Beta Israel's word for their house of prayer [Leslau 1991] and other evidence it is unfortunate that no discussion appears to be permitted concerning the very strong probability of an ancient Hebrew/ Israelite population in pre-Babylonian captivity days in Arabia and to a lesser extent Ethiopia. Saudi Arabia and Syria have banned any books suggesting this probability. It is a pity Wikipedia editors have followed that example. Jewish interest in Ethiopian Hebraic and Israelite evidence is so disinterested that ironically it has been left to Adolph Eichmann's son to excavate Queen Yodit's alleged grave.

Ntsukunyane Mphanya 12 December 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntsukunyane Mphanya (talk • contribs) 00:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The material Ntsukunyane Mphanya is complaining about being censored appears to be material from the book by Dr. Bernard Leeman, Queen of Sheba and Biblical Scholarship; which is a book whose reliability has come into question. (See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard for the relevant discussion.) And no, to my best knowledge, no one is suppressing the influence of Judaism to Ethiopian culture -- which is quite well documented in the primary & secondary literature. -- llywrch (talk) 06:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Public menorah AFD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public menorah, Thank you and a Happy Chanuka! IZAK (talk) 04:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd call that nomination anti-Chabad POV pushing. Debresser (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Please notice that I had removed my previous post after the renaming of this section to somethng less POV in this edit, because I do not want it to create the false impression as though I am the one escalating this issue. Since my edit was reinstalled, I insist on adding this comment here.

Ditto. Shlomke (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Right away the knives come out with no rational discussion. Shame on you. IZAK (talk) 08:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I wouldn't call the nomination of the article for deletion anti-Chabad, but Izak's calling it "Chabad-Lubavitch POV pushing" reveals Izak's anti-Chabad POV. Oh well, Shlomke (talk) 08:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

How silly, working to IMPROVE the structure of articles, no matter what topic, does not make anyone "pro" or "anti" anything. My record speaks for itself. The only thing that I am against is Antisemitism. Kindly observe WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Let's try to have a peaceful and calm discussion about what's happening with all the growing pro-Chabad articles and editors and how that affects the over-all WP:NPOV of many Judaic subjects and try to avoid the obvious drift towards a pro-Chabad WP:POV in violation of WP:NPOV that Wikipedia should not just become and be seen as becoming another undercover "branch of Chabad" as pro-Chabad editors undertake a by now VERY obvious Wikipedia mitzvah campaign in violation of WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:OWN. Are you even able to be objective about this discussion or will you insist on taking out the daggers? Did you think this discussion would never come up? Well now it has and try to discuss it in a respectable Wikipedian fashion and not as if it's WP:WAR. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

How kind of you Izak to ask for things to be discussed in a "respectable Wikipedian fashion" by starting of your sentence with the words "How silly". No, you don't just do it here, you do it all the time whenever you get heated up because someone disagrees with you. Your tone in these debates is almost always aggressive, and I know I'm not the only one that thinks so. I know your record very well. There a good reason you never became an admin since 2002. If you'd seriously like to have some "respectable Wikipedian dialog" perhaps you should take the first step back and start talking nicely.

The obvious problem with the way you posted this notice is that you called it "Chabad-Lubavitch POV pushing". I dont think Yehoishophot was out to POV push here, and you certainly dont need to sound all your alarms by calling serious editors work POV pushing. There are plenty of other ways to post the notice without upsetting others. Shlomke (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If anyone has a problem with a heading they can discuss it, but archiving it like this is a pre-emptive strike to shut up discussions, so I am restoring it. It is a nice joke about me not being being an admin. The answer is simple, I have never wanted to be one and never will want to be one, I am happy as an editer because being an admin involves too many other responsibilities. It is typical of pro-Chabad editors to resort to strong-arm tactics when things don't go their way and this discussion is far too important to shut-off like this especially when there are important AfDs on the go. Remember WP:NOTCENSORED, thank you. IZAK (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

IZAK, this isn't a "discussion"—it's an exercise in mud-slinging. I archived it not out of any pro-Chabad sentiment, nor to ridicule you, but because it's become a shanda. I respectfully ask that you let this thread die. Please, no more accusations or counter-accusations. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You know Malik I am truly amazed at you of all people doing such things, to cut off debate of a legitimate issue that involves the future of Judaic articles on Wikipedia because of a "shanda" now that is what I call a good example of a few things such as violating WP:NONSENSE (what "shanda"?) and WP:NOTCENSORED (since when do we get censored by our own editors?) There was once a time when there were very few articles on Judaic topics, and Wikipedia welcomed them from all comers and givers. But now there is a huge amount of articles and a huge amount of those are starting to show the depth of the penetration of pro-Chabad editors into almost every article they touch by adding links to Chabad sites and the time that's then spent by other editors to remove or at least reduce those links. Then you have the pro-Chabad articles that read like virtual commercials in violation of WP:NOTMYSPACE and worshipful hagiography with articles ever so skillfuly and artfully being "sculpted" to suit the pro-Chabad POV editors. You know I have been around Wikipedia for a long time. I have argued against all sorts of POV editorial distortions, be they Karaite, Reform, secular Bible critics, Christian Evangelical editors etc who have come along with obvious POV agendas to "shape" ALL Judaic araticles THEIR way or stack the cards in their favor. I have fought antisemitic editors with nefarious agendas, and even got into trouble for that in my first year and I learned my WP:Wikiquette lessons the hard way. I have a good eye and judgment for these kind of trends and developments. I do not act blindly and arbitrarily. And I think the time is right to make a big issue of this, TO GET INPUT FROM OTHERS, not just me spouting off, the pro-Chabad editors are already calling me names in violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF with daggers drawn, but it is fair at this time, we are not babies we can handle it and place the pro-Chabad editors on notice with their HUGE online editorial back-up and contributors that Wikipedia will not allow what by now is a virtual conspiracy to hijack the Judaic sections of Wikipedia for the online Chabad bandwagon. What about this don't you get Malik? Am I speaking Chinese or some alien language not familiar to trustworthy Wikipedians like yourself? In the coming days, weeks and months I will be dealing with this issue fairly and openly and anyone is free to partake in DEBATING THE ISSUES but please do not come along and shut off discussions because you or anyone else finds them to be a "shanda" or whatnot that makes you squirm. So what? Have you not heard of WP:BEBOLD? Now is the time. To wait longer risks handing over the keys and the direction of the editorship of Wikipedia's Judaic articles to a virtual cabal of pro-Chabad POV warriors who are single-minded and brook no opposition as they fight any and all opposition to any comment or editing that they imagine runs counter to their very obvious party line. As I have said and say again, Wikipedia is NOT Chabad.org in violation of WP:NOTMYSPACE and more. So welcome aboard the debate and hopefully we can arrive at FIRM GUIDELINES for more balanced and prototypical articles about Chabad AND the ever-growing Chabad influence on Wikipedia that puts things in perspective and not skewered to Chabad's obvious one-sided POV. Thanks so much for your understanding, IZAK (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

By all means raise the issue. But please refrain from using POV language as you did before, because that does not serve any cause. Debresser (talk) 08:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Expansion of Jewish Revolt-related articles.

Hello all, I just wanted to let any interested editors know that I'm currently involved in a major expansion of a dozen articles related to the Jewish Revolt including biographies and events.

Articles created: Zealot Temple Siege, Jesus ben Damneus Articles expanded: Ananus ben Ananus, John of Giscala, Simon Bar Giora, Phannias ben Samuel.

Additional expansion of the above articles will continue, along with addition of new articles for more of the high priests, and other figures/events I may uncover.

That said, I could use some help. If someone can add in the Hebrew-alphabet names of those who do not have them, that would be great, as well as add in any other information that will fill these articles out. I'm adding infoboxes, succession boxes, and references as I go so that the pages will be of encyclopedic quality (although the stubs will still need more content). Thanks in advance for your help. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 08:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Tefillin campaign AFD

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tefillin campaign. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

this is a quite problematic article, but, as above, this section heading should be retitled. People can have different points of view & still work together, and using language implying lack of regard for Wikipedia doesn't help things along. DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If anyone has a problem with a heading they can discuss it, but archiving it like this is a pre-emptive strike to shut up discussions, so I am restoring it. It is typical of pro-Chabad editors to resort to strong-arm tactics when things don't go their way and this discussion is far too important to shut-off like this especially when there are important AfDs on the go. Remember WP:NOTCENSORED, thank you. IZAK (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

IZAK, this isn't a "discussion"—it's an exercise in mud-slinging. I archived it not out of any pro-Chabad sentiment, but because it's become a shanda. I respectfully ask that you let this thread die. Please, no more accusations or counter-accusations. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Malik, see my comments above. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 04:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Many editors have tried to introduce balance into WP's Chabad articles, with very little success. As this discussion progresses the reason for that lack of success will become very clear. To accuse IZAK of ganging up on Chabad editors (three seem to be participating in this discussion already) is not helpful. 173.52.187.133 (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Chabad, POVFORKs, and alot of discussion

Wow. I didn't realize what a can of worms I'd open up when I AFD'd "Public Menorah". I see that the gamut of Chabad related articles are being reviewed and revised.

Part of the power of the Wikipedia community is that all voices can be heard. I'd just like to remind everyone that we will all gain by using reasoned and rational voices and being polite while we disagree. And may the best logic and adherence to WP policy win. Joe407 (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact the main Chabad article is one of the biggest problems, and it reads more like a promotional brochure for Chabad than an encyclopedia article. Many editors have tried to make important changes for balance, and all have failed. 173.52.187.133 (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Do not use the term "Old Testament"

The correct terms for the Jewish canon of works is Torah for the 5 books of Moses (Chumash), plus Prophets (Nevi'im) plus Writings (Ketuvim). The three are collectively known by the acronym "Tanackh". The term "Old Testament" is a derogatory description used by and invented by the Christian movement. It Infers that the Jewish holy works is replaced by a new testament, because the new Christian religion replaces the old Jewish religion. This is called "supercessionism", whereby one movement supersedes and replaces an old one. The same tactic is used by Islam, where it is claimed that Islam replaces both Judaism and Christianity. Historygypsy (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge articles about Judaism usually use "Torah" or at least "Pentateuch" instead of "Old Testament", "Tanach" or "Hebrew Bible" (what an awfull term), and BCE and CE instead of BC and AD. But thanks for pointing our attention to it again, and please replace any occurances of Christian terms by the appropriate Jewish ones whenever you see them in Judaism related articles. Debresser (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, it is never spelled "Tanackh". Either "Tanakh" or "Tanach", according to your usual convention. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

No, "Old Testament" is certainly not a derogatory description, given that the people who use it consider the work to be Holy Scripture and some of them consider it to the fundamental truth. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Torah v. Tanakh (Debresser): Don't Torah and Pentateuch both refer to only the first five books? I would think Tanakh is closer to "Hebrew scriptures," since it refers to the writings and prophets as well as the Law. Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: derogatory (Largo Plazo): Yes, Christians think the Hebrew scriptures are authoritative and true, but the term "old" only makes sense if you've already decided that the Hebrew texts have been superseded by a later revelation. So, the term is essentially derogatory, and therefore many Christians have stopped using it. Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Stop talking about other Editors

Almost every post above consists of two parts, talk about the articles and ad hominun attacks about the authors. Unless you know enough about an editor to write a biographic article, don't mention him or her at all. Rebele | Talk ^{The only way to win the game is to not play the game.} 03:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

If a particular editor is particularly hot-headed on a subject then it may well be necessary to name them. I'm not sure what your point is and why you feel the need to admonish frequent contributors to this discussion page. JFW | T@lk 23:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

If you use Latin, try and get it straight. It is ad hominem. BTW, that was no attack, just good advice. Debresser (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

NB: in an ad hominem [25], which is a logical fallacy, an attempt is made to disqualify an argument based of some (actual, or perceived) personal defect in the person making the argument, instead of discussing the content of the argument. I have not seen that fallacy made in the discussion above. Could you point out the ad hominem? 173.52.187.133 (talk) 12:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wictionary lists two senses for the word ad hominem, The first, as you rightly point out, is "a logical fallacy." The second is "A personal attack." For further details, see the article Chofetz Chaim. Rebele | Talk ^{The only way to win the game is to not play the game.} 20:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you stop randomly firing off mussar at the entire Wikiproject. The fact that someone's editing pattern or somesuch is under discussion does not imply a "personal attack". A "personal attack" would mean that you discredit a person's views because they are Sefardi, from Australia, or Chabad.

If you are so disturbed by these discussions, either become a constructive participant in these discussions and try to moderate them, or don't participate at all and direct you attentions elsewhere. JFW | T@lk 22:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That is a wiki-redefinition in a poor quality article that needs to be re-written. The link I gave is WP:RS. I see no ad hominems in this discussion. The definition you want amounts to the same as WP:NPA; and if that has been a problem here, I have missed it. You still have not specified the statements to which you object.

As for your reference to Chofetz Chaim, it seems you are accusing a user of Lashon Hara (or even worse), which is very serious accusation. I suggest refactor that statement. 173.52.187.133 (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Peace. :) Debresser (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think User:Rebele makes a good point. Focus on the encyclopedia, and not on the editors. Kaisershatner (talk) 03:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Certainly it is better to "Focus on the encyclopedia, and not on the editors." In my view, most of the discussion focusing on editors has been the unsupported (and probably unsupportable) accusations against one editor for WP:PA and for Lashon Hara. I wish that would stop. 173.52.187.133 (talk) 13:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Two Chabad house AfDs

Please see and add your views at:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chabad of South London

and at:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upper Midwest Merkos - Lubavitch House (2nd nomination)=2009 December 24

Every minor Chabad house does not deserve it's own article. May as well start a series about the thousands of shtiebels in the world that usually far outnumber Chabad houses in size and membership but who neither strive for nor get Wikipedia articles of their own. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Beis Din and Bobov (Hasidic dynasty)

He has been warned User talk:Beis Din, but still reverts edits [26]. Where is the right place to report this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shmaltz (talk • contribs) 18:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

In general, vandalism problems are reported at WP:AIV, but in this case it doesn't look like vandalism. It looks to me like an honest difference of opinion that should be discussed on the article's Talk page. Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism#What is not vandalism. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

That was my opinion precisely. Temporary protection might be needed, if an edit war can't be stopped. Debresser (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It is vandalism, as the policy states:Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. His attempts to change a fact so that the article shows favorites for one side of a dispute is a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of WP. His contribs as well as the user name he chose is because his only intention is to compromise the integrity of WP. Playing political correctness here is not going to do any good for WP. I am going to revert this now, and I expect that you treat this as vandalism and not edit warring. Thank you. --Shmaltz (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I have already reported him here but was told to report it here. The reason is simple, the only ones that will understand it are anyone involved in Judaic related subjects.--Shmaltz (talk) 20:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Biblical disambiguators

If you have a moment, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Biblical disambiguators. Thank you!
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 06:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The Thirteenth Tribe

IPs are adding classic WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and unsourced personal editorializing to the article again. Can an eye be kept on it so that additions are 1) sourced and 2) the sources directly refer to the book, and not something tangential which would be a WP:SYNTH violation. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 07:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Greetings. Please make a note of my new proposal at Talk:Jewish Polish history during the 20th century#Requested move. Thanks. --Poeticbent talk 20:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Request Help with Vandalism

Please forgive my ignorance and I do feel a bit ridiculous double-checking on this, but I don't want to change something I don't understand fully, especially when it concerns a religion other than my own. In the Shammai article, I found the following under the See also heading:

Kfar Shamai, wehweh to the max moshav in Israel

The middle part of that has got to be wrong, but how far does the vandalism extend?

I request that someone more knowledgeable fix this, not just reply here, because I am disabled with many illnesses and sometimes I have to take long breaks between editing due to fuzzy-headedness, etc. Thanks, 75.92.162.126 (talk) 10:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done --Dweller (talk) 10:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD

I've nominated List of former Jews, List of former Christians, and List of former Muslims together for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Jews.Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Jewish seminary

At the moment Jewish seminary is a redirect to Beis Yaakov. This redirect is not a good thing, but only exists because of lack of an article. Obviously, the word "seminary" may refer to yeshives as well (Rabbinical Seminary of America, Rabbinical Seminary of Budapest, Rabbinical seminary in Breslau, Rabbinical Seminary International). Moreover, Beis Yaakov is a well-know and widespread girls seminary, but it is by no means the only girls seminary. Debresser (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what an awful redirect. There are at least 26 Jewish seminaries with Wikipedia articles, plus dozens in the subcategories related to yeshivas. Should we create a list of Jewish seminaries (in effect, a disambiguation page) to replace the redirect? Or does it make sense to write a short stub with "See also" links to the categories? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion a stub is the obvious solution in this case. Adding a link to the category is a very good idea. Debresser (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI, Cat:Jewish Schools says that for seminaries see Jewish Universities and Colleges. Yossiea ^(talk) 02:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Jewish schools says "For post-high school higher education relating to colleges, universities, yeshivas and seminaries see: Category:Jewish universities and colleges; Category:Jewish seminaries and Category:Orthodox yeshivas. Debresser (talk) 05:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Jewish seminary is now a regular disambiguation page. What was all the fuss about? IZAK (talk) 13:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Great. Thank you. I implemented the suggestion above to link Category:Jewish seminaries, and not only those three articles (at the time). Debresser (talk) 13:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

And you ignored that Beis Yaakov is by far not the only seminary for girls, see above, so I rephrased that as well. Debresser (talk) 13:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Origins of Judaism nominated for DYK

Hi, I've nominated a fact in the newly created article Origins of Judaism for DYK. See Template talk:Did you know#Origins of Judaism. Please let me know what you think of the nom. Thanks, AFriedman (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

COI discussion for User:Yehoishophot Oliver and pro-Chabad POV editing

A WP:COI complaint and discussion concerning User Yehoishophot Oliver (talk · contribs) has started at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Yehoishophot Oliver. Kindly add your comments. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 03:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Final arguments in COI complaint against Yehoishophot Oliver, Shlomke, Zsero, Debresser

The WP:COI complaint of pro-Chabad POV editing and violations of WP:OWN in Chabad-related articles against Users Yehoishophot Oliver (talk · contribs) and Shlomke (talk · contribs) and Zsero (talk · contribs) and Debresser (talk · contribs), is now in its final stages as admins review it. The debate and discussions have expanded greatly since their start. If any outside party still wishes to add their comments and observations, now is the time. New sections have been added at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Yehoishophot Oliver. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Final arguments regarding complaint against IZAK

Likewise if any outside party wishes to add their comments regarding IZAK (talk · contribs)'s editing, tone POV etc., now is the time to add them in at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Yehoishophot Oliver.

Thank you for this notification. In addition there is the WP:ANI thread I opened. Debresser (talk) 09:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge of Simeon in rabbinic literature and Simeon (Hebrew Bible)

I thought I would notify you here that I am proposing a merge of these two. I will also tag for an expert, but perhaps this is a short cut to getting one. I think these two are the same person? Simeon in rabbinic literature seems to have been lifted with minimal change from the Jewish Encyclopedia. But I notice that it has been assessed to be of mid-level importance for your project, so I didn't want to go ahead with the merge without notifying you here. My only interest is that I found the "in rabbinic literature" in the backlog of articles to be wikified from December 2007 (sic). Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Worth leaving the former as a redirect, so we have a corresponding article to the JE, even though an implausible typo (edit summary this). --Dweller (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I performed the merge and brought all the text into Simeon (Hebrew Bible), but hidden. I can't tell which bits are already covered in the article and I hope someone who knows the Bible and rabbinical texts can. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Chabad movement editors: Official request for arbitration has begun

FYI: Please see: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Chabad movement editors. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom has accepted the case for arbitration. For details, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement (or WP:CHABAD). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 07:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Jewish music RFC

Howdy, The article Contemporary Jewish religious music has a section on important and influential figures. Rather than it become an edit war with everyone putting in their favorite singer or band, I've opened a discussion and would appreciate your comments and thoughts at: Talk:Contemporary_Jewish_religious_music#Important_figures. Thanks, Joe407 (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Reform Jews

Hi, I've created Category:Reform Jews, having noticed that corresponding Categories representing most of the other major movements already seem to exist. Many of the most notable and accomplished Jewish people have affiliated with the Reform movement, and I think it's important to create a Category that shows this. I'm able to find information about which individuals belong in this Category in lists of notable people affiliated with specific Reform synagogues. Does anyone else want to help out with this? To me, this Category seems like important information. --AFriedman (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Please see:: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yahweh and Allah.Borock (talk) 07:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

13th tribe take 3

Eyes requested on The Thirteenth Tribe; well-poisoning and citation removals by the same user is happening again. -- Avi (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Shechita

Please add the Shechita article to the project's watchlist.Dosbears (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Notability of Yisrael Mendel Kaplan

Another editor and I have concerns about the lack of sourcing in the article on Yisrael Mendel Kaplan. Could anybody comment on this at Talk:Yisrael Mendel Kaplan? Abductive (reasoning) 17:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)