Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 24

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

→

Mazzaroth

The Mazzaroth article was recently totally overhauled by a user (editing both anonymously and logged in) who has made POV edits at another article. It should probably be reviewed for accuracy and neutrality by other editors. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 02:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposals for a Jewish state

Hi, letting any interested Wikipedians on this project know that I've placed a move request to move Proposals for a Jewish state to "Proposals to establish a Jewish state outside of Israel". Full rationale can be found on Talk:Proposals for a Jewish state. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Move Jew to Jews?

An editor has proposed moving Jew to Jews. Please weigh in at Talk:Jew#Requested move. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

There was not much discussion - especially by established users - and then BA-BOOM the change was made. Is this proper? Can the move be rolled back? Even the discussion was promptly closed and archived. Best, A Sniper (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope that members of the Project will take a look here and make their voices known as to whether the move was given enough thought & time. Thanks. A Sniper (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Jews and WikiProject Judaism

Do people, by dint of their being born Jewish, belong in the WikiProject Judaism, bearing in mind that the intro states: "and other subjects and phenomena that are directly related to Judaism as a religion?” Chesdovi (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That point of view pushing should not be there. That is just one more attempt in a seemingly endless collection of attempts to reduce Jewish identity to starkly defined categories that do not exist, in most cases, in reality.

That sentence should simply be reading:

"This WikiProject aims to standardize Wikipedia articles on Judaism, Halakha ("Jewish law" and tradition) and other subjects and phenomena that are directly related to Judaism."

It is sad that arbitrary distinctions are being foisted on an identity that is actually quite free-form and fluid. The reality is that many or most Jews exhibit qualities that fall into the religious and the ethnic categories on a highly personal basis. Yet the emphasis on Wikipedia seems to be to accentuate the "either-or" basis for Jewish identity as concerns religious affinities and more casual connections to that identity. Bus stop (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/Bus stop (if I am reading his response correctly' and would have the same answer for those who convert to Judaism). As long as I have been on Wikipedia, there has been representation on this wikiproject (and in many categories -- though there have been massive efforts to delete them, some successful, unfortunately) of Jewish Nobel Prize Winners, Jewish chess players, Jewish athletes, etc. I think that being Jewish relates directly to Judaism, without question. I can't recall an earlier effort to delete Jews from this wikiproject. And I note that the first category covered by this wikiproject is ... Jews. So emphatically agree w/Bus Stop.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree with above. A WikiProject is for improving articles, not categorizing them. As a result, I think WikiProject coverage should be of topics that might be of interest to the editors involved, regardless of whether they are strictly defined as being part of the area. If at least a significant minority of editors think the topic is relevant to a WikiProject or would want to edit those articles because of their interest in the subject, then an article belongs in a given WikiProject. For example, people have all kinds of ideas about what articles belong in Wikipedia:BACON, a drive to improve articles related to bacon. Even though WP:BACON is almost the opposite of this WikiProject :), I think its relatively free-form nature is an interesting model for how to define what belongs in a WikiProject. --AFriedman (talk) 03:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
For the record, I agree with the previous two editors. Debresser (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree with AFriedman senitiments. Let me add though, that if one takes a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity its seems not every person who is a Christian is part of the project; only people that have an influence on Christianity as a religion. Should a line be drawn between people who are born Jewish but have no bearing on Judaism as a religion. Does Judaism cover anything remotely connected with something “Jewish” like Batwoman and baseball players who are Jewish but do not even adhere to Judaism. Are we to add every Jewish person to this project? If so, it should be renamed WikiProject Jews and Judaism. Chesdovi (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit, I misunderstood your original post. I didn't know you were referring to subjects of articles. I understood that you were referring to editors of Wikipedia. My comment would still be that the end of that sentence should be left off — "…as a religion."

And in response to what I now understand is your question, my answer would be yes — anything related to Judaism should at least be considered for inclusion, including, yikes, Batwoman. Bus stop (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If a person is Jewish, that should be the end of it. We're not about to start reviewing whether they go to shul, and if so which one, and would a Reform rabbi deem them Jewish but an Orthodox (or a Satmar) rabbi not, and do they have menorah -- or a "chanukah bush" or christmas tree -- or both, and if so what should we do with them then. These sorts of discussions have plagued efforts by some to delete people from the various Jewish "categories", as well as (more typically) by an active group seeking to delete all the Jewish categories. Doesn't make sense, and would be a most unfortunate road to start down. Jewish baseball players -- as an example -- have books dedicated to them as a group, have Cooperstown focusing on them as a group, and are in both those ways quite different form Christians as a group. See, e.g., articles here, here, here and here. See also:

The Big Book of Jewish Baseball: An Illustrated Encyclopedia & Anecdotal History,
The Jewish baseball hall of fame: a who's who of baseball stars,
What is Jewish about America's "favorite pastime"?: essays and sermons on Jews, Judaism and baseball,
Jewish baseball stars,
Ellis Island to Ebbets Field: Sport and the American Jewish Experience,
The Baseball Talmud: The Definitive Position-by-Position Ranking of Baseball,
Baseball and the American Jewish Experience,
The Last Jewish Shortstop in America, and
Jews and Baseball: Entering the American mainstream, 1871-1948 Plus, there is no way to draw a line -- do we then not reflect categories of Jewish Nobel Prize winners? If we're not sure if they were in shul for Yom Kippur? All of this IMHO. As to Batwoman, I have little idea what that issue is, but it sounds like an outlier--and from the little I can see, it looks as though she is ID'd as Jewish (as a fictional character) ... there is precedence on wikipedia in including fictional characters who are in groups in wikiprojects. This all sounds like a tempest in a teapot -- no harm done by inclusion; and inclusion sounds like the consensus view above.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

In my personal understanding, this wikiproject was always focused on articles that relate to the phenomenon of Judaism, which is mainly the religion. We used to have a special wikiproject that dealt with Jewish culture that was absolutely secular, namely Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish culture, but that is now defunct. Perhaps restarting that would be helpful in dealing with Jewish baseball players or actors, such as Seth Green whose lives and careers only intersect Judaism by virtue of birth, as opposed to, for example, Sandy Koufax, who did have his religion impact his career, or Sacha Baron Cohen, who had his religion affect his marriage by having his fiancee convert (See Sacha Baron Cohen#Personal life.) -- Avi (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This topic is the classic case of having opened up a can of worms. A week from now the discussion will be where it is now. Is there some reason why this must be addressed? What's the difference? If an editor wants to edit an article, would it really matter if he/she edited it under the auspices of the Wiki project Judaism or under another Wiki project or under no wiki project at all? Bus stop (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/Bus stop. FYI -- the genesis of this was that Chesdovi deleted WikiProject Judaism templates from a number of articles this week, including a number of Jewish baseball players I had watchlisted who had been under the auspices of the wikiproject for years. When I objected, Chesdovi did not agree with me, and felt that he had to raise it here. I'm hoping that with the above consensus, Chesdovi will be happy to hue to the common viewpoint here, and we can put this to rest.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ashkenazi Jews‎

A heads up and request for more eyes. I have semiprotected Ashkenazi Jews‎ until some nonsourced additions from an IP are cleared up. Essentially statistics on the number of ashkenazi jews per country are added. This does strike me as rather difficult to ascertain (given the kerfuffle over defining whose image would/should/could be in the infobox!), but I might be wrong. I have zero expertise in the area. So can folks with some knowledge drop into the talk page and hopefully come to some sort of consensus on it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

PS: (Big hint) getting articles like this one to GA or FA - standard is prudent, as it gives it a stable consensus-point to measure up again in the future, and makes it more robust WRT removing unsourced additions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Help Desk post regarding neutrality in National Council of Young Israel (moved from WT:ISRAEL)

If anyone here is familiar with the topic, would you mind taking a look at the issues raised in this post on the Help Desk regarding a rather one-sided section in the article in question? I've been helping the user a little bit with some obvious policy problems, but as for all the issues raised, my expertise in the area is, well, non-existent :). Cheers, Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 06:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC).

Humanities question at the reference desk

I recently asked a question at the humanities reference desk that members on here might be able to answer. I would appreciate some feedback. Thank you. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Israel FAR

I have nominated Israel for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cptnono (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism on Satmar and Bnei Yoel articles.

Can anyone please review this and this and take appropriate action?--Shmaltz (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Look at my talk page history and you'll see the IP address responding (as well as the username) belong to derblatt which is one side of the equation in that fight, is it permissible to use WP for political push of an agenda?--Shmaltz (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yitzchok Kogan

NVO (talk) 09:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Aleksig6 adding personally interpretive images to various Jewish articles

User:Aleksig6 has been adding personally created images to various pages such as Ten Commandments, Showbread, etc. (see his contributions). These images are his personal interpretations and neither in accordance with tradition nor representative of fact (as we have no 3000 year old images). Wikipedia should not be used as forum for user art, especially when it is not necessarily representative, and I think these images need to be removed. Other participants agree or disagree? -- Avi (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Talk:Ten Commandments#Image added and comment as your conscience dictates. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The articles in question were Ten Commandments, Showbread, Ark of the Covenant, Menorah (Temple), and Tabernacle. -- Avi (talk) 02:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I think they are more in keeping with diagrams. I don't think they are interpretations. They seem to be constructed in accordance with measurements and descriptions. I don't think they are "art" except in a very broad understanding of that term. Bus stop (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I just want to say that wikipedia suppose to be neutral and present all facts on the particular matter. Your claim, Avi, goes against this wiki rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV.
Besides, all of my images have been made by the description from Pentateuch. Aleksig6 (talk) 03:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

For example, your image of the menorah has the oil cups in a circle, where is the source for that? Your image of the showbread has it as loaves, when the Talmud is clear that it was in the shape of |_| with walls. Your personal interpretations are fine, but they cannot be represented on wikipedia as authentic. WP:NPOV does not allow WP:FRINGE claims, see WP:UNDUE. Your interpretations are solely your own, and thus WP:NOR, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NPOV violations. -- Avi (talk) 03:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, I do not mind clarifying the description of my images (where it is appropriate, of'course), but I'm higly against removal of my images by you, based on your unsubstantiated and very much biased claims. Aleksig6 (talk) 03:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The onus is on you to show that your images do not contain elements of personal interpretation, Alek. Otherwise, it is a WP:NOR etc. violation. -- Avi (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect Avi, and as you have rightfully pointed out, there are no such images available (same goes for the textual description). So either all images needed to be removed, or you should agree that a certain degree of artistic interpretation can be allowed for the illustrative' sake... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleksig6 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Those may be valid criticisms, Avi. The validity of such criticism should depend on how true and authentic such representations are to the most conservative sources. I would be against interpretation. Images containing any representations that are not absolutely true to source should be removed or abbreviated down to a form of representation that eliminates anything possibly fanciful. Bus stop (talk) 03:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well... I have nothing more to say then, than I already have. I'm not going to continue this conversation with all of you, as I see no point to do so.
If you will reconsider and decide to employ my images to improve Judaism section of Wikipedia - let me know. Aleksig6 (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Aleksig6 — I think your images are potentially useful. If they accurately represent what they purport to represent, then great. I only wanted to concede that if Avi is correct that certain arbitrary decisions have been made — that would be unacceptable. Please tell me if you disagree with this. Avi points out that there is an interpretive element in how the Menorah cups are depicted. Another example he seems to find a problem with is the depiction of the Showbread. I'm not claiming to be knowledge about these two items. But I think that where insufficient confirmable visual information is available, that the illustrations you are providing should remain ambiguous on these points. A suggestion I would offer would be to use actual language in your illustrations — meaning that words such as "Menorah cups" and "Showbread" be placed in the illustration where these items might be. That way the non-disputed parts of the illustration can still provide a useful diagram. And a general situational relationship of the parts can be established, as well as the context of the proportional relationships between the known dimensions of for instance architectural elements. I think that it is hard for a reader to visualize these things. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: Menorah and the Table: Yes, this is true that in my images there is a certain degree of artistic(or interpretive) visualization. However, my images depict all explicitly stated details of these artefacts and(since it was done in 3D editor) all explicitly stated dimensions are 100% proportional and up-to-scale. You and Avi asked me about Menorah cups: did you mean Menorah Lamps ? And the Table, what Avi had said about the bread is only true according to Talmud and not the Pentateuch.
And dont get me wrong: I do not mind having traditional views of Orthodox Judaism represented in the article, even in the form of images. What I do mind though, is that the actual description from the original text(Pentateuch) is misrepresented, and Traditional view is being promoted as an ultimate truth.
But like I said, I do not want to engage in discussion about validity of the Traditional interpretations.

FYI: most wiki articles related to Pentateuch are heavily biased towards traditional views and do not represent the original text as they should. It is also clear to me that this is how the community likes it and I'm not going to engage in any "edit wars" or whatever you call it with the present participants. I genuinly tried to contribute, but I was met with apprehension and bashing. Is there a reason why I should be trying to resolve this situation at this point? I have better things to do, you know...

P.S. Just several examples:
This images http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Menorah_0307.jpg is a recent and modern recontruction of the Menorah according to the traditional view. Is this image authoritative? From the traditional standpoint - more or less, from the Pentateuch standpoint - absolutely not.
In the "Ark of the Covenant" article, there is this image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ark_of_the_Covenant_19th-century.png Is it authoritative, even from traditional point of view? Absolutely not, as this is a Christian interpretation of the Ark. Even an old image from Baraita on Mishkan would do - it would at least balance the article.
Not to mention that there are several very widespread mistakes in the description of the Ark, one of which I have corrected on my my personal wiki page.Aleksig6 (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, here's the problem. If you open up the Torah, read a description of the Ark or of Showbread or of the Mercy Seat, and create pictures of those items based on what you just read, that's original research. This is clear-cut as far as I can see. It doesn't really matter how good or bad, accurate or inaccurate your research is. You have to publish it elsewhere, get it accepted elsewhere, get it to become notable elsewhere, before it gets on Wikipedia. You can't put it here and call it the Truth™ about what these things looked like. After that, it's just a question of whether these images add anything to the article aesthetically. I leave it to other editors to check you user page and form a consensus on that.--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I just took a closer look at your last comment. The difference between the images you created and those you refer to is that no one is calling those images the accurate, truthful, definitive, be-all, end-all, authoritative images of these items. They're just artworks that have been created about the items that have a certain aesthitic value. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: Original research: My images are no more "OR" than any other images available on the subject. I only claimed that my images were up-to-scale (proportional) and in agreement with explicitly stated details from the original text. But like I said, I will leave it for now up to the community to decide, as my images speak for themselves.
RE: Aesthetic value: Thats a far better argument and I can accept it, as I'm not an artist per say, and I do admit that my images may look a bit ugly. But again, I will leave it up to the community to decide...
All in all, I just want to say it again, that the only thing that is bothering me is that my images are being removed by some users under rather "made-up" pretenses. Not good... Aleksig6 (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I've put most of these images up for deletion at Commons, in addition to his essay-like user page. As for their inclusion in Wikipedia, they don't represent any notable viewpoint - they are Aleksig6's original research, and not depictions based on notable scholarly viewpoints, or notable religious viewpoints - and therefore come under WP:FRINGE in addition to WP:OR.

Aleksig6, no-one objects to the general idea of you creating drawings, what they are objecting to is you creating drawings based on your own interpretation of what it means - you should instead draw things based on the views of notable scholars or religious views. For example, matching near-identically the views of the Encyclopedia Brittanica, or matching near-identically the view of Haredi Judaism, or Coptic Christianity, etc.

You point out a 19th century image. For a start, User:Reddi didn't draw it, nor did any of his friends. Its a 19th century image, and he's not that old, so it cannot be original research, because it isn't his creation. But the key thing to note is that the description of that image says A late 19th-century artist's conception of the Ark of the Covenant, employing a Renaissance cassone for the Ark and cherubim as latter-day Christian angels. The key thing to note about that description is (a) It tells you that its only one POV (b) It states what that POV is (c) It gives some details about the stylistic background. Your picture would have to be labelled A modern computer-drawn image by User:Aleksig6 based on his conception of the ark of the Covenant, ...... The key thing to note is that it is YOUR CONCEPTION - that's ORIGINAL RESEARCH. And Original Research isn't allowed, on Wikipedia.

Additionally, ditch the shadows and reflection, or at least make them much much lighter and near-transparent, it makes it extremely difficult to work out what is being shown. Newman Luke (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yehuda Amichai RfC

Hi. There is an RfC currently in progress on the Yehuda Amichai Talk page, concerning an ongoing content dispute. As the article was within the scope of the now-defunct WikiProject Jewish culture, someone involved here might wish to comment. -- Boing! said Zebedee 04:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Judaism

There have been additions to the articles recently that seem to be, in my opinion, non-notable and violations of WP:POV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:FRINGE. Please review Talk:Criticism of Judaism and comment as you see best fit. -- Avi (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand why this article has not been nominated for deletion. It is a flawless example of WP:COATRACK, and even more seriously every section of the article constitutes a different point of view fork.

Also there are no sources for some very problematic claims. For instance, there is no existing document that explains the actual reason for Spinoza's cherem. There is only speculation. But the article gives a reason anyhow, and without a source to support that. -- 173.52.134.191 (talk) 12:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The article is no more of a POV fork than Criticism of Christianity or Criticism of Islam, articles that are well established on Wikipedia. I've given Noleander a few suggestions about how to write the article, and I think that keeping the article properly outlined may be the best way to prevent POV forks, undue weight and fringe theories. In my opinion, this is a particularly difficult article to outline because it is not completely clear which current sources are "reasonable" and what weight to give modern vs. historical, as well as inside vs. outside sources. Many of the criticisms in the articles about Christianity and Islam came from within the religions themselves, and perhaps the article about Judaism should be written the same way. --AFriedman (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The observations I made above, concerning the cherem of Spinoza is, in my view, an example of POV forking. Are you saying that is not correct? 173.52.134.191 (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not an expert on Spinoza, so can't answer for you. However, a single example of a POV fork in an article does not make the entire article a POV fork. Spinoza's cherem would only be a small part of the article, as I imagine how it would look when it is more complete. Also, the section about Spinoza seems salvageable to me--just needs a bit of correction if it really is inaccurate. BTW, have you thought of signing up for an account? Then you would be able to edit more articles, including Judaism, and you'd be able to explain on your Userpage where you're coming from. --AFriedman (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Genesis creation myth

There is a debate on if the article original title of "Creation according to Genesis" should be restored. Masterhomer 05:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Newman Luke

User:Newman Luke is back making wholesale changes to Judaism-related articles. Can people please check that the changes are both accurate and per wikipedia policies? Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you read WP:STALKING and WP:FAITH, Avraham? Newman Luke (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I just reverted all edits of this editor on Forbidden relationships in Judaism, Ketubah and the first paragraph of Get (divorce document) (with slight change in order of words in sentence), because in his edits generally introduce incorrect concepts and terminology.

This editor has in my experience been proven to make highly inreliable edits. This may be connected to the fact that this editor seems to have an unjewish point of view. In view of this, it is definitely a good idea to check this editor's edits.

Propose At the very least this editor should get into the habit of discussing his ideas before he starts completely rewriting articles. If he will not agree with that, he should be topic banned. Debresser (talk) 11:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Go and read WP:OWN. Newman Luke (talk) 11:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I am thoroughly familiar with that one. It is in view of your record that I think this measure is necessary. Special cases take precedence over the general rules. Debresser (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I had to take this to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Newman_Luke. Please weigh in. Debresser (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

In addition Forbidden relationships in Judaism has been protected for two days, while the protection admin asked us to be more specific in this discussion about what it is we don't like in Newman Luke's editing. See WP:AN3. Debresser (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I've repeatedly asked you to be more specific as well, on multiple occasions. If you raise a specific issue about a specific element of content, I'm quite happy to discuss it on the article talk page. Until you do, I won't. Newman Luke (talk) 12:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Feel free not to discuss. Just that in that case, better you don't make any major edits. You are now aware that these are contested, so the burden of seeking consensus is upon you. And I'll be happy to be a part of that, as soon as you start showing any interest in the idea of consensus. Debresser (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Debresser, I would suggest that you avoid using the word "vandalism" to describe Newman Luke's edits. That is not helpful. Please review WP:VANDAL. 173.52.134.191 (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that an RfC on Newman Luke's refusal to accept consensus, bandying about of WP:OWN whilst demonstrating it on his own behalf, forum shopping, continued creation of redundant redirects of marginal or no quality in the face of near universal disapproval from the members of the associated wikiproject, among other issues is now appropriate. Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think an RFC is entirely appropriate, but I have the feeling that it will not achieve an awful lot. That is, unless Newman Luke suddenly decides to abandon his obsession with the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia and starts to understand that he needs to seek consensus for large edits. JFW | T@lk 10:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I have only just a few days ago taken him to WP:ANI (and the discussion there wasn't closed yet last time I looked), and both there and at the other places he posted as part of forum shopping everybody (and I mean everybody) told him that he has to start seeking consensus. There is now some discussion on Forbidden relationships in Judaism, involving Newman Luke also (although he spend most of his time so far complaining about how unfair we are to him). In view of these facts, I think we should give him some more time before seriously considering the option of a Rfc. Debresser (talk) 11:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

If he can edit in accordance with wikipedia policies and guidelines, that would be fantastic. -- Avi (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I see he is trying to go on the offensive. Please see User:Newman Luke/AV and User:Newman Luke/dDb. -- Avi (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Add User:Newman Luke/Zq to the list. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

YHWH vs Yahweh - sockpuppet

Are changes such as this one [1] reasonable? 70.17.103.88 (talk · contribs) has just arrived and I wonder, looking at the other edits as well, if this is a sock puppet. Dougweller (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I looked over the changes and I don't understand why you would object to them. They look reasonable to me. Please explain. --AFriedman (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Putting it another way, is there a standard for the use of YHWH over Yahweh, and I'm a bit bothered by the fact that Yahweh or YHWH, the actual cited texts in the boxed quotations don't use either by say 'Lord', and we normally expect quotations to match the source. There's also the issue of replacing 'Bible' with either 'Hebrew Bible' or Tanakh. And here [2] he changed the main article template which lead to Cyrus in the Judeo-Christian tradition to Cyrus in Jewish tradition which leads nowhere. I've reverted that. My memory may be faulty, but some of these edits seem familiar. Maybe I should ask elsewhere. Dougweller (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Doug -- for what it's worth, I think the original version was a little clearer for a generic audience. Gentiles won't know what "Tanakh" is (the editor seems to have preferred that to "Bible" to keep it distinct from a Christian Bible). "YHWH" versus a representation of the Divine Name may be an attempt to avoid using the Divine Name, but probably misguided on the grounds that "YHWH" IS the Divine Name. I don't see any major problems with the edits -- other than the fact that they are unnecessary and make the article less intelligible to Gentiles.EGMichaels (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

YHWH is more technically accurate, but Wikipedia's policy is to use the common term. In theology/academic circles/books, its always written as Yahweh, rather than YHWH, except when discussing the technicalities of the meaning/full-spelling of YHWH itself. So in Wikipedia, if we are to follow wikipedia policy, it should generally be Yahweh (except in those very small number of circumstances mentioned) - and therefore the above-mentioned edit is unreasonable.

For reference, the term YHWH is the Hebrew version - which LORD is the usual "translation" of. But the key point about the original Hebrew text is that there are no vowels in any of the words - so if we are going to use vowels in other biblical names, we should use vowels here too. Newman Luke (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all. Dougweller (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know; the vowels seem POV (admittedly a popular one) to me. I don't think it's even clear that there was only one way to pronounce it. Mzk1 (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC-U opened for Newman Luke

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Newman Luke. The RfC must be certified within 48 hours for it to be accepted. Please read the issue, and support or oppose as you best see fit. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people.

Generic RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people. Comments invited as might apply to some articles of interest to this wikiproject. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Stuff needed

I thought that both Dayan Dr Isidore Grunfeld and his wife Judith Rosenbaum Grunfeld would merit an article. With regards to the latter, it seems that ISBN 0-89906-119-2 is biographical, but has anyone come across a good biography of the Dayan? I don't have the Dansky book. JFW | T@lk 19:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Jung's book of vingettes has a nice article from Dr. Grunfeld on her time with Sarah Schneir. Unfortunately, it is at my father's, and there are 6,000 miles in between.Mzk1 (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ashkenazi intelligence

There is a move afoot to merge Ashkenazi intelligence, which is strictly about the theory, with Ashkenazi Jews. I'd appreciate folks' input there. Best, A Sniper (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

They should at least be cross referenced.EGMichaels (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

New article - Jewish peoplehood

In new page patrolling, I came across the article Jewish peoplehood, written by a new user. It strikes me as the sort of thing that probably exists in another form already. Thought it would be good to get more eyes on it to check for neutrality and duplication of content elsewhere. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Having skimmed the article it looks to me like a chunk of original research/synthesis from a Reform Jewish point of view. Phrases such as "a dramatic paradigm shift in Jewish life, which is gaining increasing support within Jewish communities worldwide." sound to me that this is a position paper being positioned as a WP article. Thoughts? Joe407 (talk) 10:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a "See also" section could provide a link to other articles deriving from the liberal end of the spectrum of Jewish thinking on related subjects. Bus stop (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a research paper. And a polemic coming from one relatively fringe Jewish viewpoint. It doesn't belong on Wikipedia. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Update. I have nominated this article for AfD. Please weigh in on the matter. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish peoplehood, Joe407 (talk) 05:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC - prefixes in article title of Eastern Orthodox officials

An RfC is currently open (Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(clergy)#naming_convention_associated_with_Eastern_Orthodox_officials) regarding the appropriateness of having position titles in the article title of religious Eastern Orthodox officials. Commentary would be welcomed, as the WP:NCWC talk page has a low level of activity.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ammended: The proposal currently tables is to remove of all prefix religious titles, positions and/or honours from the article title.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Agunah

I'm not a baki in Even HaEzer, but I think the recent additions to Agunah are a shittah yechidia'ah (opinion of an extreme minority (of one perhaps)) and are not appropriate per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Please review the history of Agunah and my comments at Talk:Agunah#Recent additions to confirm or refute. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I am relatively new to wikipedia, so I am not sure if the notes I left on my talk page will show up here. So I am cutting and pasting them, below. (I should note that I have added more words to frame the information I originally added, since there was a dispute. However, as the sources I reference show, the opinions I added were absolutely NOT the opinion of one, and not even the opinion of an extreme minority. Since they were proposals for theoretical solutions which should be discussed -- and have been discussed, even though they were not ultimately accepted for action -- I would say that the sources I quote show that MANY in the orthodox community have agreed to discuss them, and consider them....although, again, they are not recognized as acceptable at this time.)

For Avraham/Avi, Please tell me if the changes I made are more satisfactory to you -- or if you could make even more until you are satisfied. I feel very strongly that all the sources I have cited, including recognized scholarly works and entire conferences, justify some inclusion of the information I have added.

If you feel that it should still all be deleted, even with changes you might make, please advise me in terms of how to ask for a dispute resolution. This is the first time I have encountered a problem like this, but I do not think it is fair that you are calling this an approach by one person, when the sources I reference indicate that many other orthodox rabbis considered the same solutions -- although none of them (except for some who might be considered to be on the fringe) have taken the position that these ideas should be implemented. Still, they are ideas that are cited and discussed.

I do not want to fight! I just think an encyclopedia article which does not show that there have been ideas put forth for halakhic solutions -- even though those ideas were ultimately not accepted -- is not a good article.

Floridarabbi (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

PS - I have gone back to the Irwin. H. Haut book, Divorce in Jewish Law and Life, and looked at chapter XV, Rabbinic Proposals, in which he deals with proposals to remedy the agunah situation from a number of sources, from French rabbis, to Mnachem Risikoff (to whom he devotes eleven lines in this article), to the Supreme Rabbinical Court of Israel. As it now stands, this article on agunah does not reflect the fact that such studies, discussions, proposals, and struggle go on on the part of orthodox rabbis, not just the women's groups or conservative rabbis mentioned in the article. I do hope there is an amicable resolution to our disagreement. I certainly do not want to add information that seems to say the proposals I am quoting are appropriate! I simply think that a good encyclopedic article on the agunah MUST include some evidence of orthodox rabbis who have advanced proposals -- especially proposals that are cited and discussed -- even if the struggle to find a solution to the problem of the agunah has certainly not yet been resolved....

Again, I hope you either find my new words acceptable, or you yourself could edit them, rather than simply deleting them.

Floridarabbi (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Floridarabbi (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Erusin article and Redirect Question

I believe I improved the erusin article. Please see my comments (the same) on the talk page there and on the Jewish views on marriage page. I would appreciate comments. On the talk page I mentioned things that need to be done, particularly good non-Orthodox sources. Thank you. Note that the original debate over JE appears to be moot; the problem is not to misinterpret JE.Mzk1 (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

One other thing. Would it be a good idea to redirect Kiddushin from Nashim to Erusin, then disambiguate on top of the page?Mzk1 (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It would probably be best to make Kiddushin in to a disambiguation page itself, with links to Erusin and Nashim. I think that both uses are likely to be equally important. Debresser (talk) 08:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Orthodox sources

I saw the sources for Orthodox Judaism on the project page, and I have to say that I have severe problems with some of them. For example, the one with the chart seems wrong in just about every aspect. The one starting with Lieberman is pretty good, except for the statement that the fact that Lieberman uses observant instead of Orthodox is significant. Orthodox Jews have always had a love-hate relationship with the term, which we generally blame (not entirely accurately) on Reform. When I grew up, we always used the term "religious", and I think this is pretty commonly used, both in the U.S. and Israel, by people who are solidly observant Orthodox. So there is nothing strange about Lieberman's term.

What is wrong with the chart source? Here are some examples:

1. An artificial distinction between traditional Jews in places where they call themselves Orthodox, and places where the term does not apply.

2. No connection between German neo-Orthodox and Hareidim, in spite of the fact - as Rav Solveichick himself says in a recent book of conversations - they are the ones who basically founded the original Agudah.

3. A blanket statement that Lithuanian Chareidim are anti-Zionist (I am?).

4. I only clicked on one link (see 3), and I found a nicely prejorative, POV description.

Are these sources there by consensus?

Also, regarding general translations, has anyone contacted Yaackov Menken's Project Genesis (www.torah.org)? He has been doing co-operative pranslations for many years.Mzk1 (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Timeline template

I found the following (very clever) timeline in the article for the previous Satmar rebbe.

Two questions:

Can anyone turn this into a template for widespread use?
Should this template appear as part of the article on any major rabbinic figure? If so, how do we define major?

Joe407 (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice timeline. But why restrict its use? We can use it for indicating when Hai Gaon lived, or the Rambam, or even people I couldn't care less about. :) Debresser (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It is already used in an number of pages and I added it to Category:Rishonim among others. Chesdovi (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Virtual Library

An editor has raised the question of whether the Jewish Virtual Library is a reliable source. Please weigh in at WP:RSN#http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hurva Synagogue

Please can people comment and assist at Hurva Synagogue, pending FA promotion. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Noleander and Criticism of Judaism

This is getting out of hand. Please look at Talk:Criticism of Judaism where the user is cherry-picking, mixing different issues, focusing on unaccepted psakim and basically obsessing over trying to make as many criticisms as he can. There are many valid criticisms, but this is ridiculous, in my opinion. Please comment of you agree or disagree, and do we need to engage the wider wikipedia community about what, in my personal opinion, is someone on a mission. -- Avi (talk) 08:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Noleander#Criticism of Judaism obsession and Talk:Criticism of Judaism#User:Noleander. -- Avi (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, Avi, I am concerned that this is not proper under WP:Canvas. I understand you are concerned about a particular editor, and their edits to Criticism of Judaism. Going to the Judaism WikiProject as a starting point to discuss whether it should approach the community with concerns is problematic. As a starting point I am not sure that this is an appropriate part of dispute resolution, or an appropriate forum to propose and discuss sanctioning an editor. But beyond that, I don't believe that Wikipedia's dispute resolution system contemplates a group of editors organizing in order to raise a complaint against an individual editor to the community. I am not familiar enough to say whether your concerns are legitimate, but it strikes me that standard dispute resolution should be used, or there is a good chance that this would need to go directly to the WP:Arbitration committee if you believe that the community is not sufficient. Otherwise, though I have no way of knowing how others here will respond, I am concerned that the actions you are taking could result in the unacceptable treatment of an individual editor. With respect, Mackan79 (talk) 09:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Just looking at the talk page, I think what Avi was hoping that people with factual knowledge of the topics (e.g. where this Noleander person quotes ancient Jewish sources) might be able to provide balance. I too get the impression that Noleander seems to be very good at criticising Judaism, and spends an inordinate time furthering that agenda.

Wikipedia has insufficient processes for editors who are polite enough not to get caught into basic civility disputes (WP:NPA etc) yet have an obvious bias. Avi was quite right to take soundings here. JFW | T@lk 09:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The request appears to be for opinions on whether Noleander should be sanctioned for edits to Criticism of Judaism. I think there are extremely serious problems with having that discussion here, and then taking the discussion to the community for action, as I am not aware of any way to determine community consensus in that situation. Such a series of events would almost certainly necessitate a request for arbitration. If the request is for specific opinions on a factual issue that would be fine, but otherwise presenting here for general views on a dispute would also be problematic without presenting also to other religion wikiprojects to ensure a balanced set of viewpoints. There may be serious concerns here, but so is the protection of the consensus model, and the fair treatment of an individual editor. Mackan79 (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I, for one, can't see how there could possibly be a problem with posting concerns about a specific article to the relevant noticeboard. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Mackan79, if you want to stop this thread then you take it to the relevant noticeboard. Posting on this page does not lead to any form of sanction, as you know. You are free to post your own requests for input on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Criticism of religion or whereever. JFW | T@lk 11:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't wish to stop the thread, but I am hoping that editors will recognize the potential problem. I could post it to the Wikiproject on atheism, and maybe we could gin up something dramatic. More seriously, my reason for posting is simply to suggest that this should not be a pre-RfC on a user, which is then taken to another forum. I believe that is what was initially suggested, and indeed, I thinks such a request does compromise further attempts to take this directly to dispute resolution. I also think Noleander should only be asked to participate in one forum about his conduct at a time. Any further concerns I have would be contingent on such further steps being taken. Mackan79 (talk) 11:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

So what? I think Noleander could do with being challenged. JFW | T@lk 11:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I wish people would challenge him on the article, actually. Currently he's making proposal after proposal and no one really responds. Maybe it's crap, I don't know, but if he's doing the research it seems to me this would not be terrible. Mackan79 (talk) 11:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect, Mackan, leaving notices on the talk pages of wikiprojects is the proper way to inform interested people without canvassing; please re-read WP:CANVASS. -- Avi (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Many of Noleander's suggestions are, in my understanding, cherry-picked attempts and not representative of Judaism. Having 2000 years of history and responsa allows for many, many fringe ideas to have been written, and focusing on those as opposed to mainstream is misleading and intellectually dishonest. -- Avi (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Leaving a message regarding the possibility of antisemitic behavior at the Judaism wikiproject isn't exactly neutral advertising. I'd find a different place to announce concerns like these. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:11, 14 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Again, Equazcion, what are you going to do about it? JFW | T@lk 16:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, first I'm going to ask you to calm yourself. Then I'll say that I've already done what I think needs to be done, which is to inform Avi, and everyone else here, of my opinion regarding the Judaism wikiproject as a venue for this kind of discussion. If you're suggesting that I either need to make a unilateral action or shut up entirely, I'll say that no, I'd rather try to discuss the alternatives openly first. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:20, 14 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Who mentioned antisemitic, Equazcion, if you believe that so, perhaps it should be taken to WP:ANI? My point is that he is, in my opinion, giving fringe and WP:UNDUE criticisms equal weight with notable ones and demonstrating a misunderstanding of fundamentals of the Jewish halakchic process. Where ELSE am I supposed to get other experts to confirm or deny but here? Think through what you said, Equazcion, it is illogical. Also, review WP:CANVASS; this is not only allowed but approved. -- Avi (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Fringe theories regarding what? The criticism of Judaism? Even if not antisemitism exactly, the point still stands. You can't possibly think the Judaism wikiproject, a place where people who care about the presentation of Judaism congregate, will be the proper neutral venue to discuss something like that. I'd take it to AN, or something. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:24, 14 Mar 2010 (UTC)

AN{I} is the board for when fundamental policies are being abused. This is the step before that; asking experts if in their opinions the polices are being abused. I believe they are, but it is not my habit to go running to the drama boards as a lone wolf. If other experts believe Noleander is abusing policy, the next step is to ask him once again to stop, and then, escalate if that does not work (AN/I, RfC, etc.). To escalate now would be to foment unnecessary drama. First, let the community most closely involved in Judaica topics become aware, and see if there is a problem in the first place. I believe there is; I've asked others to comment here if they believe there is. -- Avi (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not proper to seek attention merely from "the community most closely involved in Judaica topics". That's canvassing, if not in letter then in spirit. You may believe AN and ANI to have deteriorated into drama factories (not an unpopular opinion) but they're nevertheless the best place to discuss things neutrally. If we were talking about the criticism of Christianity and you saw a similar discussion at the Christianity project, I think you'd feel differently. Anyway I'm sorry if you don't see my point, but I'll take whatever steps I can to get the venue changed, if others don't. The audience here is just a little too select. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:33, 14 Mar 2010 (UTC)

The audience here is the proper audience to ask if there is something wrong within the context of expert understanding of Judaism. I am surprised that you can be misreading WP:CANVASS, which specifically states that notices on project talk pages is acceptable, nay preferred. -- Avi (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Avi, I think it may be appropriate to ask here for input on the article or particular edits. To ask whether an editor is disruptive is a different issue, but I really don't see how you can come here and say you think the editor is disruptive and ask others if they don't agree so that a petition may be made to the community. I appreciate that you notified him of this discussion, but the fact that you posted this at the same time as posting several accusations on the article talk page, and on his talk page, creates an unfair environment for him to respond. Canvassing has to be neutral, even if you are looking for expertise (and the expertise should be brought in first to evaluate the talk page discussions, not to jump straight away to whether an editor is disruptive). If that were done, I think things would be on the right track. Mackan79 (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I do not think there is something wrong with stating my opinion. Actually, people should realize I am involved in the issue and may not have the most impartial opinion, which is why I asked for others' opinions. Again, I reiterate, per wikipedia policy this is not canvassing but project talk page notification, which is the preferred method for involving other users who have previously demonstrated interest. Canvassing would be indvidual talk-page editor notifications or e-mails to users; please keep the difference in mind as improper use of what has become accepted terminology only leads to misunderstandings and confusion. At this point, I hope that other interested parties and other experts investigate and either explain to me why I am mistaken, or explain to Noleander how he is. -- Avi (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Even if this isn't canvassing, editor behavior shouldn't be discussed here, as Mackan points out. Wikiprojects are for collaborating on content, not determining if there's a problem with an editor. There are many other, more central venues to discuss that. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:57, 14 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Could I encourage Mackan79 and Equazcion, who seem to be so concerned about fairness to Noleander, to go to the talkpage and support him there? Noleander has been made aware of this thread[3] and should be fully capable of defending himself. JFW | T@lk 22:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I was not clear; my intent was that the project members and experts here should place comments at Talk:Criticism of Judaism. -- Avi (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeshiva stubs and non-notables

Howdy! I've been seeing lots of articles about yeshivas that have little to no notability. I could start putting them up, one by one for AFD's. Is there a better way to deal with a group of articles? Examples include:

Derech Etz Chaim - the only WP:RS fact is that they won a flag football championship
Yeshivat Netiv Aryeh
Mesoras Mordechai - 25 students, no notable features.
Dvar Yerushalayim - the article is a two line stub with link to their website.
Yeshiva Gedola of Carteret - Opened in 2006. The article has a 15 line "History" section!
Miami Beach Community Kollel - 13 Lakewood graduates learning in Miami. Only RS is [[WP:ONEEVENT] about a building fire.
Yeshivat Eretz HaTzvi - Has been tagged for notability since Dec 08.
Yeshiva V'Kollel Beis Moshe Chaim
Kollel Ohr Yosef

And I could go on... These are all fine institutions and I'm sure are doing great work but I don't see how they are encyclopedic. How do we best go about dealing with this?

Many of the creators of these pages will claim that there is a problem in finding WP:RS for a yeshiva in that most of the time there is no reason to write about a yeshiva (barring a scandal). What are your thoughts? Do we need to establish notability guidelines for a yeshiva? Thanks Joe407 (talk) 15:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If no-one has bothered writing about them in a book or magazine or newspaper, they ain't notable and excuses won't wash. However, I would discourage a mass AfD, as they'll get very messy with individual arguments breaking up the flow. --Dweller (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this a paid-for source, and therefore unreliable? --Dweller (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

A yeshiva is notable, in my opinion, because people who are thinking about going there or sending their child there would want to know many things about it. For example, who is the principal? What is the curriculum, and how good is the school academically? What is the culture like? There are lots of reasons to write about a yeshiva, barring a scandal: the students have received X scores on their exam, someone notable is coming to visit, someone notable attributes part of what they did to their experience at that yeshiva, the students are involved in a particularly interesting program, a teacher's coached a student that won a local or national award, etc. Schools are major facilities in the areas they serve. I believe that all day schools are considered notable by Wikipedia standards, and yeshivas are no exception. I've seen lots of articles in the newspaper The Jewish Week related to yeshivas. --AFriedman (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

What people are interested in does not define notability on Wikipedia. Your last sentence is [one thing] that does define it. --Dweller (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Why would Yeshivas be any diffrent than school articles? The are many articles about schools listing even less information than the yeshiva ones ChashuvBachur (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems like every high school in the United States has a Wikipedia article, and most of them are non-notable. Regardless of whether it's right or wrong, my sense is that WP:NOTE has been applied more loosely to schools than to other organizations.

Having said that, it wouldn't be inappropriate to nominate an article about a non-notable school for deletion (PROD or AfD only—CSD doesn't apply to schools). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This last argument is more a non-argument. But is does sound compelling...

My believe is that we should be reluctant with deleting articles based on the notability argument, because 1. a lack of sources on Wikipedia does not proof that there are no sources (and thus notability) 2. WP:BIAS. By which I mean that it is likely that we are not familiar with the sources because we live "far" from the subject (geographically or otherwise). Debresser (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Debresser. Wikipedia doesn't look like it's running out of space any time soon, and article deletion not only demoralizes new editors, but also destroys information that is valuable to someone. --AFriedman (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

A school is an institution. Unlike an individual, it is less likely to be trying to exploit Wikipedia to advance its own "career." I think schools are inherently notable. We don't live in a wold with a surplus of schools. Bus stop (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This is actualy the reason that I feel many of these should be deleted. A place like Yeshiva Gedola of Carteret doesn't seem to have anything notable about it other than "Hey! I'm a yeshiva!" and "My webmaster told me to create a wikipedia entry as free advertising." These articles are 90% unsourced / OR and are viewed as an ad buy. Look at the history of Derech Etz Chaim. It is filled with WP:PEACOCK and once I cut out all of the junk it is still an article of OR showing no notability other than "Howdy! I'm a yeshiva!". I'd like to slice the advertizing. Joe407 (talk) 06:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Joe407, it is still a school. A school is an institution. An institution does not get started without considerable resources of support. That means not just money for the building and the teachers and other learning materials but also the realistic future prospects of students attending. All these things are no trifling matters. As in all Wikipedia articles language must avoid salesmanship. But as I said earlier, I find schools to be inherently notable, unless exceptions to generally assumed notability can be found. Bus stop (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that some articles are really WP:PEACOCK/WP:ADVERT. The best way to deal with them is cleaning them. But Afd stills seems to be an undesirable last resort. That said, if they are really unnotable, like a collel of 10 batlonim who come together every day between minche and mayriv (excuse me for WP:TERM), then Afd should be considered. Debresser (talk) 08:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Debresser, could you please use English as per WP:TALK which says,

"No matter to whom you address a comment, it is preferred that you use English on English Wikipedia talk pages. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, try to also provide a translation of the comments."

I think of these discussions as being potentially for the entire Wikipedia community. I hardly think it is helpful to community-wide comprehension when key words in a sentence don't connote anything to many if not most English-speakers. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That was just an example, while the drift of my comment is perfectly clear. Especially since I apologised beforehand for using yeshivishe terms. I find it quite untasteful that you start quoting me Wikipedia pages. Debresser (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Pah! I actually received a reward for this comment of mine (here). Debresser (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Debresser — This may be the WikiProject Judaism, but it is also part of the English Wikipedia, therefore we should take efforts to include all people in whatever ensuing dialogue will follow from what we post here. It conveys a welcoming environment to speak in standard English. These words are not standard English: collel, batlonim, minche, mayriv. And no translation was provided. And you only linked to WP:TERM at which was found nothing relating to the terms you used. Now you are saying that you mentioned that you were using "Yeshivish" terms — but in the post that I am referring to you did not mention that they might have been Yeshivish terms. It's only a simple point that I am making and you need not be offended. Bus stop (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) while I am here - discussions such as the one on yeshivas have been echoed on schools, hospitals and many other similar entities. One option of one can't find sources is to place the text on the appropriate town or suburb where the entity is located. However, best bet is to find sources. My 2c is that the internet is pretty bland on sources, so digging out books, newspapers etc. is often in order. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"Unlike an individual, it is less likely to be trying to exploit Wikipedia to advance its own "career."" -Bus stop Interesting that you say this. Among many of the yeshivas in Israel and in the US, as private institutions, there is fierce competition for both donor dollars and students. When I see WP articles that have are entirely OR detailing the vaunted lineage of the Rosh Yeshiva or listing where in Israel the students take overnight trips to, this is exploiting WP to advance their career. Please take a look at the schools listed in Template:Orthodox yeshivot in Israel. Some of them (Mir yeshiva (Jerusalem) or Ateret Cohanim) have both real stories, notability & sources. Others (Torat Shraga or Yesodei Hatorah) have been in existence for maybe 10 years and as I noted above, seem to have a WP article just to direct traffic to their website or show prospective students how great it is.

I'm not asking that they all be axed. I am asking for members of this project to look objectively at the cruft on many of these pages. Deleting the junk will force the yeshiva fundraisers and PR people who (often) create these pages to create meaningful pages that will be truely helpful to people wanting a NPOV view on a given yeshiva. Joe407 (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Joe407 — I would have no objection to removing self-promotion for the school or the educators but I think it is likely that any large institution has notability, so I would be hesitant to delete the article. Therefore I think I am in agreement with the approach you are taking toward these articles. Bus stop (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Some of these were prodded, and I deprodded the yeshivas, and sent the kollel to AfD. In response to a question about why I had done so, with a link to this discussion, I commented on my talk page , & summarize here:

Every secondary school that can be demonstrated to be in real existence, present or past, has been kept at AfD for at least the last 2 years. The reason is that in practice we can find sufficient material to show about 95% of them notable by our usual guidelines, and it is not worth having elaborate and time-wasting debates to exclude the other 5%. Any established school will have some notable alumni; will usually have won some academic competitions; the decision to found a school will normally be discussed in news sources or in sources about the founding group or agency; the construction of the school will have often been a major project, resulting also in public information; the appointment of the successive heads will have been newsworthy; the school may have been a place where some noteworthy things have happened. Any of these is enough for notability, and it is extremely rare that some of this cannot be found.

When I first came here, I did not understand this, but I soon realised that the attempts to distinguish just which schools were below the bar for the thousands of them was a useless enterprise, when almost none of them really failed it. Any attempt to discriminate would make more errors than it corrected. We are not an abridged encyclopedia.

The question is whether yeshivas count. All other religious schools do, even small ones. If they serve the purpose of a secondary school, it does not matter what subject they teach. It would be prejudicial to omit those of one particular religion.

Some schools may be branches of another, in which case they might not get a separate article. The rule that we have been applying is that a separate campus is not a separate organization, but a separate administration is. If the school has a headmaster, it is separate. If the school operates in cooperation or under the very general supervision of another institutions it is still separate: most schools operate in such a manner--in the US secular world, a superintendent or a school district; for Catholic schools, either the diocese or the founding order. I think the founding order situation might be the closest analogy for some of the Yeshiva branches here, which would thus be separate. .

For institutes of higher education, the same rules apply, though the distinction is made between vocational schools and those that grant degrees. As I understand the meaning of kollel, it could refer to a wide range of possibilities. The fact that they might not grant formal degrees may or may not be considered relevant. Although I think the one here probably qualifies as a genuine institution of higher education, I'm taking this to AfD to see what the community thinks.

I suggest that there would be the place to discuss it. DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You mean at WP:AFD? Debresser (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think he was referring to the discussion he summarized from. You can see the thread on DGG's talk page. I would however suggest that if we are continuing the discussion, furthur comments be posted here. Debresser, what do you think? Are there two or three yeshiva articles that you would like to improve/support/or prod? (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Joe407 — Which Yeshiva article(s) do you feel are deserving of deletion? Bus stop (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll have a look at all of them, and will comment here in detail. My Internet provider is having trouble, so I'll wait till after normal connections are reestablished. Debresser (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Bus stop, I don't have a list of yeshiva articles that I want to can. The list I posted at the top of this thread is a sampling of articles that I feel should be looked at by the the WP:JUDAISM community and either radically overhauled or killed. I also listed some of my reasons. The problems that I described above include advertising, WP:PEACOCK and huge amounts of OR. For a full list of yeshivas look at any of the yeshiva-related categories (like ) or at the list in the Orthodox yeshivot in Israel template. Reviewing these articles doesn't take long and as a group we could probably clean up the lot of them in a week. I'm happy to have articles about yeshivas on WP. I'm less of a fan of the promotional tone I find in so many of them. Joe407 (talk) 08:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeshiva Gedola of Carteret strikes me as a good example the other way. There just aren't that many higher level Yeshivot in the country, outside of certain concentrated areas. When I looked for a town to live in when I was single, an absolute requirement was that there be a place like that where I could find someone to study with. Furthermore, this sort of institution tends not to serve justa local area, but people from all over, including other countries. Quite notable to me. (Note: I know nothing about the place except the name and implied location.) Mzk1 (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Howdy! I took one of the small yeshiva's to AFD. Please weigh in and let's see where the policies fall. Joe407 (talk) 07:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Jacob Frank now a mascot for Wikipedia sister project Wikiversity

Hi, I'm developing Jacob Frank (an 18th-century religious leader and follower of Sabbatai Zevi, and a topic within the scope of this WikiProject) as a mascot for Wikipedia's sister project Wikiversity. Wikiversity aims to be an online open school and university, and was also created to host original research. Because of its nature, it's open to educational resources in almost any format. Wikiversity's mascots appear on User talk pages when new Users are welcomed. In my opinion, the Wikiversity mascots could be used more fully as an opportunity to teach. The previously developed Wikiversity mascots lack intrinsic educational value. For example, they include a jack-o-lantern, a goat and twin babies not noticeably tied to anything else. In contrast, Jacob Frank is tied to a chapter of history that is relatively little-known and is probably interesting to some people who might not have heard of him beforehand. I'm also hoping to use his professed ignorance in real life and his doctrine of "purification through transgression" to introduce the Wikiversity policies of "Be bold" and "Ignore all rules" (Wikipedia has very similar policies with the same names). I would appreciate your going over to Wikiversity to provide feedback on the pages about the mascot: v:User:JacobFrank and v:Template:JacobFrank. The Template is left on new Users' talk pages; the Userpage is linked from the template and provides more information about Jacob Frank. Also, any ideas for other Wikiversity mascots? Thanks. --AFriedman (talk) 03:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Why not use Grigori Rasputin (who held the same "philosophy" of redemption through sin as Frank), as a mascot instead? 173.52.134.191 (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No joke, Jacob Frank is one of the 6 Wikiversity mascots. 1 in 6 people who are given the "mascot" welcome message to Wikiversity now see him on their User talk page. (The other people see the other mascots.) I am learning about Sabbateanism and, as Max Dimont so nicely put it, "Jewish history has been so replete with revered prophets, rabbis, and scholars, that it is a pleasure to interrupt the tedium of so much saintliness with a select gallery of the most magnificent psychos and crackpots, adventurers and charlatans the world has ever beheld." Sabbatai Zevi, IMO, had such magnificently original and wonderfully paradoxical ideas that I've awarded him a Content Creativity Barnstar on Talk:Sabbatai Zevi. It is delightful to navigate through the maze of conundrums he created and find, at each turn, new reasons for his extraordinariness. It is also delightful to try and defend him against people with more conventional views. We are not using Rasputin because I didn't know about him, but yes, at Wikiversity so many different kinds of things will fly that he's probably an interesting choice for the 7th mascot. --AFriedman (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

AFriedman, Purim is past, and its too late to be making Purim jokes. 173.52.134.191 (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit that when I saw this, I was overjoyed, because I thought you were talking about LEO Frank. Shabtai Tzvi himself was perhaps the most important Jewish figure of the past several hundred years, for entirely negative reasons. Few people have caused so much suffering and heartache to so many Jews as he. Arguably, a lot of the trouble the Jewish community is in today can be traced to him. As far as Jacob Frank is concerned, I suppose it will make the "Jews for Jesus" types happy.Mzk1 (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, given how hard Rasputin was to kill, I suppose he would make a good mascot.Mzk1 (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

173.52.134.191, I think you should take a look at WP:Civility, especially given that you don't have an account so I assume you are new here. There are very clear standards for how editors are supposed to interact with one another and I'd like you to keep them in mind. I hope that your concern for the integrity of the site will encourage you to make more positive contributions. And BTW, I think it's unfortunate that more times of year aren't like Purim. How about 9 Av, as Shabbetai suggested? Or 17 Tammuz? But I don't think that would go over well, so how about 15 Av? That holiday just strikes me as too shrouded in mystery.

Mzk1, wow, Leo Frank is quite a sad story. Thanks for sharing. Why do you think the trouble the Jewish community is in today might be traceable to Shabbetai Tzvi? Please clarify. I think Bogdan Chmielnicki and even Sultan Mehmet IV of the Ottoman Empire probably caused much more trouble to the Jewish community, and the Jewish community also caused trouble to itself. They had a man whose genius defied its norms and first they ostracized him, then they set the unrealistic expectation that he was going to be the Messiah, and then they reviled him and practically blotted out his name because he didn't live up to their absurd expectations. The Dervish order he joined seemed to have dealt with him much more sensibly--appreciate him for what he was, and recognize that it's actually all right to be a little crazy. Certainly, it's much better to stay crazy than to go insane. AFriedman (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

AFriedman, please review WP:SOAP. This noticeboard is to discuss improving WP articles dealing with Judaism. It is not an e-forum to promote your personal ideas and random thoughts. It would probably be best if an administrator deleted this entire thread because it is outside the scope of WikiProject Judaism. 173.52.134.191 (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the more general topical discussions could be moved to our User talk pages instead of deleted, if we want them to continue. People need to understand history in order to edit articles properly, and lack of understanding of history is certainly an obstacle to quality editing about historical topics. As for promoting Wikiversity on Wikipedia: I'm starting a new thread below. --AFriedman (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

WP Judaism and coverage of Jewish topics on Wikipedia's sister projects

I propose expanding the official scope of WP Judaism, to encompass coverage of Jewish topics on Wikipedia's sister projects. I think it is right for Wikipedia and its sister projects to support and complement one another. After all, many types of learning resources are used together, and each Wikimedia Foundation project is one specific type of learning resource but united under the common umbrella of "learning." This is the philosophy of at least one other Wikipedia WikiProject, WikiProject Neuroscience--"We aim to ensure that all neuroscience-related articles on Wikipedia are clear, well-referenced, and include proper use of media, and that all neuroscience-related resources on other Wikimedia projects are comprehensive." Any thoughts about this idea? --AFriedman (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV discussion regarding Criticism of Judaism

A point-of-view discussion has been initiated at NPOV notice board to discuss the deletion of material from the Criticism of Judaism article. The material (seen here) discussed how critics claim that Judaism sometimes is used to justify or motivate violence, particularly violence in the Middle East in modern times. (Disclaimer: I am the editor that contributed the deleted material). --Noleander (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:People of Jewish descent by religion

People may be interested in, and may wish to offer comments on, the CfR discussion here about renaming this and related categories.(I initiated this CfR by the way)--Smerus (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Dalit Voice and Kancha Ilaiah

Attention and contributions are invited on the article on the antisemitic/Indophobic/Holocaust Denial publication Dalit Voice and it's "mainstream" endorser, an Indian militant named Kancha Ilaiah. User ManasShaikh, likely a shill sent to wikipedia by Dalit Voice trolls, wishes to whitewash it's antisemitism and Holocaust Denial. This move is likely in the wake of some mainstream newspapers in the US unknowingly paying attention to it's chief endorser (Ilaiah). Specifically, conflict exists between the versions promoted by the shill for Kancha Ilaiah, for Dalit Voice and the more encyclopedic versions for Kancha Ilaiah, for Dalit Voice. 117.194.197.31 (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The Dalit Voice shill in question, User:ManasShaikh, has managed to hoodwink admins to protect the article(s) at versions that minimize or whitewash their Holocaust Denial [4][5].Gladlowh (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested Move Of Genesis Creation Myth

here Thank you For you time Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Passover vs Passover (Christian holiday)

See discussion at Talk:Passover (Christian holiday)#Merge with Passover. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Birthday greetings

Happy belated 100th birthday to Rabbi Yosef Sholom Eliashiv. May he continue to lead the Jewish nation for many years to come, Biz a Hondred oon Tzvonzig! Chesdovi (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

To add your comments and see the discussion of this, go here. I've written my own perspective, which is critical of R. Elyashiv. --AFriedman (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Warning of new tactic in Newman Luke's edit war

Newman Luke has taken advantage of the holiday to start on the Judaism articles, as some of you know. (Luckily, there is no Second Day in Israel.) What you may not know is that he has created an ADMINISTRATIVE secion called WP:OWNING.Mzk1 (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Can I report his ownership of Criticism of Judaism there? He allows no deletions of text he has added to the article unless the editor can come up with an argument for deleting that meets his personal high standards of what can be taken out and tries to act as the final arbiter of all disputes. Last time I checked Wikipedia policies, they call for the opposite by putting the burden of proof on the editor wishing to include the material. I don't think ownership could be any more clear cut. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There is now an RfD on it, as well as for many similar things he created. I have to say that this adds a new twist to forum shopping.Mzk1 (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Interlinks to Hebrew wikipedia and the article Haninah

Hi,

I'm lately making interlinks of all kinds of Chazal sages to Hebrew Articles, i'd like to ask if Haninah article does not refer to "Hanina Segan ha-Kohanim" sage - am I correct? (are these are two different sages?)

ThanX.

--Midrashah (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Since Rabbi Chaninah Segan Hakohanim was martyred (by the very government he told people to pray for - not that this removed his point), I would presume that it is someone else. Some good references are the Chidah's Shem Hagedolim and Rabbi Rafael Halperin's Atlas Etz Chaim. (Rabbi Halperin, BTW, aside from his scholarship, is a former boxer and owns a large optical chain in Israel.) Mzk1 (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Christian Yom Kippur discussion

Regarding serious Christian content in the Yom Kippur article, please see Talk:Yom Kippur#Theological significance and Talk:Yom Kippur#Poll: Yom Kippur and Christianity. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Rabbinic Levites

Category:Rabbinic Levites, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Rabbinic Kohanim

Category:Rabbinic Kohanim, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Judaism

The article could benefit from more opinions than just myself and Noleander. As this board is watched by those interested in Judaism-related topics, I request that more eyes watch Criticism of Judaism and comment/correct/update the article and the talk pages as y'all see best. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Category for discussion notice: Category:Hate groups

Please note that a user has nominated the Category "Hate Groups" for deletion. Please see discussion here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_10#Category:Hate_groups --DCX (talk) 07:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment

Semikhah → Semicha. Last September, the page was moved to Semikhah on the basis of one editor's opinion. Please weigh in at Talk:Semikhah#Request for comment. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Please also see parallel discussion, Halakha → Halacha, at Talk:Halakha#Request for comment. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Temple Mount and Eretz Yisrael Faithful Movement

Temple Mount and Eretz Yisrael Faithful Movement Could someone look at this article I removed some of the worst POV but it still needs the eyes of someone who knows something about the subject to remove the rest and give it balance.71.237.210.137 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC).

Request for comment

I have proposed merging Ashkenazi intelligence to Ashkenazi Jews. Weigh in at, Talk:Ashkenazi intelligence. Also in particular, weigh in on one user's points, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ashkenazi_intelligence#More_sociology.2C_less_biology.21 I thought his line of questioning needed more discussion. ScienceApe (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Again... Debresser (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Zagreb Synagogue nominated for GA

Zagreb Synagogue, an article within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, has just been nominated for GA. Any kind of help or comments would be appreciated. You may want to take a look at the peer review and add your comments there, or simply in the article's talk page. Thanks! GregorB (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Rabbinic Kohanim

The following five articles were recently categorized in Category:Rabbinic Kohanim, which was deleted:

Could the members of the project please review the five articles and determine whether they need to be placed in either Category:Kohanim or Category:People of Kohanim descent? Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Abraham Isaac Kook - Category:Kohanim
Dovid Leibowitz - depends how he was related to the Chofetz Chayim

Good point. His gravestone[6] doesn't indicate kehunah. Yoninah (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Irving Greenberg - neither, since his being a Kohen is not even mentioned in the article.
Ishmael ben Elisha ha-Kohen - Category:Kohanim
Nesanel Quinn - Category:Kohanim

Debresser (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Done.

By the way, "People of Kohanim descent" means the same thing as "Kohanim". Any man who descends from Aharon Hakohen is a Kohen. Any woman whose father is a Kohen is also a Kohen. Why hasn't anyone speedy-deleted Category:People of Kohanim descent? Yoninah (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Ha! And what about the daughter of a kohen, and her son, a kohen's grandson. No, they are descended from kohanim, but not kohanim themselves. Debresser (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right, but isn't it halakhically misleading to call someone "of Kohanim descent"? What does it help to categorize like that? Yoninah (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Debresser, I think it depends which Jewish movement you belong to. Many Conservative synagogues in the U.S. refer to a bat kohen as a kohenet, or female kohen, and consider her equal in status to a male kohen. (I don't know whether her children are considered kohanim, though.) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If it weren't so sad, I'd have a good laught at that nonsense. Anyway, I agree that Category:People of Kohanim descent should be deleted, since it has no significance in Judaism (or elsewhere). Debresser (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Debresser and Yoninah. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Category for discussion nomination of Category:People of Kohanim descent

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 22#Category:People of Kohanim descent. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 08:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Category: Jews and Category: American Jews

A move has began for the changing of the names of certain categories containing the word "Jews" to "Jewish people". Already a changed "slipped" through whereby the Category:American Jews was changed to Category:American Jewish people and a nominations has now been made to change Category:Israeli Jews to Category:Israeli Jewish people. I have proposed that the American category revert to its former and I have opposed the renaming of the Israeli category. The discussion is currently on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. If these changes go through, I believe that they would constitute a precedent for changing all categories with the word "Jews", and possibly the removal of the word from all categories and many article titles. Davshul (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have registered my disapproval here. I agree that the word "Jew" (or "Jewish") is sufficient, without the term "people" after it. The word "Jewish" contains the implied term "people." Bus stop (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. However, did you notice the discussion lower on the same page regarding reverting Category:American Jewish people back to Category:American Jews? Davshul (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

~~:The discussion on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy has been moved down to the "Nominations with objections" list, lower down the page. Davshul (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)~~

The discussion on reverting the category Category:American Jewish people back to Category:American Jews has now been moved to a full CFD (Categories for Discussion). Please add your views here. Davshul (talk) 12:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic terrorism, Jewish religious terrorism and Christian terrorism included in AfD. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Consensus on integrating Karaism into articles

I'd like to see if I can maybe open a discussion on how Karaite material and perspectives ought to be (or not be) integrated into articles on Judaism. The current practice I see in articles is to throw in Karaite material in more or less the same vein as modern Rabbanite movements'. This is, to say the least, somewhat confusing and misleading, since virtually everything else in the article is Rabbanite. I don't have a good answer on this myself. NPOV makes me reluctant to propose treating Karaism as simply discrete from Judaism the way we treat Samaritanism (it would be very much like treating Protestantism as discrete from Christianity), but the status quo is also untenable. Savant1984 (talk) 00:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I see the issue of how to mention Karaite point of view every once in a while. The consensus so far seem to be to treat them as another branch of Judaism, but give them no more than short mention, while anything more elaborate needs to go to specific articles about Karaism. Debresser (talk) 04:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That strikes me as a good way of doing it, but it seems misleading to put much more than a 'see article x link', since readers will naturally assume that Rabbanite material in the article applies to them as much as to Rabbinic movements. Savant1984 (talk) 11:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Savant: Not quite sure what your issues are because articles related to topics dealing with aspects of Karaite Judaism have enough content to stand alone. Your comparison of "Protestants" to "Christians" is not applicable here because the Karaites created a different religion and are almost extinct today, and the use of the term "Rabbanite" can be regarded as offensive since Karaites use it as a pejorative term for their hated enemies the classical rabbis who opposed them, so hopefully this is not about WP:POINT and WP:NOTMYSPACE. It is counter-productive to try to squeeze in every last vestige of mention of all and sundry topics connected to Judaism into Judaism articles proper that creates nothing but chaos and confusion. The "See alsos" and links inside articles work beautifully and are the best mechanisms to link together related Wikipedia articles and topics when such topics are vast in their own right, as the topic of Karaite Judaism truly is. IZAK (talk) 07:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

IZAK, your liberal use of WP:NOTMYSPACE is (again) unwarranted. User:Savant1984 has apparently edited here for years and has hundreds of contributions, not to mention he raises a perfectly legitimate question. I'm pretty sure he knows WP is not MySpace. He seems to be asking to open discussion on an issue he finds confusing; an issue that appears somewhat subtle, and is approaching it with concern for NPOV and for the views of other editors. That should be welcomed here. Maybe you're not sure what MySpace is? Kaisershatner (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Kaiser: I didn't know that you were his WP:LAWYER. The rule of WP:MYSPACE is not just about the "MySpace" social networking site, it is a rule that essentially constrains self-promotion or pushing an agenda and similar efforts. How about you add to the content of the discussions and see the actual points I am trying to make, your input would be so appreciated and more helpful. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 03:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

IZAK, I concede that Karaites are certainly not as sociologically noteworthy as Protestants today, but certainly a classical Catholic perspective on Protestants would be that they created a (heretical) 'different religion', and many religious names (possibly including 'Protestant', though I'm not sure) started as pejorative terms. Nevertheless, if there's a sense that 'Rabanite' is offensive, I don't mind typing the extra letters to say 'Rabbinic Jew'. To the real point: it's true: as things stand, Karaite articles on things already covered in terms of Rabbinic Judaism wouldn't really have enough material to stand on their own comfortably. Nevertheless, in thinking about it, I'm increasingly bothered by the implications of simply having Karaism thrown in Rabbinic Jewish material. Karaites simply aren't Rabbinic Jews, and it seems to me that having a 'Karaite views' section in an article written otherwise about Rabbinic Judaism is simply all-around misleading. Despite the shortness of articles that would result, I am leaning toward the following idea: Have Karaite articles for every Jewish topic relevant. For the main (i.e., Rabbinic) article (on, say, Shabbat), have the note at the top: This article is about Shabbat in Rabbinic Judaism. For Shabbat in Karaite Judaism, see Shabbat in Karaite Judaism. At the moment, just by way of example of the problem, while the third paragraph of the current Shabbat article mentions that Karaites disagree about what the forbidden labours are, the first paragraph refers and links to Rabbinic law about day beginnings/endings in the polar regions. How would someone not learned in the topic have any idea that Karaites differ? Savant1984 (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe that at times and places in Jewish history Karaites did not, in fact, call themselves Jews, so the concept has some merit. The other question is how notable a group of maybe 30,000 is currently (not that I object to sections on Karaite practices). Also, how would we define rabbinic Judaism? If it is everything except Karaism, then it should just be called Judaism. On the other hand, should Reform - just as an example - be defined as Rabbinic Judaism? Does it define itself that way? (Personally, I use traditional for Orthodoxy and its antecedents, but this is controversial and I do not want to get off-topic.) I think it is better to include a section on Karaites than to qualify the rest of Judaism, particularly since this term itself could also be called POV. Plus we have editors putting views from Bilbical Criticism (particularly from the JE) into these articles, so in any case they are not exclusively Rabbinic.Mzk1 (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

While there certainly is precedent for Karaites rejecting the name of 'Jew' altogether, my sense is that those periods were the exception rather than the rule, and that Karaites today consider themselves Jews. As for what qualifies as 'Rabbinic', in the strictest sense the term should is usually restricted to ~70 CE until modernity, IIRC. My point with reference to Karaism is that, whatever else they are, the Progressive (Reform, Liberal, Reconstructionist) movement, the Conservative/Masorti movement, and the Orthodox movement are movements in Judaism presenting themselves as the successors of pre-modern Rabbinic Judaism. (There was a neo-Karaite tendency in the early Reform movement, led by people like Samuel Holdheim, and there are still vestiges of its influence, but they essentially lost the ideological battle.) The question of whether Biblical criticism is compatible with traditional Rabbinic Judaism, is, of course, incredibly controversial, but I don't think it speaks to the basic problem: Judaism articles present Judaism as Rabbinic Judaism (and/or its successor movements), and while I don't think that this is bad, we should deal with Karaism in a way that avoids misleading people into thinking that it is presents itself as a successor to pre-modern Rabbinic Judaism as other movements do (not to mention having its own history and Tradition for about a millenium). Savant1984 (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Savant: Your comparisons of Karaism to Reform, Conservative, Recontsructionist and Orthodox Judaism is flawed because none of those movements reject the Oral Torah to the 100% absolute and total degree that Karaism does, so please stop flogging that dead horse. Your injection of Biblical criticism as a justification for Karaism's validity is illogical and a red herring because of all things Karaism totally accepts the literalness of the Bible to a degree that is 100% totally contradictory to Biblical criticism. Judaism is Judaism, the notions of "movements" and "streams" and labels dividing the Reform, Conservative and Orthodox is arbitrary and modern. Karaism broke off from Judaism well over 1,000 years ago and became a different religion, today it is a footnote, a trivial barely existent movement, close in some ways -- the way that Christianity is "close" with Judaism because it too shares the "old testament" but no one but the Jews for Jesus sect says that Christianity=Judaism and no one but a few pro-Karaite sectarians really says that Karaism=Judaism either, because they are totally different religions, just as Christianity and Judaism are opposite and conflicting religions their external commonalities notwithstanding, with Karaites and adherents of Judaism boycotting each other and not marrying into each other under any circumstances for over 1000 years. Just because there are a few revisionists now who want to toot the horn of Karaites making them into the Jews they never were and never wanted to be, does not mean that over 1000 years of Jewish history and religion must be flushed down the drain with word games no matter who comes up with the theories. Why are you trying to fit a square peg into a round hole coming off sounding like you are creating your own grand theory violating WP:NOR or worse, making "Judaism" into what it is not and has never been, a hodge podge of concoctions and conflicting schizophrenic beliefs. IZAK (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, calm down, IZAK. :) First, my point about Reform, Conservative and Orthodox is precisely that they're not comparable to Karaism, precisely because the former are Rabbinic successor-movements and Karaism certainly is not. Second, I didn't 'inject Biblical criticism as a justification of Karaism's validity'. Again, on the contrary, my point in the sentence mentioning it (in reply to Mzk1) is that Biblical criticism isn't analogous to Karaism. Third, I'm not 'creating my own grand theory' about Karaism being Jewish, I'm pointing out that our articles currently treat Karaism as a Jewish movement (the same way they treat Orthodoxy, Conservatism, and Reform generally), and that that's problematic! I'm certainly not taking a position on whether Karaism actually is legitimately Judaism (WP:NPOV), and I'm certainly open to discussion about how notable understanding Karaism as Judaism is (and thus how much it ought to govern how we present it in regard to Rabbinic Judaism). Savant1984 (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Savant, perhaps a better analogy is the way articles about Christianity deal with the Mormon perspective? Not my area of expertise, but I think most Christian denominations consider Mormonism a different religion, while adherents to the LDS movement consider themselves Christians. If I understand that correctly. I haven't read them much, but I doubt articles about Christian beliefs go far out of their way to state stuff like "Mormons also believe in the subsequent revelations of..." etc. So perhaps the articles about Judaism don't need to go to great lengths to explore the Karaite perspective. I doubt every article about Christian beliefs has a headnote at the top disclaiming that Mormons may not believe 100% of what is in the article. Also, isn't the root problem here a definition of what is "normative Judaism"? ie, that if you state "this is the Jewish belief regarding labor on Shabbat," how far do you have to go to point out that there are people who consider themselves Jews who do not accept the same viewpoint? Not sure if that helps you answer the question, in part I am trying to understand the problem as you see it. Best, Kaisershatner (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Kaisershatner, the analogy with Mormonism is well-taken, both conceptually and in how it's dealt with in Wikipedia. In both cases, though, I think it's a problem that bears addressing. I agree it gets a bit awkward -- e.g., 'This article on Baptism refers to Baptism in Trinitarian Christianity. For Baptism in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints' etc. But it still seems to me that it is, nevertheless, misleading to treat Mormonism as if it were analogous to, say, Lutheranism, in how it's presented in Christian articles. Savant1984 (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I do find the idea that Reform, at least, considers itself as Rabbinic surprising, but I will leave that as I do not want this to turn into a debate on that sort of thing. Besides, if they do, then they do. I do admit that my main interest in not doing this is because it tends to marginalize Orthodoxy - you have Rabbinic and Karaite Judaism, and then Orthodoxy is a sub-set of the former. I argued with NewmanLuke partly based on that, without realizing that this was the way many people saw the term. May I suggest that we think - for example - of watches. A watch stated plainly, is a wristwatch, but there are also unusual types called "pocket watches". (Once it was the reverse.) Judaism articles ought to describe Rabbinic Judaism (unless we are going through history) as just Judaism, and have some notes on Karaism, either there or in separate articles. We should not discriminate against Karaites, but neither is this a reason to require the Rabbinic qualifier (or give undue weight).Mzk1 (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why being considered a subset of Rabbinic Judaism marginalises Orthodoxy any more than Conservatism et al., but it's probably beside the point. I think ultimately you're right: the word 'Judaism' almost always is used to refer to Rabbinic Judaism, its predecessors, or successors, as appropriate for context. Here's my proposal: (unindent)

(continued from above indentation) -- Proposal for Dealing with Karaite Material

1)Move all Karaite material to its own page on the topic, or the Karaite Judaism article if there's not enough to justify a separate article (probably most things)

2) At the top of the Judaism article only, specify something like this: Th.is article is about Rabbinic Judaism and its modern successor movements. See also Karaite Judaism. (This is the one I feel least strongly about.)

3) In all other Jewish articles for which Karaite material exists, simply place a link to the appropriate article (either Karaite Judaism or the specific article, if one exists) in the 'See Also' section.

4) Remove Karaism from the 'Denominations' section of the series infobox and related places/lists.

It seems to me that this will solve the problem of misleadingly implying that Karaism is a Rabbinic (or post-Rabbinic) movement like other modern movements. It does that at the cost of perhaps implying that they aren't really 'Judaism', but as was noted, we don't (and reasonably can't) do them justice in the context of unqualified 'Judaism' articles, and Karaites are not so sociologically noteable today in any event. Savant1984 (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Savant: Part of your proposed "solution" will actually create more confusion and problems, because if at the top of the Judaism article there will be a proviso that "Th.is article is about Rabbinic Judaism and its modern successor movements. See also Karaite Judaism" then the door is opened to requests for equal treatment for Messianic Judaism; Jewish Christians; Ebionites and other similar whatnots. Therefore, by avoiding a modern-day tendency to create artificial Wikipedian "ecumenism" between all branches and extensions that openly defy logic, reality and theology, and the greater the degree of separation between articles, and the more WP:SYNTH is not violated, the greater the accuracy and clarity of articles relating to already very complicated topics. To sum it up, avoid the tendency to make a "cholent" out of diverse and mutually contradictory elements that are best kept clearly defined and not mixed up tossed into one pot. IZAK (talk) 06:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

IZAK's point is basically well taken by me, though I don't think Karaism is exactly analogous to the other groups mentioned. In any event, unless someone voices objection, I'm going to be bold and start to implement everything but point 2 of my proposal (per IZAK's objection) as I have the time and wherewithal. Savant1984 (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I object, if that's worth anything to anyone.Mzk1 (talk) 05:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Mzk1. What do you think? :) Savant1984 (talk) 11:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Look, I'm new here, so if everyone else agrees I won't stand in their way. But I think that Karaite, and even Samaritan (and Sadducee in an historical sense) viewpoints do belong, as alternative views with less weight, at least if they do not have their own articles. (In certain parts of history, they should probably get realtively more weight.) While I was recently bemused by what I saw in the Jewish Encyclopedia, of all things ("Rabbinical Conferences"), defining Orthodoxy as those who follow the Talmud as well as the Bible, if Reform - for example - considers itself Rabbinic (are there sources?) because it values the Talmud although considering it non-binding, well, O.K. But it is difficult to see how the Karaites are less traditional, as at least they consider the Bible to be binding, not to mention historical (the latter getting into a main difference between Orthodox and (most of) Conservative Judaism). (Please excuse the "at least"; I did not know how else to put it.) Thank you for giving me a hearing.Mzk1 (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the issue is being 'traditional' or not, really, but whether Karaism is consistent enough with what's described as Judaism in the rest of articles for it to make sense and not be misleading. The Reform movement, as can be seen by its platforms and responsa literature (at least in the twentieth century) presents itself as Rabbinic or post-Rabbinic, and so it certainly seems to fit in with articles about unqualified 'Judaism'. I think you're right, though, that where the material is historical or even sociological, as opposed to religious-ideological, Karaism does belong. By way of example, in looking through the Judaism article, the inclusion of Karaism as it is in the "alternative Judaism" and in the history sections seem to me to be appropriate and important. By contrast, the inclusion of a Karaite view in the "Family Purity" section three paragraphs in after discussion of the "traditional" -- i.e., Rabbinic -- practices, seems to me to be confusing at best. Yet more confusing is the "Laws of Ritual Purity" section: there, Karaite and Rabbinic views and practices are indeed treated discretely and equally, but this is totally contrary to how they are dealt with in every other section! Contrast "Kashrut", where only Rabbinic practices are mentioned! One paragraph is mentioned as specifically Rabbinic -- from this are we supposed to learn that the rest of the section is common to Rabbinic and Karaite Judaism? Perhaps I'm being a bit pulpilistic (and if you think so please say so), but this really does seem to me to be a problem. (I haven't touched the main Judaism article for these purposes becuase the material there seems difficult to disentangle so as to avoid confusions while not purging material that really ought to be in there. So far I think I've only done the info templates and the issue in Shabbat that I rased above.) I really appreciate Mzk1's and everyone else's participation in this discussion; it's really helped me think more about how Karaism ought to be presented here, and this is the sort of thing I think it's important to have at least some kind of consensus about going into to avoid total chaos and feather-ruffling. Savant1984 (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Now that I understand from your example, I would not stand in your way. (Actually, a lot of the articles have only just the traditional / Orthodox view (sorry for the POV) plus stuff - some of it perhaps proto-Conservative - grafted on from the JE; although this is because we don't know how to find Conservative / Reform views, as could be seen from the discussion on one talk page.) In fact, even with out any changes, you could just use Undue Weight and change the Karaite part to a small piece at the end (my preference). But now that I see what you mean, I remove any objections to your plan.Mzk1 (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I have been working on some of the marriage articles, and perhaps you can help with information on Conservative rulings or customs, if you have some material.Mzk1 (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, other editors are welcome to copyedit and otherwise enhance Karaite Judaism, which still needs a lot of work. Kaisershatner (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

What I have seen there is that the history section has a very Karaite POV, giving the Karaites early origins. But I see nothing wrong with that, it's pretty normal in Wikipeida (see Edward Said); I would just like for us to be able to do that also :-).Mzk1 (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment at Talk:Judaism regarding the term "religion"

Please see the following request for comment. Talk:Judaism#Should_the_term_.22religion.22_appear_descriptively_in_the_first_sentence.3F. Input would be much appreciated.Griswaldo (talk) 04:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

English rendition of shva

I am having a difference of opinion with two editors who insist on their opinion as to the proper English rendition of the shva in the word "psak", which they write "pesak". It seems IMHO that their opinion is wrong, and I have tried to bring various arguments and proofs on the talk page. Nevertheless, the two editors have continued to insist in redoing their change to the article. I'd like to ask for your input on Talk:Posek#Sheva_na_in_plural_form, and for any admins among you to make the appropriate change. Debresser (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I second the call for more discussion of this issue, more broadly than that article even. The issue is how a sheva na should be transliterated which is either 1) not generally pronounced (as in 'posekim') or 2) not generally written, although it is always (AFAIK) pronounced (as in 'pesak'). My view is represented in the talk page for Posek. Savant1984 (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I found the pertaining guideline, and have posted it at the end of the talk page discussion. Debresser (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

(Actually, there is a clear guideline on Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Hebrew)#Vowels_and_shva that says that in order for a shva to be written as an "e" two conditions need to be fulfilled: it should be a shva na at the beginning of a word 2. is should be actually pronounced in modern Hebrew. The word "psak" fails the second criterion, and poskim the first. End of discussion. Debresser (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC))

1) That guideline is "When a topic pertains primarily to modern Israel". Clearly Posek is not in that category. 2) Under this guideline, "pesak" is most certainly correct -- again, I have no idea how that word would even sound if one tried to omit the sheva. Savant1984 (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Having gone over Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) (again) in its entirety just now, I should point out that this is an area outside any of the guidelines is we assume that "pesak" is a post-Diaspora phenomenon. If it's pre-Diaspora (arguable), then we should use "a form of the general-purpose, diacritic-less transliteration scheme described by the Society of Biblical Literature's SBL Handbook of Style". While I can't find it online or on my bookshelf, I believe the SBL standard is indeed to use an "e" for every sheva na. Savant1984 (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I fail to understand how under the cited guideline "pesak" is most certainly correct. Israelis do not say "pesak", that is for sure! Debresser (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I think maybe this is just a conversation that's impossible to have via text. They certainly don't say "psak", either. Savant1984 (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes they do. 99% of them. Debresser (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Really? Granted that the great majority of my conversations about Judaism were in English even when I lived in Israel, but I don't remember even hearing that (maybe my ear was giving them the benefit of the doubtful-slur?). If that's really so, then, a transliteration according to actual usage would omit representation of the peh, as well. Of course, again, this is not a specifically Israeli article, so what Israelis say has even less relevance than it normally would. Savant1984 (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, really. Nobody says "pesak", except perhaps for a few old Yemenite Jews who use their liturgic pronounciation even when speaking regularly because that is the way they were taught in childhood. Debresser (talk) 07:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Everyone I know, (for example, Israeli, American, British, Australian, and South African to name a few) say "p'sak" where the shva na is merely an explosive "p" tied to the samech. This follows hilchos dikduk in that the shva na is tried to the following tenuah wheras the shva nach is tied to (and closes) the previous tenuah. No one that I know of puts a segol in for the shvah. Now the word Pesach on the other hand, has a segol, and thus has the "eh". Does anyone say Pe-sak? for a P'sak Halacha? -- Avi (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't attempting to suggest that the sheva na should be treated as a segol. You are, of course, correct. :) I don't mind using an apostrophe for the sh'va at all. Savant1984 (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Avi didn't mean to suggest that the apostroph should be written. He just wanted to point out that there is no "e" there. The apostroph would suggest a pause, which is completely absent, as Avi said correctly that the "p-s" comes out explosively. Debresser (talk) 07:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference between a short "e" sound (i.e., much shorter than a segol) and the "ps" coming out explosively. I certainly know that, in addition to some old Yeminites, there are plenty of Anglophoness who use a short "e" sound. The way Debresser describes seems to me what would be proper if the peh had a sheva nach. In any event, as I point out above, this is irrelevant since this is by no means an Israeli-centered article, even conceding that what Israelis tend to say constitutes "Modern Hebrew". The closest thing among our guidelines for this kind of article is the SBL, which has an "e" for every sheva na, AFAIK. Savant1984 (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

All of the above and that guideline is very relevant, because 1. "psak" and "posek" are Hebrew words as well. 2. the pronounciation favoured in traditional circles is also "psak" and "poskim" (even with short "o" rather than long one). This I can testify to, as I am a rabbi myself. Debresser (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

1) That guideline restricts itself to "When a topic pertains primarily to modern Israel". 2) Again, by "traditional" you seem to mean "Ashkenazi". Neither is this a a topic pertaining primarily to Ashkenazim. Savant1984 (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

1. The guideline may well have a disclaimer "When a topic pertains primarily to modern Israel", but that in no way diminishes the factual correctness of the guideline in our case, because of point 2: 2. I indeed meant Ashkenazi, but the fact that Ashkenazi and modern Israeli pronounciation agree in this case only strengthens my argument. Debresser (talk) 17:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think "When a topic pertains primarily to modern Israel" is a disclaimer, Debresser, I think it's a statement of its scope, just like "When a topic originates before the Diaspora". "Factually", "pesak/p'sak/psak" is much closer to originating before the Diaspora to being primarily about the modern State of Israel, as far as I know. 17:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi

For a discussion about the title "rabbi", please see Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Hebrew)#Rabbi. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Questions about a particular article

Would it be all right to ask a question about a particular article here, and reference it on the article talk page, rather than the reverse? I am in particular looking for non-Orthodox views, and I am unlikely to get them there.Mzk1 (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

New editor and article needs project help

I recently removed a PROD on ITIM: The Jewish-Life Information Center and notified its creator User talk:Amirwolff with some improvement suggestions. Possibly members of this project can lend a hand. Thanks--Mike Cline (talk) 00:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

ITIM is a notable organization, it should not have been prodded. IZAK (talk) 03:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Notable?

Not sure this fellow is notable .. perhaps someone here can check and opine: Meshulam Gross --Epeefleche (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I read the article, and had a look on Google. Seems to me the subject of this article is not notable, and the article should go to Afd. Debresser (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Tx. I'm not experienced in bringing those, but if someone else would pls let me know as I would like to participate in the discussion. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Pity that the original creator of this article is now inactive. There was some discussion about the subject of the article, see Talk:Meshulam Gross and there is a contact Email that was given reubengross@msn.com - maybe a son, and maybe it's worth checking out if this person was indeed notable. No need to rush, the article has been around since 4 years, since April 2006 [7]. IZAK (talk) 06:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't like to delete pages that are notable. I should point out that this one, before I trimmed it, did read as though written by a family member (and was decidedly innappropriate). When I finished trimming it, it didn't seem necessarily notable to me. And I thought it would be wrong to the other clearly notable Jewish scholars to have a non-notable listed alongside. Just my thinking. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

In addition, the article reads like a hagiograph, which is in WP:NOT. Debresser (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Debresser: Many Chabad-related biographies are outright hagiography that you enforce, so you lack credibility with this accusation. Often-times, most articles about religious personalities start out as hagiography because the editors who have the greatest interest and motivation to write them up are usually admirers or true-believers of some sort, but with time and input from other editors eventually a greater objectvity and balance are restored. Biographies are hard to write, especially of borderline figures, and all I suggest is that a little more in-depth research be done and consideration be given. I would not lose sleep over what happens to this one specific article in any case. Many articles about borderline Chabad personalities only make it because Chabad spends so much time pumping out voluminous PR all over that it's simple to get some links to back up even the faintest Chabad-related subjects, a luxury not shared or granted to non-Chabad related articles and bios. Think about it. I am not concerned so much about the fate of this article per se, but I am very concerned that a trend not be started to shoot down many Judaic articles and bios in violation of WP:POINT that still need lots of work, even after a few years awaiting the motivated and inspired editors who want to get involved. Often-times it is two steps forward and one step backwards as articles mutate into decent shape and the role of editors should be to act like good midwives and not like "abortionists" out to kill articles because of WP:LIKE so to speak. IZAK (talk) 02:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

IZAK - "Many Chabad-related biographies are outright hagiography that you enforce, so you lack credibility with this accusation." is a bit of a baiting statement. Please don't pick a fight. Thank you. Joe407 (talk) 03:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this article a few years old already? If it were notable, it should have left the hagiography stage by now. Debresser (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no "statute of limitations" or a required time frame and with so many articles floating around with editors not being heard from after they write up an initial article, it does take years, and patience is needed. In any case, this article is barely hagiographic, it basically lists the man's accomplishments for he is notable. IZAK (talk) 05:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's calm down, Joe. It certainly was over-the-top at the outset, and may be non-notable still. Let's all just focus on that issue. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Joe, nobody is picking fights, this is an open free-wheeling discussion, where everyone is expected to talk without worrying about thin skins and nonsense. My observation was directed to Debresser directly and I had no idea you were his WP:LAWYER either. My, so many "defenders" of others without discussing the issues. By the way, on our point of discussion here and why Debresser is now so eager to wipe out this article and not consider the same problems of lack of notability of some Chabad-related ones -- such as among some Chabad shluchim that are building up in Category:Chabad-Lubavitch rabbis (55 so far and counting as they keep on piling up -- and few question that process), I couldn't resist when I just happened to come across this "bio" of Cosma Shiva Hagen and wondered why it's important to know how many languages she spoke in such a basically skimpy "biography" that is only noteworthy because of who her mother was. This often-times proves it's a question of opinion and not necessarily facts. Again, I am not so worried about the fate of this particular biography as such, but rather about not setting in motion a wave of nominations to delete biographies still awaiting more input, a process that takes years in many cases and that editors need to be seriously aware of. IZAK (talk) 09:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Joe, that IZAK was racking up old fires in a rather unpleasant personal kind of way. I shall therefore ignore that comment. Debresser (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense, I was pointing out an obvious fact, that while you defend pro-Chabad the same is not apparent when you deal with others, and this is talking editorially and not on a "personal" level of any sort. IZAK (talk) 05:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Another

And here are another couple I have the same question about: Tzvi Berkowitz and Yehoshua Landau.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Here we go, what's not notable about them? IZAK (talk) 05:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  - I pose it as a question for the others here, who I expect are better able to gauge their notability than I am. But from the sources in the articles (or lack thereof), they didn't jump out at me as notable. But I defer ...--Epeefleche (talk) 05:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Straight to Afd, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to prod them. Same for the article above. Debresser (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche: I am not fighting with you. I mostly even agree with you! This is a gray zone, and will take work. There are plenty of purely hagiographic Chabad rabbi entries that are the same and add them to your ever-growing lists and are in no way intrinsically more notable than the ones you mention, like:

Levi Brackman (noted "writer"?);
Menachem Brod (notable "sokesman"?);
Yehuda Chitrik (noted "ancestor"?);
Aharon Gurevich (noted "chaplain"?);
Hanoch Hecht (noted "son"?);
Sholom Lipskar (noted "Floridian"?);
Zalman Moishe HaYitzchaki (noted "shochet"?);
Avraham Chaim Naeh (noted "measurements"?);
Nissan Neminov (noted "Parisian"?);
Dov Ber Pinson (noted "kabbalist"?);
Menachem Shmuel David Raichik (pure hagiography);
Aaron Raskin (notable "Brooklynite"?);
Mordechai Scheiner (notable "Siberian"?);
Zelig Sharfstein (what makes him "notable"?);
Shneur Zalman Fradkin (honestly now, how is he truly notable?);
Zvi Yair (notable "poet"?).

Therefore, once you start down the slippery slope of looking under the rugs and seeking out and shaking out the borderline or barely notable and outright non-notables, it must also equally apply to these Chabad rabbis here who quite honestly and factually are not justifiably objectively notable beyond having a job in a place (Paris, Brooklyn, Siberia, Israel etc) or writing a minor book or a few articles, and they should all perhaps be put up for deletion if one is to be fair about this process. Personally, I have no problem in seeing them all go, but it would be a shame because many people have put in hard work and they do have the makings of better articles given enough time, and that means years of waiting if need be, because Wikipedia is new and some things take time. IZAK (talk) 06:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Understood. I've run into the same with Muslim "scholars", and there at least my more expert Muslim on-Wiki contacts are good at sorting out the wheat from the chaff. Perhaps the same is not true here for some reason. Where I ran across 2 or 3 bios that (before I pruned them) were over-the-top homage, but lacked substance/refs, I thought they might not quite belong here (and as I said, I thought people on this wp might be able to tell if that was the case). Perhaps its not, in which case everyone should just ignore my posts above. (or, if it is the case, and any are clearly non-notable, bring to AfD -- so the bright light of the true scholars will not be lost with the masses).--Epeefleche (talk) 06:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche, don't lose heart, prod us on, let's see what comes of it. In classical Judaism and among rabbis there are hierarchies and continuums that bridge from the average to the greatest, and there are many grades and shades and criteria that may not be fully evident from the outside. Thus in the cases you pointed out, it does not seem like much, but in the Haredi world when a rabbi manages to become a fairly senior teacher or communal figure he has reached "notability" that may not strike an outside observer as being particularly notable. Another problem is that articles about rabbis are written in superlatives and there is no training in the religious world in writing critical biographies when negative or unflattering information is looked askance upon as "lashon hara" (slander, even hints of it being problematic) and that is why biographies of rabbis are almost always hagiographic in intent and content. It is only in academic circles and universities where the art of analyzing personalities and topics in a non-worshipful manner is inculcated, usually to the chagrin of the more religious Jews. So it's tough, on the one hand, Wikipedia wishes to solicit and have articles about as many people and topics that can be submitted but on the other hand, when they do float in they often-times tend to be like what you are picking up on now, so it's a quandary, so either all the mediocrity goes, or the less than desirable biographies are allowed to stay put and mature into something better over time (how long is anybody's guess). This does not mean to say that articles and biographies are immune from deletion forever, nope, they are most certainly not and having submitted for AfDs over the years I can attest that one needs to have a number of factors in mind with regards to Judaic biographies. But please don't stop, and let's keep this discussion going, and let's cite facts and talk about what troubles us specifically and not just leave names up in the air. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 06:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Mishpacha (non-Chasidic Haredi magazine, extremely popular in two languages and several countries) just did a feature on Aharon Gurevich. P.S. I am not Chabad.Mzk1 (talk) 11:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong chaplain. But I would say he is even more notable than I thought.Mzk1 (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I have proded one of them. Avraham Chaim Naeh is a very notabe rabbi, whose name is cited and used as a reference till present day, and who has published an important set of books. Others are also quite notable with well sourced small articles. Most of them have published, with one having a television show. I do hope we won't have to go back to that ArbCom case, IZAK, because you seem to be pecking on Chabad again. Debresser (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom? Debresser, the tone of the last part of your edit appears arrogant to the point of being WP:bait. 173.52.182.160 (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you know what case I am referring to? And did you see IZAK's comment above? And can you imagine a good reason why IZAK would question the notability of quite a few well-sourced articles of notable persons? Sorry, but it wasn't me who rekindled the fire, and I hope a short reference to that ArbCom case will be enough to make IZAK see reason. But thank you for your concern. Debresser (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the tone of one sentence in your previous edit, which appears to me as arrogant to the point of being WP:BAIT. If IZAK's views are correct, or not, is a different type of issue. 173.52.182.160 (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If so, I wasn't aware of it. ArbCom is one of those places nobody really wants to go, so it is unlikely I would bait IZAK. Apart from that, we actually work very fine together, most of the time. Debresser (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Beseder. 173.52.182.160 (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I realize this is a side issue, but I would just like to add, as an outsider, that I looked at some of the articles and the people appeared notable. I would suspect, that, if anything, we don't have enough Chabad entires, since in a large number of places the Chabad Rabbi is all of the Judaism that there is, and for that reason should be notable. (Again, my philosophy, such as it is, is not Chabad.)Mzk1 (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope you will concede that not every rabbi, Chabad or otherwise, is notable. JFW | T@lk 21:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

That was a joke, right? :) Debresser (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mzk and Debresser: So should Wikipedia now have articles about every last of the 5,000+ Chabad generic shluchim, dead or alive, their assistants and their wives? Like having articles about every senior manager that ever lived of a Coca Cola plant in every part of the world where Coke is manufactured and sold just because it's the only Coca Cola plant in that country or region and Coke is the world's leading and most popular soft drink? By the way Debresser, not sure what your threats about the ArbCom are about. One cannot wave off the questions surrounding Chabad which remain unresolved given that there is still a need to define the WP:N of every last shred of information about Chabad that is finding its way onto Wikipedia. IZAK (talk) 05:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Did anybody see me make general statements here? I only said that almost all of the article linked are about notable people.

If IZAK is prejudiced to such an agree that he can not judge articles related to Chabad in an impartial way, then he should refrain from involving himself in them. Which brings us back to the subject of that ArbCom case. No threats, only a healthy outlook to editing on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Debresser, it is not be possible that IZAK is influence by a POV toward Chabad that is in excess of yours. It is just that the POVs oppose eachother.173.52.182.160 (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Impossible. Just have a look who started this, and whether he based himself on any edit of mine. Debresser (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Is IZAK arguing with himself, or is he in disagreement with somebody who holds an opposing POV? 173.52.182.160 (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

He surely claims there are editors in the field with opposing POV's. Actualy, he claims he has no POV at all. But you realy better ask him, or read that ArbCom discussion, because it is not befitting I should comment regarding the opinions of IZAK, who after all is an editor whose edits I generally value. Debresser (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Has anybody checked for coca-cola managers? I'm only half-joking; there may BE articles. I've heard it argued that every high school is notable if it has decent article; I would tend to sympathize with that. On the other hand, I suppose some would claim - and at least one person has - that Orthodox Jews are not notable altogether. (He said Haredi, same difference.) I would say that any shliach in a town with no rabbi (I would even say Orthodox rabbi, personally) is notable, as long as he is there for an extended period. But I am a newbie, and you guys are experienced; is there ANY rule for notability? Encyclopedias don't cut it, because we would have to knock out 99.9% of the articles, and we aren't supposed to make comparisions with what exists. So what do you use? (And I am extremely far from Chabad.)Mzk1 (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, in my work on the "marriage" articles I've noticed that there are three articles on Netinim and at least one on Givonim. (See Arayot.) Mzk1 (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me for butting in again, but I just realized WHICH rav Chaim Noeh IZAK is referring to. Pardon me, but he is, together with the Chazon Ish THE most quoted authority on halachic measurements. His work is thourough, and contains countless apprbations and statements of agreement, quite notable in themselves. How could he NOT be notable? Forgive me, I think you've overstepped here. What he NEEDS is a decent article.Mzk1 (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD for Rabbi Tzvi Berkowitz

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tzvi Berkowitz. This is how things snowball while it would have been better to have discussion about it here. So be it, but it is not the way to go. I look forward to the nomination for AfDs of the above-mentioned Chabad rabbis lacking notability by fair-minded editors. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I reiterate, how can you say, for example, Rabbi Naeh is not notable. Look at the nice article he has in the Hebrew Wikipedia. Just looking at my own books, I notice that the Halachos of K'zayis (Feldheim, addition to main work on B'rachot) lists him as the main opinion, and my pocket Misnah B'rurah has a chart in the back - and this is not the only such chart I have seen - listing his shiurim together with those of the Chazon Ish. He is the standard opinion for the "smaller" shiurim.Mzk1 (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)