Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

On using text from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia

Having recently come across several articles that were taken in whole or in part from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, I wish to bring the following points to the attention of the members of WikiProject Judaism, so that appropriate care can be taken.

(Please compare with Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica which discusses the very similar problems of the Encyclopedia Britannica written in the same era. The wording of the comparable existing disclaimer at Wikipedia:Jewish Encyclopedia topics is rather too mild, in my opinion.)

1. Archaic transliteration
   • Compare the JE's system of transliteration with Wikipedia's Hebrew transliteration.
2. Odd naming conventions
   • The best example of this is the JE's eccentric (1) assignment of arbitrary surnames (usually place-names or kinnuyim) to people that did not have any, or (2) had other surnames. Or, the JE (3) ignores the subject's surnames and lists him/her under his/her given name.

   Examples

   1. Joshua ben Alexander ha-Kohen Falk: Falk is a kinnuy for Yehoshua (in this case, Wikipedia has a note that corrects this)
   2. Abraham David ben Asher Anshel Buczacz: Correct surname: Wahrman; he lived in Buczacz (now spelled Buchach).
   3. Aaron ben Jacob of Karlin: Correct surname: Perlow.

3. Outdated information
   • Scholarship has advanced very much since 1906, especially on the works and biographies of the rishonim.

   Example:

   • Mahzor Vitry: A new edition based on seven manuscripts is now in print for several years. All older scholarship is based on the one manuscript the first edition is based on—which is so different from the others that the editor of the modern edition considers it "a French Mahzor based on Mahzor Vitry". Obviously, all academic discussion about or based upon the old edition has been at least partially invalidated.

4. Scan problems
   • Wikipedia articles are based on scans that skip all Hebrew characters of the original, even when these are part of the sentence, with nonsensical results.

   Example:

   • From the first revision of Aaron ben Jacob of Karlin: "Aaron is the author of the Sabbath hymn which begins [!] and is still a part of the liturgy of the Ḥasidim".

5. Editorial bias
   • Here beginneth sarcasm
     As in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, JE has its Untermenschen: the benighted Hasidim, ever a burden. (As you may have guessed, I am a member of that unenlightened tribe myself.) This is most evident in articles about Hasidic leaders.

   Example:

   • Aaron ben Asher of Karlin: What modern-day encyclopedia would write of the leader of a religious sect that his "chief claim to distinction is that he spent most of his time at the miḳwah"? Or of his father (subject of that article) that "[n]otwithstanding his severity of manner and the not infrequent rudeness of his behavior, he was highly esteemed by his adherents"? Whatever were the opinions of the 1906 editors, their views are irrelevant today; modern scholars (religious or secular, even the honey-tongued David Asaf) do not write about prominent Hasidic rebbes in such a disparaging and dismissive tone.

   • This is true not only of Hasidim: see the absurd article on Rabbi Papa, a 4th-century Amora. Most fortunately, Wikipedia's article on Rav Papa is not based on the Jewish Encyclopedia's.
     • The content of JE's article on Rav Papa is apparently based on his entry in Dor dor ve-dorshav by Isaac Hirsch Weiss.

I suggest that, in the future, any article taken from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia be tagged from the outset with {{outdated}} and, if any opinion on anything at all is given, with {{NPOV}}.

הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 02:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

This has been a concern since 2004, when editors noted that 1906-based articles follow the POV of its editors quite strikingly. I think it's great that editors are slowly tackling the articles that they are familiar with. The main problem in my mind is the fact that we have 106 years worth of scholarship to catch up with, and it will therefore not be an easy task. It is somewhat surprising that JE takes such a tone about Hassidism, considering the influence of Buber on these editors. JFW | T@lk 07:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know that Buber was involved; in what way? In any case, though most Hasidism-related articles are not attacks (though many have a disparaging slant), the fact remains that there was no editorial interest to prevent the original contributors' biases from being published.

Some more examples of the above, found yesterday:

• Odd names:
  • Senior for Shneur ("Senior Salman" for "Shneur Zalman", as in Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi: see the older revisions of Aaron ha-Levi ben Moses of Staroselye); Phoebus for Fayvush: both "corrections" are plausibly correct etymologically, but we don't call the Queen of England of Wikipedia "Elisheva", do we? Besides, Fayvush apparently derives from other names as well.
• Odd biases:
  • See Aryeh Leib ben Saul: (note who is cited as a source for some of the "information": Rabbi Yaakov Emden hardly had a moderate opinion on anything)

הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 00:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC) (late signature)

I forgot to sign, sorry. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 00:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Look, I think we all know this. There are other things, too--assumptions that "everyone" does things a certain way, when in fact Ashkenazim do, but we know that Sefardim and others of Edot HaMizrah don't, and so forth. Caveat emptor, a good Hebrew phrase we all should know. <grin> But there is also a fair amount that is good, or at least provides a good start, it is in the public domain, and we can build from it. And that's what we do. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a reminder to people that we have tracking pages for the JE's subject index at WP:JE.

WP articles substantially based on JE entries should be identifiable in those lists by being tagged JE (they mostly are, but some might have escaped). Where the material has been checked, and is thought to be okay, it would be helpful if people could sign it off by tagging it with S and the date. Blue links just mean that WP has some article on the topic; but particularly for general topics, this may (or more likely may not) contain any Jewish dimension of the sort that is the focus of the JE article. If there is nothing useful that can be added from the JE article, please again sign it off by tagging it with S and the date. On the other hand, there may well still be a number of subjects where we could still use a "Jewish views of ..." article.

There is a lot there to tidy up. Perhaps some sort of organised planned group effort is needed? Jheald (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that there should be in-article tagging as well, though. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 02:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Tagging what, and where, with S?
2. If you want to tag in-article, go ahead and be WP:BOLD. I don't have the time to dive into a whole, organized effort on this. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

What I meant was to add something like S 2013-01-13 to the relevant index entry in the WP:JE pages, to show that what the JE had to offer had been checked, and (i) there was nothing else worth adding, and (ii) what had been added was still appropriate. Jheald (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Pesach Sheni

Played around with Pesach Sheni just a little. There's not really a whole lot to say, of course. Now I'm not too fond of leaving articles as "Start" class or as stubs, so my question for all you veteran editors out there is: Can a little, tiny article like this be considered "B-Class" or "A-Class" if it exhaustively covers the topic? StevenJ81 (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Definitely. Just like a stub can be a stub forever and still be a perfect article. Debresser (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

In general, even Featured Articles don't have a minimum length. But this article can still be lengthened a lot. For example, "One theme often expressed for this holiday is second chances" could be discussed in greater detail. The article is also unclear about the exact date of Pesach Sheni (14 or 15 Iyar?), and can use an infobox. If, after all that, there's nothing left to add but the article is still really short, it can be promoted to B, GA, A, or FA – but it may also qualify for AfD. -- YPNYPN ✡ 21:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Debresser, isn't a stub by definition something that can be substantially expanded in the future? I'd agree that something could be pretty stubby and be a perfect article forever, but not really a stub, I don't think.

YPN, date we can certainly fix. Infobox, too.

As for the "second chances" thing, an earlier edit (long before I came on the scene) removed a lengthier exposition of this, I think on grounds it was kind of a polemic. This concept is something the late Lubavitcher Rebbe brought out, and if you Google this you tend to get a lot of Chabad discussion on Pesach Sheni as emblematic of "second chances." On a very cursory look after Googling "Pesach Sheni second chances," most sources outside Chabad tend to discuss "second chance to bring Korban Pesach" pretty narrowly. And even in Chabad, it feels to me like this was perhaps an opportunity to bring out a specific teaching of the Rebbe, not an occasion for a whole big celebration. So unless someone can find a broader discussion of this concept in the sources, I don't think that it is really encyclopedia material.

Most other things on the subject are pretty technical. We could (1) expand a little on the story (request brought by Aaron's relatives after they had to bury Aaron's sons, etc.). We could (2) bring out a little bit on the differences between a KP brought on Pesach and one brought on Pesach Sheni (you can own chametz, what else has to happen at the "seder," etc.). We could (3) bring the reasoning for and against changing Tahanun that day. But are those things of interest to people? (I'd guess: on the first two yes, a little bit; on the third one, not really.) But once we do that—3-4 more sentences at most—that's it. Do you guys think there is any more to it than that?

If it ever went to AfD, the worst that would happen is that the concept would be merged into Passover. I'm not too worried on that. StevenJ81 (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

No, a stub is a short article. If that is an article that can be expanded or one that is complete as it is, is not connected. Debresser (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that in other Hasidic movements Pesach Sheini is also given much attention. In Nadvorna and related groups, an elaborate seder is held. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 01:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. Anyone who can fill in a reference on Nadvorna (or on anything else) is free to add it to User:StevenJ81/sandbox/Pesach Sheni so I can publish this in a week or so. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

New stub: Ir nidachat

Following the current thread at the Humanities Ref Desk, I found we didn't seem to have an article on Ir nidachat (certainly there was no interwiki link on the he: page). So, I've created one. Feel free to amend and add to it, and add links to it where appropriate. --Dweller (talk) 09:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Dweller, I doubt that Ir nidachat is really going to survive on WP:NOTABILITY standards. I also noticed that in that thread at WP:RD/H you added a redlink to "Eved Ivri"; I doubt that would survive either, although maybe a section within a large article on slavery would. Also, I'm about to post a message at your talk page. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

MMS at age two.jpg

file:MMS at age two.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you contacted User:EhadHaam, who uploaded it last week? If the editor provides the source where she/he found it, the picture won't be deleted. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The person who nominated it for deletion already contacted him. Though if someone else knows if this file is worthwhile in saving and can provide sourcing, and if necessary, fair use rationales, then they can also fix the problem. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

EhadHaam (talk · contribs) has several notices on his talk page about bad uploads (missing information, nominated for deletion) and is a new user (welcome message 2012 December), so, probably, a more experience editor would need to help him with his files. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Is a certain Jewish charity notable?

Please see discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Is_Kupath_Rabbi_Meir_Baal_Haness_notable.3F. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Eiver HaYarden

Is Eiver HaYarden the same thing as same thing at biblical Trensjordean? If is is it should redirect to Transjordan (Bible), otherwise it should probably continue to redirect to Transjordan (region), or perhaps be made into it's own article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

"Eiver HaYarden" simply means "beyond the Jordan", so technically it could redirect to either article. However, Transjordan (Bible) specifically states "The term used in Hebrew for the Transjordan is בעבר הירדן, 'beyond the Jordan'" בעבר הירדן is "b'Eiver HaYarden". That makes me say the proper redirect is to Transjordan (Bible), but I think we should wait to hear from other editors before changing it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 09:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree with Malik, and this this should be redirected/merged forthwith with Transjordan (Bible). Debresser (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a redirect not an article, there's nothing to merge. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess you have your answer. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The ב means "in" in this case, and should not be part of the phrase. I've removed it from the article. -- Avi (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Redirected now as well. -- Avi (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Assessment Requests (January 2011-July 2012)

(all of the following are complete)

1. Mike Nichols- partially expanded and rewritten.--66.212.78.220 (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
2. Mel Brooks - partially expanded and rewritten.--66.212.78.220 (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
3. Shemini Atzeret–substantially expanded and rewritten.–StevenJ81 (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
4. Amon of Judah- Should be at least start. Cheers, Magister Scienta^talk (Editor Review) 18:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
5. Parashah - well beyond start but could use attention from other users. Dovi (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
6. Tay–Sachs disease Way beyond start but it's neutrality is disputed. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 16:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
7. Tay–Sachs disease Worked on it and is better than when became A-class before. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 23:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

   Are you trying to get the article GA or just A? Magister Scienta^talk 00:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

   A. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 01:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

   Sorry, but per Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/A-Class criteria you have to make a request on the article's talk-page and garner the support of two uninvolved editors. I would gladly take a look at the article once you've completed this formality. Magister Scienta^talk 01:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

   Done, but I thought that there was a page, such as for WikiProject Chemistry or WPMILHIST. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 01:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

   I reviewed the article and, while it still has a ways to go to get to FA, supported its promotion to A-class. The reason why I didn't suggest the second option for A-class review is because WikiProject Judaism doesn't (at this moment) have an assessment coordinator. Magister Scienta^talk 02:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

   Another user please. There needs to be 2 reviewers. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 16:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

8. Tetragrammaton. Please reassess this article. (See Talk:Tetragrammaton#Layout/Title changes. Thanks,  — Jasonasosa 08:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Japanese-Jewish common ancestry theory

I came across this funny article that presents a remote fringe theory in the words of the theory's proponents, but never actually points out that no serious historian buys it. I really wanted to divide the article into sections (one for each quotation) and add the sentence "However, this view has not achieved mainstream accepts among scholars of either Jewish or Japanese history." to the intro, but...

I don't actually have a source by a credible historian that even acknowledges this viewpoint, so I can't actually provide a source for that statement. Could someone with more expertise in this area take a look at it? Thanks!

elvenscout742 (talk) 07:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Translation of patronymics

An editor has requested comment at WT:MOS, which may affect the way some biographical articles within the scope of this Wikiproject are styled. The discussion is at WT:MOS#Translation of patronymics. Daicaregos (talk) 11:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed move: Genesis creation narrative

For your information, there is a new proposal to move Genesis creation narrative to Genesis creation myth. See Talk:Genesis creation narrative#New proposal. StAnselm (talk) 09:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for letting us know. IZAK (talk) 03:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

This proposal was closed with the decision Not Moved. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Until the next time someone proposes it. Again. --Dweller (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I'm just reporting the news. I'm not making it. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Cross-project discussion place

Is there a place in Meta-Wiki (or anywhere else) for cross-project discussion of Judaism topics?

My particular question here is about how Wikidata handles interwiki links.

Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Renewed edit warring at Rav Shach article

Please try to calm the waters at Talk:Elazar Shach#Works. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

RFC at Talk:Limerick Pogrom would like your input!

There is an active RFC here at Talk:Limerick Pogrom that could use your participation! Appreciate it, cheers... Zad68 14:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Lists of encyclopedic articles

I have noticed in a lot of religion related content there are significant questions regarding both what is important enough for discussion in "parent" articles and also, unfortunately, what topics are notable enough for articles in the first place. I have been doing a bit of effort in reviewing the content of existing print and web-based encyclopedias relating to religion lately, have gone through a few on specific religions and/or religious topics to create lists of articles in them, and have just finished going through one encyclopedia of Judaism. I have made a project subpage listing those articles, as well as the amount of space/weight they receive in that encyclopedia, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Encyclopedic articles. I acknowledge up front that the source used is only a single volume source, and that it also reflects, basically, only the opinions of its editor(s) regarding what should receive more or less weight/coverage, but it is at least a starting point. Unfortunately, I also acknowledge up front that, as someone who is not a Jew and doesn't know the subject all that well personally, there is a very real chance that I have screwed up the capitalizations of some words, and that I myself don't know if there might be other titles for the topics covered in those articles which might be used here. So I would definitely welcome any input in either making redirects or piped links for those topics which might exist under some other title here, and of course fixing any capitalization errors I may have made. I intend to add to all these lists additional material relating to other encyclopedias, but still haven't finished even starter lists for all the religion topics, including even Catholicism (I'm a Catholic, btw). But I do think having access to material indicating what topics are discussed where in other reference sources will make developing our own content, and ensuring the comprehensivness of our coverage of our coverage of religious matters, easier and possibly better. John Carter (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

John, as always, your dedication to complete coverage of religion in Wikipedia is truly remarkable. Thank you for this list of subjects.

Could you elaborate a little bit further on (a) major vs. significant vs. minor and (b) articles vs. subarticles? I'm not sure what you mean by these distinctions.

For WP:WikiProject Religion, how do you intend to classify these articles in importance? Surely going all the way down to "minor" articles these can't all be considered Top or High. This WikiProject might not see all the articles as the same anyway, but it's a starting point. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Reasonable questions, and I probably should have indicated them up front. Major/significant/minor is pretty much a personal judgement, based on the amount of length accorded the subjects in the reference source. More or less, by current guidelines here, three paragraphs is enough for the lede of an article, so I more or less came to the conclusion that an article of that length in an encyclopedia, which has limited length unlike us, can probably in and of itself be one source to establish notability of a topic. Some articles of only one paragraph, maybe less, in some reference books dealing with comparatively minor topics, like maybe on Thelema (if such a book exists), particularly if they don't have individual bibliographies, probably aren't sufficient to be one establisher of notability in and of themselves, although they may well be an indicator of such, depending on the length of the source. On that basis, articles of such short length have been marked as comparatively "minor". "Significant" is more or less anything falling between those two.

Articles and subarticles is a bit clearer to describe. Subarticles are sections in individual articles in the source which are in some way, generally through bold or italicized script at the start of a section of an existing article, and sometimes by an outline at the beginning of an article, subtopics within a broader topic which are individually designated in the article on the broader topic. I indicated them seperately because in some cases, like for instance the Eerdman Dictionary of the Bible, Herod the Great isn't given a separate article to himself, but the section of the article on the Herodian dynasty in that book contains a separately marked section on him in that dynastic article which is over a page in length. In a lot of recent reference books, there's been an effort to remove some of the shorter articles on the broad subject of, for instance, art, in favor of a major topical article on the subject on art with sections devoted to individual artists and schools who often are separately notable, but in this context maybe best presented, maybe to avoid duplication and redundancy, within the broader framework.

Regarding the tagging, I think I probably intend to do something like that sooner or later, but am right now still going through other reference works, like on Christianity, the occult, Hinduism, and some others, as well as going through the Jones Encyclopedia of Religion for subarticles in it for an expanded list, so while it is more or less something I would do, and will possibly/probably get to eventually, I don't see it happening anytime in the near future. John Carter (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I have now made a first pass through the list, turning as many red-links to blue as I could with simple redirects. This should make the remaining red-links rather more manageable, so easier to see where our coverage could be extended. A couple of further general bits of work on the list that I'd envisage would be to identify and mark entries that point to dab pages, and identify and highlight entries that point to pages that haven't got tags for either WikiProject Judaism or WikiProject Jewish History -- it should be possible to write scripts to do both of these reasonable efficiently. Of the remaining red-links,

• Some are topics we are genuinely missing. In particular, as well as a few missing bios, quite a lot of the red-links appear to be liturgical topics, especially particular prayers and well-known songs/hymns; also some halachic principles.
• A few are topics where we have redirects under another spelling, but I left the link red because I thought there was a possibility of a proper free-standing article. (eg: shouldn't every tractate of the Mishnah at least have a stub article? At the moment quite a few are silent redirects to the corresponding Order).
• Some other red-links are what seemed to me rather generic English-language phrases, so I didn't make a redirect even though we may have a relevant article. (eg: Evening service [1] -> Maariv; Water-drawing festival [2] -> Simchat Beit HaShoeivah). Probably these phrases need dab pages, which in turn would point to the relevant content. (Some creativity may be required because dab pages shouldn't really only have one blue link on them).
• Some red-links may be mis-spellings. John Carter has done a great job, but a few of the topics I wasn't able to identify at answers.com [3]. This might in some cases be due to mis-spellings, because there were a few spellings in the list, including some clear typos, that were different to the spellings of the article entries at answers.com. I also didn't check every entry there, so it is possible that some of the redirects (now blue-links) that I created may have been from mis-spellings. Most however were from alternate capitalizations or genuine alternate spellings, both of which seem reasonable.

Anyway, I hope this has cleared the field a bit of some of the more obvious red-links, which are now blue by redirect. Jheald (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your efforts. I acknowledge up front that I might have made several typos, particularly considering that a lot of this is in languages I don't know. And I also acknowlede that a lot of the missing articles in general regardng religion Ive seen are about prayers, music, principles of criticism, and the like. But, if nothing else, at least now editors might know at least some topics which aren't yet covered here which pretty clearly are encyclopedic in some form or other.

Having said that, there is one other, maybe much bigger, thing that might be worth doing, if we had individuals interested in doing it, and spending the time to do it. And that might be to do more or less the same thing I did with this book with the content of the Encyclopedia Judaica. That source is, so far as I can tell, probably considered the most comprehensive source on Judaism out there, and again I think it would be extremely unlikely anyone would say that subjects of articles in it are not in some way encyclopedic. And, for what it might be worth, I also think, maybe, being able to provide a fairly good list of clearly notable topics which we don't yet necessarily have coverage of would be something which might increase the likelihood of newer editors staying, as well as give some older editors who have an interest in a topic but don't necesssarily know it that well, like me in this instance, have an idea what has yet to be done. Also, I think that making it maybe a bit easier for all editors, including those who don't know the topic very well, have access to highly regarded reference materials on the topics of articles will possibly/probably make it easier for articles to get improved, and make it easier for more articles to get GA, A, or FA status.

I would myself be more than willing to help in such an effort, although I think it would definitely require more than one editor to actively be involved. Maybe if, after someone created a basic "format" for the list, we might have some individuals take individual volumes and record what content they find in them until the list is done. If it does get done, and if we can, ultimately, get to the point that we have pretty much all the content, and probably more, than that source does on the topics it covers, we might come closer to making wikipedia's coverage of Judaism what I think we would all want it to be, at least among the sites with best coverage of the topic available. Would there be any parties interested in going through the Encyclopedia Judaica to help record what it covers? John Carter (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Help with Judaic(?) criticism of A Contract with God by Will Eisner

I've included a paragraph in the A Contract with God article on criticism of the book from an article by Suzanne Klingenstein, but I'm not at all satisfied with it. Partly it's just clumsy writing on my part, but partly it's because I'm not comfortable writing on religious subjects, and have but the slightest understanding of Jewish teaching.

I'd appreciate it if someone could look over the source (mainly I used pages 84–86) and either offer me some feedback or fix what I've done. Thanks. ———Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Kashrut

I sort of stumbled upon the article Kashrut, which was once a featured article. Looking through the demotion discussion, it seems that most of the objections have been fixed. What do you think about submitting it to GAN now? -- Ypnypn (talk) 00:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is the article as it appeared on the front page the day it was featured and here is the article as it appeared the day it was demoted. The current version of the article is definitely better than both older versions of the article. --PiMaster3 ^talk 20:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone ahead and nominated it. -- Ypnypn (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Listed!

Great job! StevenJ81 (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I added template for GA links on fr, he, yi, lad and simple. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Cultural Judaism dispute

We need more opinions in here, as we are currently at an impasse.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Cultural_Judaism

Evildoer187 (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Chronology of the Bible

There is a name change discussion going on that might be of some interest here. Additionally, I added the WikiProject Judaism template to the article, so would appreciate importance and quality assessments. (It's more than Start-class at this point.) StevenJ81 (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of deletion of Jerusalem Post quote in Pope Francis article

There is a discussion about an editor's proposal to delete a JP quote from the Pope Francis article here. (By the way, besides this specific discussion, the entire section in the article regarding the pope's relations to the Jewish community during his time as a cardinal in Buenos Aires might be of interest.) NearTheZoo (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Lag BaOmer

There is a dispute regarding the factual accuracy of the Lag BaOmer article, which will prevent it from being listed on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/April 28 this year. As there are 20 days to go before its appearance, please endeavour to have this resolved. Thank you. —howcheng {chat} 15:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Howcheng, I think it is going to be hard to resolve the overall controversy. People have very strong opinions about certain aspects of Lag BaOmer. At the same time, Lag BaOmer is a significant day on the Hebrew calendar, and that particular fact is not in dispute. Could I make a one-time suggestion, perhaps not normal protocol, but it might salvage a listing: have the anniversary link to Jewish holidays#Lag BaOmer instead. I've been overseeing that page of late, and I think I kept the basics in that section without wandering into the more controverted topics. StevenJ81 (talk) 03:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a great suggestion. I will do that. —howcheng {chat} 04:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Steven, your suggestion is good, but I think we should be able to resolve a controversy within a few days, with some wider input from this WikiProject. Debresser (talk) 08:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

howcheng, I think this issue is sufficiently resolved for you to be able to link directly if you'd like. However, I will invite you to keep an eye on the Jewish holidays page anyway; it should be a reasonable backup place for any notable Jewish holiday, "just in case." StevenJ81 (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Potential revival of Collaboration of the Week?

With the Kashrut article recently attaining Good Article status, I thought that now might be a good time to revive the Collaboration of the Week. There are many articles in WikiProject Judaism that are listed as Top or High importance that have a lot of room for improvement. There are also articles in those categories that with a little work could achieve Featured Article status. What does everyone think? Is reviving the Collaboration of the Week feasible? --PiMaster3 ^talk 00:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Temple Emil.jpeg

File:Temple Emil.jpeg has been nominated for deletion-- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Rabbi Chanoch Dov Padwa.JPG

File:Rabbi Chanoch Dov Padwa.JPG has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 03:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Kohen

This article is a dreadful mess. --Dweller (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeshivat Chovevei Torah

Apparently the users at YWN Coffee Room have discovered the joys of trolling Wikipedia. Be on the lookout for more trolling. The thread on YWN is at: http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/troling-wikipedia Yossiea ^(talk) 22:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I've fully protected the article and removed the junk that I could see. Some eyes on related topics would be welcome. --Dweller (talk) 09:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Would those users be classified as vandalism only accounts? Yossiea ^(talk) 02:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you know...

that "Gadol HaDor" means "the greatest rabbi in America"?

It must be true. Wikipedia says so. --Dweller (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

How about "Gadol HaDor and the greatest rabbi in America"?

But that would lose the charming implication that there are no rabbis outside of America. --Dweller (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the current version implies that he's not the greatest in the world, only in America (since "'Gadol HaDor' means, etc.") – Ypnypn (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Problem article?

List of Jewish American activists looks like a mess to me. Some are not really Jewish, one is cited has having a "half-Jewish father." I also don't know if we want to call members of the Weather Underground "activists" and give them their own section. Others only seem like activists in the sense of being active at something. BigJim707 (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I've made a few minor changes. BigJim707 (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Article assessment

Will someone please reassess Pesach Sheni? I requested this on the Article Assessment page, but no one (evidently) looks there. It is at least a B-Class article; possibly it is an A-Class article, since the amount there really is to say about Pesach Sheni is relatively little. Shabbat Shalom. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

List

I'm currently working on User:Ypnypn/Rabbinical opinions of the 613 commandments. Does anyone have any more authorities to include? -- Ypnypn (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have all the most-considered authorities. This list may help you find some of the lesser-known ones. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 02:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! (I added the Yere'im.) -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Note that not all sources count 613 - check them first. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 02:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You may find these links helpful (based on said list:)

1. Azharot of R. Eliyahu haZaken
2. Azharot of R. Shlomo ibn Gabirol and its companion, Zohar haRakia of the Tashbetz
3. Maamar haSechel of the Raavan

Input desired

There's a discussion going on at Talk:Anno Mundi#Choice of era style about which era style (BCE/CE, BC/AD or a hybrid) to use in the article Anno Mundi which is about dating systems that use the biblical creation of the world as a starting point. Your input is desired. Thank you, SchreiberBike (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor is coming

The WP:VisualEditor is designed to let people edit without needing to learn wikitext syntax. The articles will look (nearly) the same in the new edit "window" as when you read them (aka WYSIWYG), and changes will show up as you type them, very much like writing a document in a modern word processor. The devs currently expect to deploy the VisualEditor as the new site-wide default editing system in early July 2013.

About 2,000 editors have tried out this early test version so far, and feedback overall has been positive. Right now, the VisualEditor is available only to registered users who opt-in, and it's a bit slow and limited in features. You can do all the basic things like writing or changing sentences, creating or changing section headings, and editing simple bulleted lists. It currently can't either add or remove templates (like fact tags), ref tags, images, categories, or tables (and it will not be turned on for new users until common reference styles and citation templates are supported). These more complex features are being worked on, and the code will be updated as things are worked out. Also, right now you can only use it for articles and user pages. When it's deployed in July, the old editor will still be available and, in fact, the old edit window will be the only option for talk pages (I believe that WP:Notifications (aka Echo) is ultimately supposed to deal with talk pages).

The developers are asking editors like you to join the alpha testing for the VisualEditor. Please go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and tick the box at the end of the page, where it says "Enable VisualEditor (only in the main namespace and the User namespace)". Save the preferences, and then try fixing a few typos or copyediting a few articles by using the new "Edit" tab instead of the section [Edit] buttons or the old editing window (which will still be present and still work for you, but which will be renamed "Edit source"). Fix a typo or make some changes, and then click the 'save and review' button (at the top of the page). See what works and what doesn't. We really need people who will try this out on 10 or 15 pages and then leave a note Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback about their experiences, especially if something mission-critical isn't working and doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar.

Also, if any of you are involved in template maintenance or documentation about how to edit pages, the VisualEditor will require some extra attention. The devs want to incorporate things like citation templates directly into the editor, which means that they need to know what information goes in which fields. Obviously, the screenshots and instructions for basic editing will need to be completely updated. The old edit window is not going away, so help pages will likely need to cover both the old and the new.

If you have questions and can't find a better place to ask them, then please feel free to leave a message on my user talk page, and perhaps together we'll be able to figure it out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Correction: Talk pages are being replaced by mw:Flow, not by Notifications/Echo. This may happen even sooner than the VisualEditor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Rosh Hashanah pictures

I'm working on the featured pictures section of the Judaism portal, but I'm having trouble finding high-quality Rosh Hashanah pictures to use on weeks 4 and 51. Any help would be appreciated. -- Ypnypn (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

What type of pictures were you looking for? This painting of tashlich being performed might be good. There's also this photo of symbols of the Rosh Hashanah. --PiMaster3 ^talk 01:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

These are great; thanks! -- Ypnypn (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hard to get great pictures on a day when you can't take pictures ... <grin> StevenJ81 (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of Holocaust Remembrance Days on Template:Jewish and Israeli holidays

Please have a look at the discussion at Template talk:Jewish and Israeli holidays#Inclusion of Holocaust Memorial Days. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem lead RfC

There is currently a request for comments open about the lead section of the Jerusalem article, and all editors are welcome to give their opinions. The dispute over the lead section is one of the oldest on Wikipedia, dating back to 2003, and focuses on whether or not it is neutral to say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The discussion was mandated by the Arbitration Committee, and its result will be binding for three years. The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem, and will be open until 22 June 2013 (UTC). — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Brustein - Jewish success causes antisemitism?

Did William Brustein write that Jewish economic success in 19th century Germany caused antisemitism? What emphasis should be placed on this view? See Talk:Antisemitism#Brustein_- Jewish success causes antisemitism?? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Blood libels - false?

Should blood libels be described as "false" accusations? See discussion at Talk:Blood libel#Blood libel is a "false" accusation. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Holidays on the Portal

I would like to include some mention of each holiday (and Shabbat) on the Judaism portal. I've thought of a few ways:

1. Replace the Star of David in the intro with a picture relevant to the given holiday, which will link to the article about that holiday. A caption could be added if desired.
2. Have a simple banner across the very top, as shown. The date could be added.
   Today is Yom Kippur.
3. Below the intro, provide a full paragraph or two explaining the holiday, similar to the Selected Article.

What do you think? -- Ypnypn (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC) To clarify, I was suggesting doing one of these, but we can certainly do more if everyone wants to. -- Ypnypn (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree I think this is a pretty good idea overall. I'd also like to nominate the text for each holiday at Jewish holiday as the "paragraph or two". I've worked pretty hard to keep them general and neutral, and think they would serve the purpose well. Question: can this be set up automatically, or will someone have to do this manually?

• As when articles flip at the Main Page and elsewhere, we would change at midnight, UTC. And the defined day for the holiday should be "the day of the holiday, UTC". In other words, as an example, Shabbat would appear all day Saturday, UTC. Note that this is slightly different from the way Jewish holidays get entered in "On this day..." on the Main Page. There, Jewish holidays are normally named on their eves ("... at sundown"). I think any other approach is far too complicated. And in any event, it is still Shabbat somewhere in the world (even if only Honolulu) at 23:59 UTC.

If we follow UTC, then the US will be more-or-less accurate, but Australia will be way off. Perhaps we should make it based off of UTC+3 or so. -- Ypnypn (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not looking for "accurate everywhere". The best we can do is "it's Shabbos, somewhere, whenever the notice appears." And it would be very confusing to use a standard of "the notice appears whenever it's Shabbos somewhere, because then it would appear for close to 48 hours. I think UTC is probably a Wikipedia standard that is not worth trying to improve on for this purpose. But I'll leave that to you. StevenJ81 (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• There are a lot of other operational/executional questions that come to mind. But I'd like this discussion to come to a decision on "doing this" or "not doing this" before we start discussing details. And then details should probably be discussed at some other venue (say, the Portal's talk page). StevenJ81 (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

We could discuss it there, but Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Portal talk isn't encouraging :-) Ypnypn (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Somewhere else, then.(;-) But let's get an up/down on the concept first. StevenJ81 (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with having "Shabbos" on, for any time zone, as there is only about an hour and 15 minutes or so when the entire world keeps Shabbos. Otherwise, it may be Motzei Shabbos in Sydney Australia, yet a Jewish editor looks like they are editing on "Shabbos," Chas V'Shalom. I know that we have that issue now with Saturday, but it seems to me a bigger problem if WP:JEW is being "M'Kadesh HaShabbos" and someone is editing. Just my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 06:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Avi, are you opposed to the entire idea of including holidays, or are you against the specific implementation proposed? Is there any way of doing this that you might support? -- Ypnypn (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not against the idea of the Yomim Tovim/Holidays being on the portal, my issue is more with Shabbos. After thinking about it some more, as we have that issue with Saturday anyway (not counting the international date line shailah regarding Japan, New Zealand, etc.) I retract my opposition vis-a-vis Shabbos as well. The practicality regarding time zone (use UTC or Wikipedia's server home) needs to be considered. -- Avi (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems that there is now a general sort of consensus that these should be mentioned; the question is now how to do so. Discussion continues at Portal talk:Judaism#Holidays. -- Ypnypn (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Category discussion

Input welcome at this discussion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_28#Category:Antisemitism_in_the_Middle_East. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Leo-and-lucille-frank.jpg

File:Leo-and-lucille-frank.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

It has? Ypnypn (talk) 03:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

There's the red outlined box on the file page that shows the deletion notice, in addition to the edit history comment for this edit:

18:14, 16 June 2013‎ Sfan00 IMG (talk | contribs)‎ . . (261 bytes) (+6)‎ . . (This file is up for deletion, per CSD F4 (no source). (TW))

-- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Considering that he died in 1915 and everything before 1923 is public domain in the US, I'm not sure why there would be any copyright issues with this photo. --PiMaster3 ^talk 15:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I've seen people go about tagging any image that doesn't have URL proper sources (live URLs to a page and not a direct link to an image) as being up for speedy F4 deletion indicating no source; If anyone wants to dispute deletion, then that's possible using {{holdon}} or other methods. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

External links to JWA.org

Comments are invited at User talk:Bbb23 § JWA links on the appropriateness of links to JWA.org in articles on Jewish Women. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of RS-sourced references, and text, relating to person being a Jew

Perhaps people familiar with Judaism may be interested in the discussion here. An editor is repeatedly deleting information sourced to a number of RSs, to the effect that a person is a Jew. His reasoning has at times included: a) the fact that the person is not religious; and b) the fact that only his mother was Jewish.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

OGG of Yad achim

File:Yad achim better.ogg and File:Yad achim full.ogg have been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 07:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Basemath and Mahalath need merging

These are the same person - Mahalath seems to usual name according to GBooks and GScholar, would someone like to merge them? Both have useful material. Dougweller (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on Mahalath says that according to some they are the same. If not all agree, then we can not merge the articles. Debresser (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia: Announcement and Request for Help

I am pleased to announce that the article on Shabbat in Simple English Wikipedia was promoted to GA status today. As far as I have been able to determine, this is the first article on a Judaism topic in simplewiki to be promoted.

Side note: The article was translated into Ladino, which did not have an article of its own on the topic.

This brings me to the request for help. I could really use some help on Judaism topics at simplewiki. Very fundamental topics have no articles, or have really superficial stubs. If you feel like you can jump in over there and help, it would be very much appreciated.

Thank you, and Shabbat Shalom! StevenJ81 (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move at Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) 2013

To Sephiroth. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

See Talk:Sephiroth_(Final_Fantasy)#Requested_Move_2013 -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

"Sephirot" and "Sephiroth"

The usage of Sephirot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Sephiroth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) are under discussion at talk:Sephirot -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 12:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit dispute on Rubashkin family

There is currently an edit dispute on the article Rubashkin family regarding the use of the term 'Haredi' instead of 'Ultra-Orthodox'. Here is where I discussed the matter on User:Ajnem's talk page. Here is the prior consensus that this WikiProject reached regarding usage of the term. --PiMaster3 ^talk 14:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Let me make this clear and simple. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources (RS) report. There are, as far as I know, no RS calling the Rubashkins or any other ultra-Orthodox (American) Jews "Haredi", a term nobody knows, understands or cares for outside of Israel and certain Jewish circles. Ultra-Orthodox is the proper and correct term, it is not derogatory or in any other way negative. If ultra-Orthodox Jews (~10% of all Jews) think that they are the one and only God fearing Jews they are mistaken. All Orthodox Jews are haredi and lots of Conservative Jews too, and – believe it or not – plenty of Reform Jews as well. And there is no "prior consensus that this WikiProject reached" whatsoever. PiMaster3 + one user don't make a consensus. But beyond any doubt, there is a very broad consensus about WP:RS we can and should stick to. Cheers, --Ajnem (talk) 08:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the last editor. As I did in the discussion referred to above. Debresser (talk) 09:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I personally think that "Ultra-Orthodox" is a stupid and misleading term. But what I personally think doesn't count; that's what most RS use in English for this portion of the Jewish community. So I have to agree with the previous editors as well. StevenJ81 (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The law for protection of the nation.jpg

image:The law for protection of the nation.jpg is under discussion at WP:NFCR concerning its copyright status -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Article assessment

Is anyone in the project doing article assessments at this point? I put in a request for a reassessment of Pesach Sheni about four months ago, with no response. I led a major rework of this at that point, and I'm sure its quality is at minimum B-class rather than Start-class. At the time, I didn't really think I should change it myself under the circumstances. Still, 4 months is a long time.

So ... given that I am not going to promote it to GA or anything ... unless someone else evaluates the article in the next seven days, I will change the evaluation to B-class at that point myself. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done StevenJ81 (talk) 13:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Potential GA/A-class/FA promotions

With the help of Debresser (talk · contribs) I have been working for a long while on two WikiProject Judaism articles, Shemini Atzeret and Jewish holidays, and now believe they are nearly ready to be put up for promotion.

• I think Shemini Atzeret is definitely ready for WP:Good article status, and above that possibly A-class status.
• Jewish holidays needs one more major piece of work: I need to separate "plain references" from "notes". But beyond that, it is ready for nomination, and I'm thinking possibly even WP:Featured article for that one.

My very strong request: Is there anyone here who gets involved with evaluations like that who is willing to give these a look-see before I formally put them up? I'd rather not do WP:Peer review also, if I don't need to. (Obviously I will if I do need to.)
Thanks in advance to all. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

"Holocaust" OR "The Holocaust"

Recently, the article that was titled The Holocaust was changed to Holocaust with relatively little input. Please see the follow-up discussion at Talk:Holocaust#Follow-up discussion about a hasty decision and please contribute your views. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 07:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Antisemitism in early Christianity

The article Antisemitism in early Christianity has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Initially a WP:CFORK from Christianity and antisemitism[4] and has been tagged since its very first edit (?) as WP:OR. After removing all un-sourced content, it fails to prove its thesis in any way, and its content is already covered by the original article as well as the article on Anti-Judaism.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kendrick7^talk 03:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

New Hebrew calendar date templates

I have created two templates that return the date on the Hebrew calendar (Jewish calendar):

• {{Hebrew calendar today in time zone}} and
• {{Hebrew calendar tomorrow in time zone}}

The templates will accept time zones and offsets so that the Hebrew date returned will be consistent with the location you wish to provide (default=UTC). There is an optional parameter that will advance the Hebrew date at 6:00 pm (18:00) in the designated time zone to approximate the change in date at sundown. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Shemini Atzeret: Request for GA review

I have nominated Shemini Atzeret for promotion to GA. Is someone here willing to be reviewer? Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC at Korban olah

Personally, I think burnt offering (general article), holocaust (Greek), and korban olah (Jewish) – with the appropriate hatnotes and redirects – work better to meet WP:PRECISION helpfully than burnt offering, burnt offering (Greek), and burnt offering (Jewish) but In ictu oculi is reopening that discussion.

Earlier commenters claimed that it's common to use the Hebrew for Jewish articles to meet WP:PRECISION and that olah isn't uncommon among modern sources. Let us know if that understanding's incorrect. — LlywelynII 06:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

My missing topics pages

I have updated Missing topics about Judaism - Skysmith (talk) 12:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Note that missing article "Ephed" is merely a misspelling for Ephod. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 17:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Lock Oy vey

on 4chan board /pol there are people trying to insert the phrase "oh, my money" into the article as vandalism. It should be locked for a while till they get bored. 65.3.66.157 (talk) 09:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC) Jim

Done. Dougweller (talk) 09:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

PD religion sources

I think at least potentially for a lot of biographies and other topics which haven't been subject to a lot of change in academic opinion lately, some of the major old public domain reference sources might be extremely useful. I note that commons has at least a few such major reference works available, at least now including all the content from the old Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics here. And, yes, I am kind of actively involved in uploading a few more PD reference sources on the broad topics of religion and the Bible and such.

Personally, to make them optimally useful, it might not be a bad idea to convert individual articles to pages at WikiSource, which could then be directly linked to from similar articles here. And, yes, I am, to a degree, at least working on doing that for some of the articles in the HERE and others myself, but there are a lot of longish articles in many of these sources, defining longish as being two pages or longer, and it can and does take a lot of time to proofread them, particularly if they use non-English characters I myself don't know very well. Anyway, if anyone would be interested in maybe doing something like this, drop me a message and I can see how I can help, maybe by just doing additional proofreading or whatever. John Carter (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Scope of WikiProject: biographies

Should every single biography of a Jew be part of Wikiproject Judaism? For example Sharon Osbourne or Sarah Michelle Gellar? Or is the project more for articles directly connected to Judaism? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

IMHO the latter. Debresser (talk) 11:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Debresser. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, every bio of a Jew should be part of Wikiproject Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 04:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Not every bio of a Jew should, necessarily, be part of WPJudaism. This is an old debate. Should every bio of a Christian person be part of WPChristianity? No. -shirulashem^(talk) 20:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Why shouldn't "every bio of a Christian person be part of WPChristianity?" Bus stop (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Because the simple fact of a persons belief or ethnicity doesn't mean anything he does is related to that. I wonder how this isn't obvious. Debresser (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Debresser — a person isn't a sum of unrelated parts. It is possible that a person could be a bundle of contradictions but we should leave that to the reader to decide. You are talking about "beliefs," but approximately fifty-percent of Jews are nonobservant. It seems unlikely that a nonobservant Jew is going to be espousing "beliefs." And what you are saying sounds like the end result could be that the (approximately) 50% of Jews who are nonobservant would, by dint of their nonobservance, be ruled out of possible inclusion in the WikiProject Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 03:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, responding to the question about Christianity, we have no come to the point where our, admittedly unofficial, basis for inclusion in the project is that for a biography to be one we tag, the article should contain some content which indicates that the person's faith was something they considered important. A nominal Catholic who rarely if ever went to Mass and had no other indicators of the church being important to him would not be included, for example. Not limiting the scope of the project in such a way quickly makes the project less managable. Granted, there is a lot of leeway in the vague terms above, but that is partially by design. John Carter (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair question. I guess my argument was similar to WP:OTHERCRAP. Let me try again. I think that inclusion in WP:Judaism should be similar to inclusion in the categories related to Judaism. I fully agree with WP:BLPCAT where it states, "Categories regarding religious beliefs ... should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief ... in question; and the subject's beliefs ... are relevant to his notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." Albeit that's applicable to categorization, I think it should apply here too. -shirulashem^(talk) 21:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Said guideline basically renders this debate moot. Debresser (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Debresser — the "said guideline" refers to "beliefs." What of nonobservant Jews? Are only observant Jews eligible for inclusion in "Wikiproject Judaism?" Consider the following: if a nonobservant Jew states explicitly that he is Jewish, wouldn't he or she be eligible for inclusion in "Wikiproject Judaism?" The only part of that "guideline" applicable to the question raised by Jayjg is the stipulation that the "subject's beliefs" be a part of their notability. Also, as Shirulashem points out, those are guidelines for placement in "Categories." It is not clear that those guidelines apply to "projects" such as the WikiProject Judaism. I think if an individual has an article on them and if they are Jewish, they should be included in the "Wikiproject Judaism." Bus stop (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but there is a similar guideline for ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. For the obvious reason I mentioned above. Debresser (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you please link to that so I can see it in its context? Where are you finding the "similar guideline for ethnicity, sexual orientation" that you are referring to? Bus stop (talk) 03:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It is parallel to the guideline for categorisation in Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. Debresser (talk) 05:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not about placement in categories. The question concerns the placement into Wikiproject Judaism. If someone is a Jew, and they have an article on Wikipedia, then I think an argument can be made that they should be included in Wikiproject Judaism. My reasoning would be that the person is the embodiment of Judaism. If they are a nonobservant Jews, as 50% of all Jewish people are, approximately, then obviously they cannot be noted for their "beliefs." Nevertheless, they are Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 06:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

An atheist is not "the embodiment of Judaism". Can you explain the relationship between Andy Bloch and Judaism? Please be explicit. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I misspoke. It wouldn't be correct to say that a person who claims to be an atheist is the embodiment of Judaism. But, if the person is a Jew, then it is axiomatic that he embodies Judaism. I don't know whether Andy Bloch is or is not Jewish. The question is whether he is Jewish or not. But if we determine that he is Jewish, it would not matter if he were additionally an atheist. If he is Jewish I think he should be included in the WikiProject Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the argument in favor or against inclusion in a WikiProject should be even more stringent than for inclusion in a category, so I find that guideline very relevant in outlining the intent of Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It isn't the guideline relevant to this issue (it is the guideline relevant to placement in categories), so you are expressing your opinion. Bus stop (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that such is my interpretation of the intent of a related guideline, yes. Debresser (talk) 06:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

An example: Woody Allen seems fine in this WikiProject as his work touches on Jewish identity. He's not included just because he's Jewish.WikiProject Atheism has claimed him too and it seems his statements of agnosticism or atheism have been white-washed out of the article, but hey, that's another issue. Fences&Windows 11:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Should every BIO of a Jew be part of Wikiproject Judaism? Strong NO. No to Jesus, No to Sandy Koufax. Chesdovi (talk) 11:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I wonder about Sandy Koufax. In an earlier generation, his refusal to pitch on Yom Kippur was considered quite notable.Mzk1 (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That is true, concerning Sandy Koufax. Except that notable or not should not matter. All that should matter is that he is Jewish. The role that Jewishness plays in his life is not for us to evaluate. Why would we decide in advance that all nonobservant Jews are ineligible for inclusion in WikiProject Judaism? That is in essence what we are doing if we accept, as some are suggesting above, that a person has to be notable for their Jewishness in order to be considered for inclusion in WikiProject Judaism. Can you give me an example of a nonobservant Jew who is notable for their Jewishness? While a nonobservant Jew may not be notable for their Jewishness, they are every bit as Jewish as an observant Jew. Judaism is a religion that has always posited that failure to be religiously observant does not in any way detract from one's status as a Jew. The distinction that some editors above are articulating is not only meaningless, it is also misleading. Bus stop (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

We do not add observant Jews either. Only Jews who are directly involved with Judaism as a religion, e.g. rabbis. Paul Reichmann also does not belong. Chesdovi (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion should have nothing to do with being involved with the religion. For Wikipedia purposes we want to know if the person is Jewish. If Sandy Koufax did not pitch on Yom Kipper — he was involved with the religion. If he simply affirmed that he was Jewish, he would be involved with the religion. Were people not involved with the religion they would probably not identify themselves as Jews. For Wikipedia purposes a statement from an individual to the effect that he or she is Jewish should suffice. The hurdles you are suggesting, in the form of rabbinical ordination for instance — are arbitrary. For a nonobservant Jew — simply saying one is Jewish should satisfy Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion in WikiProject Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree with Bus stop. At least over at the Christianity WikiProject, we have recently come to the conclusion that at the very least for an article to be tagged by the project now it should have some substantive content which indicates that, at least, Christianity is a matter of significance to the person. So, an article about one of the Catholics who went to mass twice a year or less, when by church doctrine they should go weekly, and has no content directly relating to the individual's religious status could reasonably not be tagged. I think some standard similar to that might be the best way to go. However, it really would be a good idea to have some sort of formal standards for relevance to the project in place somewhere, whether they agree with me or not. This would be the case for this matter more than a lot of others because of the existence of the related Jewish history project, which is not replicated with other religions. John Carter (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Christianity and Judaism are two very different religions. You refer to "Church doctrine" — Judaism has no counterpart of anything like that. Judaism expects no affirmation either verbally or in the form of acts from an adherent. Even the word "adherent" would be incorrect in relation to Jews because there would be no distinction between "adhering" to the religion and "not adhering" to the religion. In effect, observance is something that can weave in and out of a Jew's life without relevance to the person's status as a Jew. Bus stop (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Just one little revision. "Adherent" does apply to Jews. It's one who adheres to/observes the laws of Judaism. HOWEVER, as Bus stop writes, the level of adherence does not affect whether one is a Jew or not. -shirulashem^(talk) 19:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The essential point I think is that it probably would not be in the project's best interests to overextend itself, which it might to by including articles which are at best peripherally related to the project's subject. Trying to create some sort of de facto guidelines for categorization and tagging, like possibly only doing either when there is a significant amount of content in the article directly related to the project's subject, might be effective. A lot of the geography and some of the religion projects do have such overextension concerns, particularly those discussed a lot in English. Having some sort of content-based criteria for determining if categories and/or banners be placed (something beyond just having the "religion" section of an infobox filled in, for example) would probably be a good idea. John Carter (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You mention, "articles which are at best peripherally related to the project's subject." But a nonobservant Jew would not be "peripherally related" to Judaism. A nonobservant Jew would in fact be just as much related to Judaism as an observant Jew. Bus stop (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You are talking about individuals, I am discussing articles. What I am trying to say is that, depending on how the scopes of the various projects are defined, it might make sense to perhaps create one "Jewishness" banner for all articles, and drop-down parameters for biographies and other articles which deal with specifically religious, cultural, historical, or ethnic aspects. But, dependent on how the scopes are defined, taking advantage of the extant related groups to give people whose interest is only or primarily in only one or a few topics a chance to focus their attention on those articles, and possibly mitigate the problem of overextension, which a lot of projects have these days, is something I think should be considered. And it is the option of this project and any other project to determine exactly how their scope relates to the various relevant content. John Carter (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The reason I am "talking about individuals" is because the question at the top of this section concerns "biographies."

The question posed is:

"Should every single biography of a Jew be part of Wikiproject Judaism? For example Sharon Osbourne or Sarah Michelle Gellar? Or is the project more for articles directly connected to Judaism?"

I'm just trying to address that question. (It consists of 3 questions, but I am thinking of it as one question.) Bus stop (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Understood, and I don't necessarily disagree with you. Based on those questions, my own response, as an outsider, would be to answer "No" to the first, probably "No" to the second (I haven't checked them for Jewish article content, so I don't know that), and "yes" to the third, and try to develop some sort of non-confusing way for the various extant Judaism-Jewishness projects to define their own individual scopes, preferably in a way which doesn't necessarily cause excessive overlap. And again, based on Christian material, which is at least somewhat similar, the possibility/probability of having the project spend a lot of its attention on articles that contain less if any content directly relating to "Judaism" (however that gets defined) is probably a good idea. Granted, that does dump a lot of content, potentially, on other projects, like the Biography WikiProject, but if overextension is or becomes a problem, giving a more "focused" scope could well be a benefit to the project and wikipedia in general. John Carter (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Aside from User:Bus stop, do any other editors here think that the biography of every single Jew should be part of Wikiproject Judaism? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Busstop is confusing Judaism with Jewish. If Bustop wants to start a wikiproject on Jews, then all Jews can be included. Wikiproject Judaism clearly is dealing with the religion of the Jews, not members of their ethnic group. Chesdovi (talk) 11:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)3

Chesdovi — you are attempting to decide what Wikiproject Judaism is about. You are describing lines of distinction that do not exist. I fully understand your described criteria for inclusion of biographies in Wikiproject Judaism and I have a fundamental opposition to them. In my opinion we are not here as editors to set down distinctions between different "types" of Jews. The most fundamental criteria applicable to the question we are grappling with is whether a person is Jewish or not. It is not a question of what they are notable for. If we are writing a biography of a Jew, we should not be concerned with whether or not their area of notability is "religious." That is for the fundamental reason that Judaism does not make that distinction. Judaism considers a person fully Jewish if they involve themselves with something religious or not. Sandy Koufax is just as Jewish as man who wrote an important text on Shabbos observance. That one is notable for sports achievement and the other has notability in Jewish textbook publishing (for instance) is of secondary importance to the factor of them both being Jewish. The articles on each of these men will no doubt make clear that they each led very different lives. But Wikiproject Judaism does not grant its banner to one and deprive the other of its banner. Wikiproject Judaism represents a general field. We are not here to dictate to the world which Jewish life we approve of and which Jewish life we would rather not comment on. Both Jewish lives should have their biographies graced with our banner. Bus stop (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I do NOT think that this debate should have anything to do with the "Who is a Jew?" question, so I don't think this is the place to talk about it. The bottom line is which biographies should be included in the wikiproject. So let's take a step back and re-think the question: just because someone happens to be Jewish, should they necessarily be included in the WP? For example, should Alan Greenspan be part of this WP? True, he is Jewish, but to my knowledge he has made no notable contributions to Judaism. -shirulashem^(talk) 15:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

We do not concern ourselves with whether someone made "notable contributions to Judaism." All that is under discussion is whether or not a Jew's biography should be included in Wikiproject Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"We do not concern ourselves with whether someone made 'notable contributions to Judaism'"? This discussion is precisely to answer that question. Do we put a bio in WPJudaism just because they happen to be Jewish or do they need to have some notable connection to Judaism. In other words, as I mentioned above when I quoted WP:BLPCAT, we want to reach a consensus on whether the guideline regarding categories (i.e., biographies are only included in the category if their religions "are relevant to his notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources") should apply to inclusion in WPJudaism also. -shirulashem^(talk) 15:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Being Jewish is notably being connected to Judaism. People do not say "I am Jewish," unless they are "connected to Judaism." All we should be looking for is a reasonable connection to Judaism. Multiple Wiki Projects can claim an individual if need be. But when someone is clearly Jewish — you mentioned Alan Greenspan — I think it would be inconsistent with Judaism (not Christianity) to make an arbitrary distinction between contributions to the field of economics and areas of work more ensconced in a religious realm. Torah Umadda posits, if I understand it correctly, that an individual Jew's secular life is not entirely distinct from his religious life. And I think in many other places that Jewish thoughts are developed this idea comes out. What we are confronted with is a question of where religion drops off and secular life begins. This is especially unclear concerning Jews. Judaism does not regard the religious realm as distinct as for instance Christianity does. Bus stop (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You state: “Judaism does not regard the religious realm as distinct.” That being true, you are relying on Judaic Law to make that assertion. Many secular Jews would not make that connection. They would view themselves by their nationality, as Henry Kissinger said: I’m an American first, a secretary of state second and a Jew third. Instead of relying on who the Jewish religion says is a Jew, rather let the person themselves show that they belong in Judaism. (And let’s also remember that although Judaism may view unconnected Jews as part of the Jewish nation, they are not considered part of the Jewish religion, and for all intense and purposes are considered gentiles; hence their wine is prohibited and their lives not to be saved on the Sabbath, etc.) Chesdovi (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi- for the record, it is irresponsible to make the assertion that Jews who are not religious are not allowed to be saved on the Sabbath, etc., for many reasons. First of all, you are wrong. What I think you meant to say is that it's forbidden for a Jew to violate Shabbos in order to save them. And even that is wrong. Find me one current posek who supports this. And who says they are considered gentiles? It might be that Rav Moshe Feinstein is machmir and doesn't permit them to be counted in a minyan, but other poskim are makil on this issue. Nonetheless, this is a completely separate discussion that you're welcome to continue on my talk page, but not here. -shirulashem^(talk) 19:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

A nonobservant Jew counts toward a minyan. A Gentile does not count toward a minyan. And this in Orthodox circles. Bus stop (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The high court in England has ruled that to be considered Jewish is to perform Jewish ritual. Being born of a Jewess is of no consequence. Granted, Judaism views those born as Jew as Jewish. But it is clear from a rational point of view that only those that adhere to Judaism deserve the status of a Jew. And even then, I would disagree that observant Jews be placed in the project. Only those with a direct connection to the religion. (There are also many reform "poskim" who give Jewish staus to someone of a Jewish father, now what?) Chesdovi (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi — you say that "Judaism views those born as Jew as Jewish." No, they are literally Jewish. They are not merely viewed as being Jewish. And you say, "from a rational point of view that only those that adhere to Judaism deserve the status of a Jew." This is incorrect. The Jewish understanding of Jewish identity involves the neshama, or soul, being present at Mount Sinai. This is as applicable to converts as to those born Jewish. And this is as applicable to those living today, as to those who lived many centuries ago. This is not rational. But more importantly there is no concept of deserving to be Jewish. One does not have to clear any hurdles to deserve being Jewish. Similarly one should not have to pass any additional test to deserve inclusion in WikiProject Judaism. It should be conferred on any biography of a Jew simply by dint of he or she being Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You are right. Even a kofer bikar r"l is still considered Jewish mikar hadin and can be chozer betshuva. But he is not viewed as part of the klal. Part of the Jewish nation? Yes. Of the Jewish religion? (i.e. Judaism), No. He is excluded from many aspects of Jewish practice and cannot taken an active role in Judaism, which is widely understood as the "religion" aspect of the Jewish nation. However slight, there is a difference between Jewish and Judaism, and only people who are associated with the later are part of this project. Osbourne may say she is Jewish but she would not say she is a follower of Judaism. And this is wikiproject Judaism. Chesdovi (talk) 09:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is "wikiproject Judaism." What would it be, wikiproject Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 10:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Correct, as I already suggested above, go ahead and create Wikiproject Jewish people or wikiproject Jews. The common understanding of Judaism is religion orientated. Chesdovi (talk) 10:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi — I think we should not be so much concerned with the "common" understanding of "Judaism" as the "Jewish" understanding of Judaism. The Jewish understanding of Judaism is that it (Judaism) is embodied in the nonobservant Jew as well as the observant Jew. That is my reasoning behind why nonobservant Jews should warrant inclusion in WikiProject Judaism. I think you are too concerned with the "common" understanding of the term "Judaism," which coincides with the "Christian" understanding of counterpart terms when pertaining to the Christian religion. In Christianity there is a sharp distinction between practicing and non-practicing insofar as that to not "practice" Christianity is to not be a Christian. Without "practicing" Christianity one is a "lapsed Christian." "Non-practicing" almost has no meaning to Jews. If Jews are a "nation," how does one lose "citizenship?" You are failing to see the distinction between Christianity and Judaism, and it is a significant one. Bus stop (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If a Jew is a Yetzia bish'eila, he does not loose "citizenship" from the Jewish nation - his Jewishness remains in his genes, but he has severed himself from Judaism, which is the religion of the Jewish nation. Jews who practise Judaism belong to the Jewish nation AND Judaism. Jews who don't practise Judaism belong to the Jewish nation, but not to Judaism. Further, I have already mentioned that even practising Jews I would not necesarily be included here. Paul Reichman would not go in the project b/c he is not notable in the realms of Judaism. Cliff Richard would belong in wikiproject Christiany but Ramiz Jaraisy would not. Both are practising, but Jaraisy has no particular connection to chritsiany that would deserve he be included in the project. You are also conflating a set of ideals with its adherants. Why do all followers or members of a value system belong in a project about that value system? All Israelis do not belong in the project about Israel, just becuase they hold Israeli citizenship. There should be a Israeli People project for that. To feature in the Israel project one has to have a historic role in connection with Israel or to be active in Israeli politics etc. Same with Project Judaism. One has to be connected in some notable way to Judaism. Just by being Jewish does not afford a person that designation. Judaism and Jewish people have to remain separate exactly for the reason that some Jews do not practise Judasim, which is understood as referring solely to the religion. You keep bringing up the "frum/not frum still Jewish" thing, but I am saying frum or not, a direct relation to the religion is needed, for that is what Judaism means. It is a religion. Judaism is not a nationality. "Jewish" is. Chesdovi (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi — You say, "Jews who practise Judaism belong to the Jewish nation AND Judaism." One does not "belong" to Judaism. Properly speaking one adopts Judaism. Usually one adopts Judaism at an exceptionally young age. Adult converts of course adopt Judaism later in life. Even Baal teshuva who were not frum from birth adopt Judaism. One does not "belong" to Judaism, in the same sense that one might say that one "belongs" to the "Jewish nation."

One belongs to the Jewish faith, i.e. Judaism. But you have inadvertantly admitted a difference between the two? If they were one & the same one could "belong" to Judaism too?! And if one does not "adopt" Judaism, would he still belong under the banner Judaism? Chesdovi (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You say, "You are also conflating a set of ideals with its adherants. Why do all followers or members of a value system belong in a project about that value system?" Judaism is not a set of ideals or a value system. Judaism is a set of commandments. One chooses to accept the placing of a metaphorical yoke upon one's shoulders. One chooses to become a slave of God.

You say, "One has to be connected in some notable way to Judaism." One is connected to Judaism if one is a Jew. A non-practicing Jew is equivalent to a practicing Jew due to the religion's conception of Jewish membership. Therefore anything one does in one's life — of a secular nature or of a more-properly-called religious nature is a "Jewish" accomplishment. And, this should apply to the misdeeds of Jews as well. I'm opposed to cherry picking those Jews who are viewed as virtuous and whose notability is tied to stereotypically religious activities — as concerns inclusion in WikiProject Judaism. I think we should take an approach befitting of an encyclopedia. If Madoff, Boesky, and Berkowitz are Jewish, so be it. Objective criteria for inclusion in WikiProject Judaism is what we should be using. Bus stop (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Any Jew can be connected to Judaism, & connected to God. Judaism gives them the opportunity (& obligation). But in the general sense, the word Judaism encompases the religious aspect only. Madoff made no contributions to Judaism, besides from being born to Jewish parents. Does he really belong here? Judaism is not a nationality, even though it formed the basis of one. And no, the basic deeds of every Jew ever born has no conenction with to the term Judaism. They from part of ther Jewish people, not the Jewish religion. Remember: Am Yisroel & Das Yisroel. If they were synonomous, why both expressions? Again, please create WikiProject Jewish People, Culture and Society. Chesdovi (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You say, "Madoff made no contributions to Judaism." No one makes any "contributions" to Judaism. You can construe religious activity that way, and I'm sure that loosely speaking others too have construed religious activity that way. But while this is important, and admirable, it is not essential. Essentially Judaism is an identity that one carries in life. There is a concept of a "Pintele Yid." Unfortunately Wikipedia fails to have an article on it. As I understand it, it is a concept of Jewish identity that exists anywhere, anytime. It is conceptualized as being diminutive. Madoff is a Jew, therefore Madoff carries a concept of Jewish identity in him. You are making a value judgement that is apart from essential Judaism. The demarcation between religious and irreligious that you dwell upon is not such a clear line of demarcation. You are focussed single-mindedly on where the religious drops off and where the secular begins. I think there are examples in which a secular Jew is more religious than a religious Jew. I'm not about to launch into a diatribe against religious Jews. But you are perceiving a line being brighter than it really is. All that this project should be doing is distinguishing between Jew and non-Jew. It should not be taking it upon itself to distinguish between religious and secular, as concerns Jews. In the article itself that realm could certainly be delved into. But the WikiProject banner should be put to a simpler usage.

Tradition posits that there are 36 people alive at any time (Tzadikim Nistarim) who represent the greatest Jews in terms of holiness. They are supposedly scattered throughout the world. And importantly, they are the most unremarkable people imaginable. They may be poor. They may not be rabbis. They may lead the most unremarkable lives imaginable. But they are supposed to be the cream of the crop as far as Jews are concerned. I don't know — maybe Madoff is the greatest Jew alive today. Bus stop (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Your definition of Judaim in our context is pushed, ridiculous and IMO wrong. Buying ones shopping in Marks and Spencer as opposed to Asda is not an expression of Judaism. Chesdovi (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Judaism is an identity conferred by birth or conversion. Sorry for being so long-winded. Bus stop (talk) 17:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I have only heard of "Jewish identity", not "Judasim identity". People do not convert to be "Jewish", they can have their chopped liver, salt beef sandwiches and use a smattering of Yiddish without converting. Converting is a procces undergone to become an adherant of a religion. Chesdovi (talk) 11:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi — an officiating authority at a conversion process has to determine if the potential convert is sincere or not. But the potential convert, after conversion, is a Jew who could choose to be nonobservant. (Or this person might be observant, but their children might choose nonobservance.) I say this to point out that technically this person is still Jewish, even if nonobservant. (This is little different than the person born Jewish who is nonobservant.) Should Wikipedia be making symbolic distinctions that involve observance/nonobservance and notability that distinguishes between religious notability and notability in nonreligious realms — vis-a-vis Jews? The WikiProject Judaism banner is symbolic. The question is — what is it symbolic of? Is a simple banner capable of conveying complex or nuanced information? I think the article (the biography) must be read to find out any meaningful information. But then again I'm opposed even to "info-boxes." Well-written articles are essential. Most of the disputes, I've noticed, concern those aspects of an article that are most visible. People dispute whether the info-box should refer to "ethnicity" or religion, and whether Jewish is an ethnicity or a religion in relation to a given person. The lede paragraph is also often hotly contested. I think you find far fewer disputes way deep down in the bowels of an article. And here we are disputing whether the banner should symbolically indicate religious notability or mere person-hood. I am not accepting that the banner should be symbolically indicating religious notability. It might be preferable to do away with the banner altogether. I think the banner is incapable of conveying meaningful or nuanced information. I think the question raised by Jayjg doesn't have a simple answer. Perhaps we should not be placing the WikiProject Judaism banner on any biographies at all. Any reasons why we shouldn't just cease putting the banner on biographies? Bus stop (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Bus stop's question: Should Wikipedia be making symbolic distinctions that involve observance/nonobservance and notability that distinguishes between religious notability and merely religious identity — vis-a-vis Jews?

Answer: Yes. As the comparison I have made before with Israeli citizens and Wikiproject Israel. Unless the subject has a direct connection to Israel, mere citizenship of Israel does not carry enough weight to be listed in the Israel project. The project is meant to be an indicator of articles needed to be improved on the Subject of Israel, not any person who was born Israeli or have acquired Israeli citizenship. The project must not be inundated with thousand of Jewish biographies which would make it impossible for people to sift out articles they want to improve which actually relate to Judaism, not to any Tom, Dick or Harry who happen to be Jewish. You seem to be arguing that an Israeli born scientist who has lived all his life in America and has no connection whatsoever to Israel has enough significance to be listed in the Israel project. That is ludicrous. You would include anything in wikiproject Judaism that has the slightest connection to Judaism, (a tactic used by the Jewish Chronicle: Madonna makes front page news for being spotted wearing a red string; David Beckham is given significant coverage because he sports a tattoo from proverbs and has a Jewish granddad, and Jean-Marie Lustiger – a Jewish cardinal, and so on.) Everything has a “Jewish connection”, where would it end? Would Project Mormonism include all Jews as they believe they have baptised them all to Mormonism? Judaism is the religion that gives secular Jews their affiliation to the Jewish people. But that affiliation does not mean they are connected to Judaism in a way that warrants their inclusion in this project, which I believe would best used for exactly what it says it about, Judaism – that means the religion of the Jews. Chesdovi (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi — it is unfortunate that news reporting misconstrues Jewish matters, as in Madonna's red string. But our job is not to provide a counterbalance. Ultimately you are deciding what Jewish means for all Jews. That is a gray area, ultimately. Article space is more than capable of conveying a wealth of information on each biography — including, if available, the religious views and/or religious contributions of each Jew provided with an article. Notability for accomplishments of a religious nature is only one facet of an individual's life. The banner more properly should be an accompaniment to biographies of Jews than to Jews who are notable for their contributions to Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 10:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The banner should mainly include bio's of people who are notable teachers of Judaism and arbiters of Judaic Law. Not people who think it they are doing their bit for Judaism by not playing baseball on Yom Kippur. You want to decide that being Jewish and living the life of a goy means being connected to Judaism. I cannot agree. Chesdovi (talk) 11:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi — all that I am deciding is to distinguish between Jew and non-Jew as concerns the WikiProject Judaism banner. I am in favor of leaving it to the reader to decide all other matters. There are Jewish people who are more highly developed as Jews and there are Jewish people who are less highly developed as Jews. That a baseball player chooses to miss out on playing in a World Series game is, for his level of development, a religious act. Bus stop (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Good for him. He did a mitzvah. Good boy. And what did Judasim itself gain from that one notable act? Did his act of self-sacrifice have such a cosmic effect of the Jewish religion? Andy Murray 'did bow to the Queen. Does he belong at WikiProject Monarchists? Chesdovi (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

---

Busstop, your opinion is wrong. Jews, a nation and ethnoreligious group, is not synonymous with Judaism, the "religion, philosophy, and way of life" of the Jewish people. Anyone who's claim to fame is due to their influence on Judaism, (namely it's religion, philosophy or way of life), should be included in the project. Under your designation, Jean-Marie Lustiger would belong here. That is ridiculous. This project is simply not for Jewish people, but for the religion of the Jewish people. Someone wanting to help expand Judaism articles will not be helped having every single Jew, most with scant religious affiliation, existing on the project. They wish to have articles with a link to Judaism, not Secular Jewish culture. Chesdovi (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi — you say that, "This project is simply not for Jewish people, but for the religion of the Jewish people." Judaism posits that a Jew does not forfeit his identity as a Jew as a consequence of failure of punctilious observance. The religion itself does not stake out special ground for religious punctiliousness. On the contrary it recognizes 100% the Jewishness of someone who is either a Jew by birth or a Jew by conversion. Those are the applicable strictures. Dividing people (Jewish people) by whether or not they've contributed to Jewish studies is just a Wikipedia creation. Judaism doesn't pay particular recognition to such a division. Bus stop (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That Judaism confers affiliation to the Jewish nation, whether Jews adhere to Judaism’s precepts or not, does not warrant that people be listed under this project. You are correct. It is the Judaism that makes them in essence Jews, but if they have no connection to that law system which gave them that status and the favour is not reciprocated, so to say, just as Judaism has no place in their lives, their lives should have no place in Project Judaism. Chesdovi (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi — in Christianity there is the notion that ongoing steps must be taken to retain the status of Christian. That doesn't happen to be the case in Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Oy. I feel like we're beating a dead horse. Bus stop - nobody is arguing about who is, or is not, a Jew. All we are discussing is whether they should be included in this Wikiproject just because they happened to be Jewish! In the example I mentioned before, I don't think Alan Greenspan should be in WPJudaism (and, by the way, he is not) because his contributions to society have nothing to do with the fact that he's Jewish. Therefore, I don't think WPJudaism should care about him, and he shouldn't be part of the project. WPJudaism exists to bring editors together to focus on articles that are related to Judaism, and I don't think Greenspan is relevant to Judaism. Try to see it this way: if you opened a book titled "Judaism", would you find the name of every single Jew that ever lived? -shirulashem^(talk) 18:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Shirulashem — The question should be asked — what does inclusion in WikiProject Judaism mean? I would say that it should not have enormous significance. It should be a small sign associated with Jews. This is not a "book titled Judaism." The coverage of Judaism in Wikipedia is so broad as to almost reduce Judaism to meaninglessness. You would be further compounding that problem by trying to differentiate between "religious" notability and notability in general. And there is a pernicious problem: there is no way that a nonobservant Jew can be included in WikiProject Judaism. Is membership in WikiProject Judaism only for those who've contributed to the religion? Why? If we look at overall coverage of Judaism on Wikipedia we find Jewish identity being defined in an extraordinarily wide variety of ways. We have Alternative Judaism and Humanistic Judaism. I find it a bit hypocritical that when it comes to the inclusion of biographies in WikiProject Judaism we are all of a sudden maintaining high standards. At least have consistently low standards. Bus stop (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No. That would be okay, becasue wikipedia has recognised those strands as forms of Judaism. Sherwin Wine stays. Chesdovi (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi — why would I argue for the exclusion of Sherwin Wine from WikiProject Judaism? Of course I do not argue for his exclusion. He is Jewish, is he not? If so, then he meets my criteria for inclusion. Bus stop (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Why has John Carter added Judaism Project to Niemann–Pick disease? The only mention of "Jew" is in the see also. What does the disease have to do with Judaism? The religion does not confer the disease on people born of Jewish parents? Chesdovi (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I would just like to affirm that BusStop's assumption is incorrect. Any source of Jewish law will tell you that certain things (idolatry, flagrant violation of the Sabbath, probably atheism and other rejections of the basic beliefs) renders a person to be considered as a Gentile as relates to any of the privileges of Judaism (but not the requirements) such as being counted in a minyan. What confuses the issue is Maimodides' statement that this does not apply to a person brought up in a heretical sect. This is widely accepted but not without controversy.Mzk1 (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Mzk1 — Not quite. If a person (a Jew) is only aware of one or two or three mitzvoth, for instance, and is observant of the majority of them, that person too can be considered observant. But this hinges importantly on the number of mitzvoth that person is aware of. It is also incorrect to say that that person is regarded as a Gentile as regards "privileges." What "privileges" do you have in mind? You may be referring to the Tinok shenishba in your reference to the "person brought up in a heretical sect." Bus stop (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, I am referring to the so-called tinok shenishba clause. (The term is not exactly correct, if you look at the original.) But if someone does not have one of various excuses, such as ignorance, then they are considered, by Jewish law, as a Gentile, excpet that they are still liable for violating the commandments. Cites on request.Mzk1 (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

But what does "considered as a Gentile" mean? Would it be your understanding that we are not including the biographies of such people in WikiProject Judaism because they are, "considered as a Gentile"? Bus stop (talk) 09:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It is a point to be considered, at least for someone who professes another religion. Karl Marx, for example. At any rate, I was just pointing out that you were basing part of your argument on a false premise. Judaism does NOT differ from other religions in this regard.Mzk1 (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I would not include even religous Jews who have no notability in the realm of religion. Chesdovi (talk) 10:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi — would you include non-Jews who have notability for their contributions to the realm of the Jewish religion? Bus stop (talk) 10:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

In theory yes. Now you are getting the idea! :-) It would be rare though, as people who would usually fit my criteria would most probably be Jewish anyway. Would I include Nebuchadnezzar II, biblical king and exiler of the Jews from Judea - a major occurance which had massive repurcussions for Judaism? No. He had no direct involvment with the religion, as with Hitler. He would better be placed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history. I would go further and say, just adding anyone who is born Jewish would not necesarrily give creedance to their own view of themselves, as Georg Cantor's brother wrote (mother's halachic Jewish status unclear): We may be descended from Jews ten times over..., but in social life I prefer Christians..." and "But we are, even though I myself possess Jewish features, so non-Jewish in our beliefs and customs..." In other words, he is arguing that even though the family is ethnically Jewish, it is culturally non-Jewish. Would you include him? Would you include people born of Jewish fathers only? Chesdovi (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi — you say, "Would you include people born of Jewish fathers only?" Sources can certainly be found which say that if only one of the parents is a Jew, and if that parent happens to be the male parent, that the child is a Jew. Therefore I think it is inescapable that a responsible encyclopedia must take that understanding into account, along with any other factors that may have applicability. Bus stop (talk) 02:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

There are also sources that state that if a person peforms Jewish rituals, even without being born Jewish or converting, he is considered a Jew. (See JFS (school).) Your thoughts? Chesdovi (talk) 12:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi — my thoughts are that Wikipedia shouldn't be for advocacy; it should be for reflecting. It should be reflecting sources. It should do so without giving undue weight. And it should do so with impartiality. That last one comes under NPOV. Having said that, we are still grappling with where a line should be drawn. Should a line be drawn distinguishing "religious notability" from "merely Jewish notability," or should we be drawing a line between Jews and non-Jews? I say the latter. I find the former to be more subjective a judgement. Yes, cases can arise in which we don't know if someone is a Jew or not. But I think a more common scenario is that we are unsure if "religious notability" is present. I think a cogent argument can be made that stating that one is a Jew is tantamount to "religious notability." I realize that doesn't correspond to your notion of contributing to the religion, but I think these things have to be seen against the backdrop of a largely non-Jewish world. I think that Jews being a minority plays a role in how we regard statements of Jewish identity, for instance. They can't be understood as casual statements. Bus stop (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I cannot agree with your statement that stating that one is a Jew is tantamount to "religious notability.” It would be notable for “Project Jews”, but not Judaism. I am firmly of the opinion that only one who has made significant contribution to Judaism as a religion has any chance of being included in the project Judaism. Jews and Judaism are not the same. Nowadays the difference between the two are clearly defined. It goes without saying that even an expression of Judaism made by a Jew does in no way suffice! A cultural, secular or religious Jew who has a good record for helping Jewish charities, promoting awareness of the holocaust and says his Judaism means a lot to him, does not warrant inclusion. Why? - because that is not that the project is about. Because the word Judaism infers religion; if however the banner read: Jews and Judaism, then I would agree that all Jews, whether they are notable in the realm of the Jewish religion or not, would be included. One would not even have to abstain from playing baseball on Yom Kippur. If Steven Spielberg gave significant amounts of financial support to religious institutions, whose impact on the advancement of the Jewish religion were widely and clearly recognised, there may be an argument for him to be included. But otherwise his “Jewishness” does not belong in this project. Churchill supported the Zionist State, does he belong in wikiproject Israel? As far as I can see, you have not responded to my Wikiproject Israel comparisons. I am not prepared to argue my viewpoint further on this matter. Chesdovi (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

In summary, I think it's clear that everyone except User:Bus stop thinks that not every biography of a Jew should be part of Wikiproject Judaism, and that only those with a clear, direct connection to Judaism should be. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this person (Elena Kagan) showing "a clear, direct connection to Judaism"? I'm aware that her notability is not in the realm of Jewish activities. But I think she is showing "a clear, direct connection to Judaism" as would be the case with a Sandy Koufax for instance. Bus stop (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how your comment is relevant to mine. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that using being Jewish as a criterion would open a hornet's nest and make it impossible for it to be NPOV. This is because there are strong differences on how to define a Jew. Thus, including the narrow OR a broad criterion would be very POV and might even lead to edit wars in what should be a non-contraversial listing.Mzk1 (talk) 15:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Question on wider subject

One option, maybe the best one, if the rest of you are agreeable. It might work best to establish something like WikiProject Jewish studies, somewhat along the line of WikiProject Military history. Those active and dormant projects which deal specifically with matters related to Jews and Judaism could become effective child projects of that parent project, and the Jewish studies banner could be set up in a way similar to the MILHIST banner to allow assessment and other details for each of the subprojects relevant to the article. This might include the existing projects for Judaism, Jewish history, Hebrew language, maybe Kabbalah (if it is basically Jewish, I dunno), and maybe, if there were interest, a Tanakh subproject of WikiProject Bible, maybe a Jewish literature project, Jewish biography (if wanted), and whatever else. If this proposal were accepted, it might work best to change the banner for a month or two so that it indicates that a restructuring is being considered, with a link to a page indicating which groups are being considered to have their banners "merged" to Jewish studies or whatever it might be called, and have a list of suggested new projects/groups, which individuals who would want to work on that topic could use to indicate their interest in such a group. Just a thought, anyway. John Carter (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

AfC submission

Could you have a look at this submission? Thanks! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Just glancing at it, I noticed a few sentences like "Antisemitism in contemporary Greece is embedded in Greek mainstream society...while it is systematically denied or ignored." That's a very strong statement, and makes the article seem more like an argument than a presentation of facts. Try to stick to the facts.

A couple of minor points:

1. The heading "Analysis" is unnecessary.
2. I don't know if "contemporary" adds much to the title. -- Ypnypn (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• Looks like the article was accepted at AfC. Thanks for the comments. Did you pass them on to the author? Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Chabad Chasidim

It seems to me that this article, Chabad Chasidim is an unnecessary fork of Chabad. I'd remerge it there. Debresser (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Now this same user create The Rebbes of Chabad... Debresser (talk) 09:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing these out. I have nominated both articles for deletion per WP:SYNTH and WP:CFORK. See deletion discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chabad Chasidim and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rebbes of Chabad. Chag samei'ach, Yoninah (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

TfD for Template:Antisemitism

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 10#Violation of policy NPOV and a related RfC on whether the template should include organisations at WP:VPP#RfC:"Should organisations be included in templates such as Islamophobia, Racism and anti-Semitism" Dougweller (talk) 09:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan's halakhic sefer – משנה ברורה

Please see Talk:Mishnah Verurah#Name. -- Ypnypn (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Atrocious article

The article Judaization of Jerusalem is atrocious. It completely leaves out any Jewish connection to the city and starts in the year 638 as though it were the first date of recorded history. A few PPOV (Palestinian POV) pushers have sat there arguing that no changes can be made since they had earlier reached consensus amongst themselves. Their POV is supported by such 'luminaries' as Falk, who they argue is not an activist but a human rights expert, apparently failing to realize that a human rights expert can still take a completely slanted POV. The entire article is based on PA propaganda. Not to be an alarmist, but will we start seeing other outrageous PA claims as WP articles too? Will we soon see articles pushing the PPOV that the holocaust didn't happen, that the Jews never lived in the land of Israel, or that Israeli 'infiltrators' (read: tourists) are planning to destroy the muslim buildings sitting atop the temple mount? I haven't made any edits to the page yet, but when I tried to talk about it on the talk page, I was told, in so many words, to stfu. 174.44.174.192 (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Jews

Template:Infobox Jews has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 22:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

Just a heads-up about this submission. Seems non-notable. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Article assessment requests (manually archived 17:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

1. Pesach Sheni. Major rewrite. Previously "Start Class," but I know it's beyond that now. Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

   Promoted to B-Class. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

2. Ropshitz (Hasidic dynasty). I majorly expanded this article a while ago. While the quality is terrible, I admit—there is nothing but dynastic information—its designation as a stub at 62kb is now ridiculous, so a re-assessment is in order. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

   Done. See Talk:Ropshitz (Hasidic dynasty). StevenJ81 (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Civil recognition of Jewish divorce

The article Civil recognition of Jewish divorce has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Original research largely by its creator as part of his series of work also of original research on the theme of the subject of the Conflict of laws; only an Israeli Jewish (religious) divorce can be recognized by civil authorities overseas, and that is only an automatic legal right in domestic law in the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland; the article is unnecessarily, unacceptably and unreasonably hypothetical and legalistic, and ought to be merged with the main article, being Get (divorce document).

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 212.50.182.151 (talk) 04:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Civil recognition of Jewish divorce for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Civil recognition of Jewish divorce is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civil recognition of Jewish divorce until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.


Concern, reason or rationale: It is an original research largely by its creator as part of his series of work also of original research on the theme of the subject of the Conflict of laws; only an Israeli Jewish (religious) divorce can be recognized by civil authorities overseas, and that is only an automatic legal right in domestic law in the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland; the article is unnecessarily, unacceptably and unreasonably hypothetical and legalistic, and ought to be merged with the main article, being Get (divorce document). 212.50.182.151 (talk) 10:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Judaism and political radicalism: needs review

I've just taken a look at the Judaism and political radicalism article: it seems to me to be full of unsourced opinion and conclusion-drawing, and very light on references to reliable sources. If anyone could cast an eye over it, I'd be grateful. -- The Anome (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The Jewish Bolshevism and Jewish Bolshevism

The above topic as is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jewish Bolshevism (2nd nomination). Thank you, IZAK (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yiddish Sign Language

There's an ISO code for "Yiddish Sign Language", but I'm unable to confirm such a language exists. The closest I could find in the lit was a comment that communities that actively use Yiddish tend to avoid state education and so only have home sign. Or did it maybe exist before the Holocaust? If anyone has any leads, please let us know at WP:LANG (or on my talk page). — kwami (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Since no-one can find anything, I've removed claims that this language exists. — kwami (talk) 02:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested Move - Sotah

Please see Talk:Sotah#Requested_move. It has been re-listed due to lack of participation. Thank you. -- Avi (talk)

The previous comment was last modified by Avi on June 4. Since then, the discussion on the requested move was closed and the article was moved. This thread should have been archived by robot after 30 days; but wasn't, due to lack of timestamp. My signature & timestamp below will hopefully rectify that. -- -- -- 09:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Is English lingua franca for Jews?

Please see Template_talk:Infobox_Jews#English_as_the_predominant_language where another editor and I disagree if Infobox Jews may say that English is a lingua franca for Jews. Debresser (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Yemenite Ketubba

Hello Judaism experts! I have no idea what to make of the above article, which appears in various places around the web, marked as freely licensed, and has now been submitted at Articles for creation. Maybe someone here can help out? —Anne Delong (talk) 05:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Someone rejected it about an hour ago.

My own feeling (if it is submitted again) is that it does not need a separate article, but that pieces unique to the Yemenite community could be incorporated into the main article Ketubah. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for consensus

There is a request for consensus underway at Talk:Ohel (Chabad-Lubavitch), to move the page back to Ohel (Chabad). Thanks for weighing in. Yoninah (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

Another submission relevant to your Project. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Shemini Atzeret/GA2

Please see Talk:Shemini Atzeret/GA2 and add your expertise. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 10:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Peninei Halacha

Is this topic notable? If so, is there any cleanup that needs to be done before the article is accepted? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• @Davidwr: Tough one. The publisher is an academic institution. But in the Jewish Religious world, academic institutions are very different from the American academic point of reference. The book is widely known, but will not have received much coverage in RS outside of its own institution, which could be construed as a COI-suspect source. In general, Jewish religious books receive little RS review, because of the closed nature of their systems, i.e., there's not much book reviewing going on in the Orthodox press, but mainstream press has no interest in covering them. It is a catch-22: real world notability within a small market, no RS. Dovid (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Dovid made a valid point. In addition, this will never grow beyond a few lines. The obvious solution is not to create this, just have a section in Eliezer Melamed, the author. Debresser (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I "declined" the submission. Thanks for the input. I did not edit Eliezer Melamed, but feel free to do so. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I merged some edit from the Afc proposal into Eliezer_Melamed#Peninei_Halachah. Debresser (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Jewish Encyclopedia available on Wikimedia commons

I have uploaded pdf files of the twelve volumes of the old public domain Jewish Encyclopedia, which can all be found here. The text is in public domain, so can be freely used with appropriate attribution, and might well be very useful in developing a lot of content here. And, FWIW, the broader category of Religious encyclopedias there contains a number of other older reference sources in the public domain, which between them might also be useful. John Carter (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow, unbelievable, thank you so much for this. I think we should now link some related Wiki articles to it. Shalom11111 (talk) 07:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Note that we already have over a thousand articles derived from the JE, marked by the {{JewishEncyclopedia}} template, and also tracked at WP:JE, referencing the text at www.jewishencyclopedia.com.

Full-page images are definitely useful, particularly as the www.jewishencyclopedia.com site is no longer providing them. What would be valuable would be to cut the pdfs into individual page image files; create a contents table to reference the first page for each article; and then to adapt the {{JewishEncyclopedia}} template and the WP:JE listings to additionally link to the page-image files, as well as the www.jewishencyclopedia.com website. Jheald (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

One way to maybe deal with some of those concerns, not specifically including matters regarding images on pages, would be to transfer the data in the individual articles (or volumes) into WikiSource, where they would also be more easily available for those reading the articles here. Having not looked through the volumes myself to any great degree, I would think that maybe the most useful ones in this regard might be the longest articles in the JE, not all of which might be able to be included in our own articles. Their availability there might also make it easier to develop subarticles and such.

P.S. Some of the other sources there, like the American Jewish Year Book and (possibly) some of the other encyclopedias, might be good sources for content as well. John Carter (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Note that, as I wrote above, the full JE text is already available (and has been for ten years), article by article, at www.jewishencyclopedia.com; so there may be higher priority sources for wikisource transcription. But page images are not available there any more, so would be particularly useful (including e.g. the author attribution details for the articles, which are no longer available on the external site; though archive.org has backups of some of the pages of that site in their previous form). Jheald (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

How come I cannot open the above-mentioned link? -- -- -- 02:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It still works for me, so I don't know. It is in the wikimedia commons Category:Jewish Encyclopedia, which is itself a subcat of Category:Religious encyclopedias there. You should be able to find it by going to the wikimedia commons page, hitting the link to the site there, and then searching for the category once there. John Carter (talk) 02:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I now see what the problem was. It was blocked by K9 Web Protection. -- -- -- 06:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Sefeika D’Yoma

Sefeika D’Yoma is a new article, please help by improving with sources and more information. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

It should be interlinked with Yom tov sheni shel galuyot, to which it is closely related.

I would rename it to ""Sfeka d'yoma". I don't think the "ei" is normative, and the capitalization is at odds with Wikipedia rules and common sense. Just a bad American habit to capitalize lots of things. The first "e" is at odds with WP:HEBREW, because it is not pronounced in Hebrew. Debresser (talk) 11:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey, when I was in grammar school I was taught to capitalize all important words in a title. At least at the time, that was standard [American] English style. So sue me (or IZAK). <grin>

I'm not sure about Aramaic or even Yeshivish Hebrew, but in principal the shva under the samekh of sefeika would be na in Hebrew, therefore pronounced. Shabbat Shalom. StevenJ81 (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we capitalize proper nouns, and nothing else, not in titles and not in headers. See WP:MOSCAP. For comparison, see other terms in Template:Halakha, that none are capitalized (with 1 exception).

The shva is na, absolutely. But in Modern Hebrew it is not pronounced. As many shva's at the beginning of words. So per WP:HEBREW we should not have the "e". Debresser (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I understand MOSCAP. I'm just telling you why I forget sometimes. As for the shva, fine. Not a big deal to me. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

By the way, WP:HEBREW would recommend Sfeka deyoma, since it doesn't allow apostrophes to represent shvas. But I think IAR would suggest avoiding the "eyo" here. -- Ypnypn (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with "deyoma" also. Debresser (talk) 07:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Women by Ethnicity nominated for deletion.

Category:Women by ethnicity is being considered for deletion. Anybody interested in commenting, can do so at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_4#Category:Women_by_ethnicity. __ E L A Q U E A T E 08:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Naming conventions on WP for the Maccabees

Please see Talk:Eleazar Avaran#Naming conventions on WP for the Maccabees. Discussion: How should the original Maccabees, the father Mattathias and his five sons, John (Johanan), Simon, Judah (Judas), Eleazar (Elazar), Jonathan be known on Wikipedia? Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion starts at Eleazar Avaran - NOT - Eleazar Maccabeus. Debresser (talk) 15:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Jewish English Bible translations and mechon-mamre.org

Just trying to get my head around this. We have Jewish English Bible translations which looks ok to me, but a large number of translations are sourced to mechon-mamre.org. Their translation doesn't seem to be one of the ones listed, so it's hard for me to understand why it's used so broadly, especially since it uses archaic English. Dougweller (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Torah and Pentateuch

Please see Talk:Torah#Pentateuch. It's about a possible split. -- Ypnypn (talk) 01:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)