Talk:The Jewish Encyclopedia

Template:JewishEncyclopedia
There is now a template that you can use in your reference section when drawing material from this source. See, for example, Exilarch, Asher ben Jehiel. -- Jmabel 01:53, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Scholarship
The scholarship of the Jewish Encyclopedia is obviously excellent, but I don't know enough about the area to say much useful about who contributed to it and where they stood among the scholars of their time; I think that belongs in the article. -- Jmabel 03:01, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

public domain
The wikipage about the Catholic Encyclopedia says that it is in the public domain and gives instructions for citing incorporations into wikipedia, and http://jewishencyclopedia.com/ says that the JE is in the public domain. So, shouldn't this Jewish Encyclopedia page contain the identical information and instructions, and not simply the citation notes above here?

and, this suggestion probably belongs someplace else on wikipedia: seems to me it would be nice if wikipedia had a way of mechanically incorporating the entirety of the JE (and the CE, et al) directly so that such articles as are covered would be immediately available. Policy for subsequent edits (esp. to correct) could be either normal or special in some way. (anon)


 * I tend toward the opinion that the inclusion of those instructions in the article "Catholic Encyclopedia" at least borders on inappropriately self-referential. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:42, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * The Jewish Encyclopedia website has contradictory information regarding copyright. Here it says that it is public domain and here it says that the encyclopedia material cannot be reproduced. -- Kjkolb 06:18, September 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * The underliying encyclopedia is public domain. The enhancements they have made (presumably little but the screen layout) are copyrightable. I contacted about a year ago to let them know that we are using material from the JE and suggesting collaboration on their idea of bringing some of it more up to date, but I never got a response. Anyway, they at least know we are using material, and haven't objected, though they also haven't given any overt permissions. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:20, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Commons
I have a important question, and ask here. Can we upload the images from Jewish Encyclopedia(kot) to Commons? This will be big delightfull chance or mournfull tragic affair...
 * --Sheynhertzגעשׁ״ך 13:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The images from the 1901-1906 encyclopedia should now be in the public domain, at least in the U.S., exactly like the text. Certainly, if you had a copy and scanned it, this should be OK. However, I'm not sure of the full legalities around the Commons (for example, if you grab a scan off the web done by someone else, is that acceptable?). You should probably ask on the Commons. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:07, September 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * There is a big and nice news (but I thought like this once). See the tanár Ármin Vámbéry page! --Sheynhertzגעשׁ״ך 15:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC) (_<)v


 * In the U.S., exact photographic copies of public domain 2-D works cannot be copyrighted under any circumstances. See Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., which is responsible for this, and which really has been a great boon to Wikimedia projects.  So, yes, it is absolutely appropriate to take PD images scanned by someone else from the Jewish Encyclopedia.--Pharos 18:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, in the U.S., but I thought the Commons tried to confine itself to images that are close to universally permissible, not just in the U.S. And that's what I don't know. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The guideline is to follow the most appropriate national laws. As the Jewish Encyclopedia was published by Funk and Wagnalls, I don't think there should be any problem applying U.S. law.--Pharos 04:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

PD-US..?
images from JE is labelled template:PD-US, might we same label at commons:template:JewishEncyclopedia? --Sheynhertz 18:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If that is acceptable on Commons, absolutely. I hedged in my answer above because I don't know what are the permissible licencing/PD claims on Commons. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Moved from article
This was in the "see also" list; we don't link into "Wikipedia" namespace from articles; see Self-reference. Jmabel | Talk 08:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles

Online encyclopedia dead?
I've tried and failed to access the online JE several times the last few days; does anyone know what's happening with it? - Jmabel | Talk 06:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's back. - Jmabel | Talk 04:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Palestinian rabbis
What does one make of the new Category:Palestinian rabbis and Category:Talmud rabbis in Palestine, should they be renamed to something like Category:Rabbis of ancient Palestine? so that it does not connect, and become confused with, the way the word "Palestinian" is used today (meaning the very unJewish modern Arab Palestinians, who have nothing to do with these rabbis!) Thanks. IZAK 09:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi: I have created a solution: See Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel and Category:Talmud rabbis of the Land of Israel. Thank you. IZAK 14:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Not using "Palestine" or "Palestinian" for Talmud and rabbis to avoid confusion
Note: Many articles about the rabbis of the Talmud and Mishnah are derived from the archaic Jewish Encyclopedia, published between 1901-1906, over one hundred years ago (when the Middle East was still under the thumb of the Ottoman Turks) and which used the archaic expressions "Palestine" when referring to the Land of Israel, and to the Jews living in the areas of the historical Land of Israel as "Palestinians." This is a big mistake that requires constant attention and correction, especially when copying and editing articles from the Jewish Encyclopedia or from similarly archaic sources such as Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897). At this time, no-one uses the term/s "Palestinian/s" (in relation to anything associated with Jews or the land they lived in and which they regarded as their homeland) nor by any type of conventional Jewish scholarship, particularly at the present time when the label "Palestinian" is almost entirely identified with the Palestinian Arabs who are mostly Muslims. Finally, kindly take note that the name Palestinian Talmud is also not used and it redirects to the conventional term Jerusalem Talmud used in Jewish scholarship. Thank you. IZAK 13:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Not using "Palestine" or "Palestinian" for Talmud and rabbis
Makes sense, I'll try to remember. However, there was a period when everyone referred to the land of Israel as Palestine. Therefore, to say something like "in 1940 Shlomo Pines emigrated to Israel" would appear to be an anachronism. Don't we have to use the term "Palestine" during a certain period for historical accuracy? What is this period? From Roman conquest until 1948? Thanks. Dfass 15:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Dfass: Note: The term "Land of Israel" is an old one of Biblical origin, whereas the name "Palestine" is considered offensive by many Jews because it was coined by the Romans after they crushed the Jews of Judea-- and needless to say today it refers exclusively to the Arab Palestinians and never to Jews. Note also that the "Land of Israel" article is not the same as the "Israel" article because the latter refers to the modern post-1948 Jewish state. My main concern was about rabbis from the Mishnaic and Talmudic eras, up until about a hundred years ago being called "Palestinians" on Wikipedia as a follow-through from the many articles that have been copied and pasted from the old Jewish Encyclopedia and which collectively create the wrong impression. Such are the hazards of relying on dated information, long-discarded terminology, and unsuitable writing and communication styles. Wikipedia as a modern encyclopedia should not be relying on archaic terms such as "Palestinian rabbis" that could potentially cause grave misunderstanding. I think that from the time of the British Mandate of Palestine, also shortened to "the British Mandate" and sometimes "Palestine," that Jews were associated with those terms from 1923 until 1948 when the modern State of Israel was declared. I hope that you have noted that I am most definitely NOT saying that whenever the Jewish Encyclopedia uses the term "Palestine" that the single word "Israel" should be used -- obviously I do not mean that because when Israel is used alone on Wikipedia it refers to the MODERN State of Israel only. On the other hand, what I am saying is that when the word "Palestine" is used in archaic sources that predate modern Israel, and when writing about Judaic topics that relate to the Middle Ages, Talmudic, or Biblical times, then the better, more accurate, less controversial term for Wikipedia to use is "Land of Israel" which is historically what the Jewish people, and everyone else in academic life, have and do still call it. Hope I have clarified myself, and thanks for caring. IZAK 12:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I get the drift. I will pay attention to it in the future.  (Don't be so down on the Jewish Encyclopedia though!  It's an incredible work, written by some tremendous scholars.  I think these articles significantly raise the quality of Wikipedia, whether their English is somewhat archaic or not.  If you compare a JE-borrowed Wikipedia article to one written by "the masses," you can't but be struck by the difference in quality and scholarship.  The typical Jewish Wikipedian (myself included) is not capable of producing articles of anything like that caliber.  Most Wikipedians cannot even be bothered to cite the sources for the couple of factoids they manage to dredge up from their memory of 10th grade.)  Thanks again for the clarification. Dfass 15:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Dfass: I am not down on the old Jewish Encyclopedia at all, and I fully agree with you that it is a more than masterly work of scholarship. But is was written in the context of the culture of over a hundred years ago as a product of the nineteenth century! My specific concern at this stage was only about how the meaning and application of the word/s "Palestine" and "Palestinian" are getting "lost in the cut-and-paste process" because one hundred years ago, "Palestinian" was used as an academic adjective as for example, together with "rabbis" ("Palestinian rabbi/s") or the Talmud ("Palestinian Talmud"). Up until 1948 the words "Palestine" and "Palestinians" still had application/s to Jews because of the existaence of the British Mandate of Palestine until 1948 in the territories of historically Jewish Land of Israel. Since then, the name "Palestine" and "Palestinians" has shed any connection to Jews and the modern Jewish State of Israel which was set up in contradistinction to an Arab Palestine. Particularly since the rise of the PLO (the Palestine Liberation Organization), following the 1967 Six-Day War, the term and notion of "Palestine" and "Palestinians" has become thoroughly and exclusively connected with the Arab Palestinians to the point that no-one (not in politics, academics, the media, religion, etc) associates the name "Palestine" and "Palestinians" with the Jews or Judaism, so that it can safely be said that the notion of a "Palestinian Jew" is an archaic anachronistic discarded notion. So when cutting and pasting articles from the one hundred year old Jewish Encyclopedia, one should not fall into a "time warp trap" by blindly pasting articles from it without some sensible updates, and not to inadvertantly recreate and foster terminology for Jews and Jewish Israelis that neither they nor the world accepts or recognizes. One needs to be conscious that the term "Land of Israel" is a well-established name that has survived for a long time and is still the preferred term of choice when speaking in modern terms, so that Jews not be confused with Arabs and vice versa. By speaking of the Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel, meaning rabbis (or any Jews) associated with a historic geographic area, one also avoids problems such as calling pre-1948 rabbis or people "Israelites" -- used only for people in the Biblical era or "Israelis" -- which refers to citizens of the modern State of Israel. Thanks for your input. IZAK 07:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

JewishEncyclopedia.com
The above is it's Web Version and name. Anyone wish to include it in the article? --Ludvikus (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

search function corrupted ? (work-around with "Google")
The website "www.jewishencylopedia.com" has a very strange search function. Even words like "sinai" give zero results but the article exits! If you search with the help of Google (keywords: jewishencyclopedia sinai) you get the article. I suppose, that the search function is out of order. (Apr.24 2011, 22:05 GMT)

First edition contents
Please could someone add a table similar to that which is found in Dictionary of National Biography. -- PBS (talk) 08:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyright on Illustrations
Hi, The owners of the online edition of the JE have placed a (c) below a illustration at (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5-aaron-s-rod). I thought that the mere reproduction of public domain photo/painting/illustration is also in the public domain? Is their (c) valid? Prsaucer1958 (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Edited by Isidore Singer and Cyrus Adler, or Not? Suggestion
The WP pages for Isidore Singer and Cyrus Adler link to this page, naming it as their work. However, this page does not name them as the editors of this Encyclopedia, and as far as I've found, this page does not name the encyclopedia's editors.

Further, the title of Singer's and Adler's encyclopedia appears to be, The Jewish encyclopedia: a descriptive record of the history, religion, literature, and customs of the Jewish people from the earliest times to the present day, which complete title is not mentioned here.

The year of publishing appears to be 1901, also by Funk and Wagnalls.

If this isn't their encyclopedia, their pages should not link here, a page for their correct encyclopedia might be created, and this page might name who ever edited this encyclopedia. However, if this is their encyclopedia, they could be named here as editors, and the encyclopedia's complete title might be provided.

Any one of these measures would ease my doubts about this issue. Downstrike (talk) 07:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you try going to their public website and navigating there as much as possible, trying to find your answers in there as much as possible? I know that the site is not the best in the world in terms of easily retrieving the info you're looking for, but that should be the first stop. Other that that the option would be to get a hold of the printed copies. In any case, I believe they were the main editors and they should be named here as such. Such a simple step should end the confusion, I would think. I think the publication of the volumes started in 1901, but it ended in 1906. warshy (¥¥) 22:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Merging "Bibliography" and "Further reading" sections
These two sections mentioned must be merged into Bibliography section. There are dead links in Bibliography section. The links to the Internet Archive in "Further reading" section could be moved there. The present separation looks unnecessary. The information on first and last articles of each volume can be merged into Bibliography, too, I think.-- İskender  Balas 💬 21:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Move to The Jewish Encyclopedia
Apparently the fore-title is The Jewish Encyclopedia. So this should article be renamed; that is exchanged with which now redirects here? --P64 (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Old edition
The edition in public domain is not always accurate there has been much research since then — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamingoflorida (talk • contribs) 00:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Who was Singer?
The article needs a sentence or two about who Isidore Singer was and why he wanted to create an encyclopedia. It talks a lot about potential supporters of the work finding his views unacceptable, but doesn't say what those unacceptable views were. Hypershock (talk) 11:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

"Jewish Encylopedia" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jewish Encylopedia. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC  678  15:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the discussion there and what it is supposed to achieve. All WP articles that have links to the source articles at the Jewish Encyclopedia online version/site link to entries at Encyclopedia Judaica, and the Encyclopedia's online site is called JewishEncylopedia.com? warshy (¥¥) 17:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)