Template talk:Jew/Archive02

Future revisions (November 2005)
Is there a set of rules for the content of this template?

If so, I suggest:


 * 1: The rules are made clear.
 * 2: A procedure for suggesting revisions is made clear.
 * 3: The template is locked, and the invitation to "View or edit template" is removed and replaced with  "About this template", which would link to the above.

BrownBean 01:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm all for not showing people how to get to this template, but I don't think we  should lock it. If it had been, I never would have made my addition. But  I'm all for some clear rules. HereToHelp (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I've made some changes and it looks good now. One thing to comment on: start each  section with the light blue (light purple, technically, but it's blue). Then go back and forth. If a section ends  with the blue use the blue for the first line in the next section; it  looks odd otherwise and that's how it is set up now. Although, if anyone  disagrees, speak up. HereToHelp (talk) 02:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I am pretty strongly against including Judaism links on this template. Templates otherwise are subject to template creep, where more and more stuff gets added until it looks like Template:Israelis and becomes useless. Once we open up this template to Judaism content, I think we are asking for  trouble. This template came from the Jew article, and there has been seperate efforts to generate a Judaism template as well. I say restore the template to its old version, and work on a seperate Judaism  template. Comments? --Goodoldpolonius2 04:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, please do not add in every country to the list. There are many History of the Jews articles, but the ones in the templates echo the largest  Jewish populations of the 20th century. Lets try to keep them limited. --Goodoldpolonius2 04:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I have no difficulty understanding your concern and I suggest that the template  has an inherent fault. It serves as an excellent invitation to explore  the Judaism articles, like an index, but it's not complete. There is  demonstrably a need to have a better navigation system. Meanwhile, the  inclusion of some geographical population histories gives the impression  that others are not covered, and since finding the other articles isn't  necessarily easy, they'll either be missed or users will be put to  considerable trouble.


 * Also, of course, what's a major Jewish centre depends on researchers' interests. The Netherlands now has a  diminished Jewish population, but still plays a major role in Jewish  history.


 * Meanwhile, I'll make a small modification to the template which I hope you'll agree will help people understand  why they're offered only a small number of population centres to which  they can easily link.


 * My motive is to make it easy for people to find what does -  or may -  interest them, and in that regard, having seen your explanation above,  yes, I totally agree with you that we need additional templates, one for  each series of articles and each with links to the other series.


 * Thanks for explaining. BrownBean 05:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem with changing the title for the section is that it no longer describes  the link to Jewish population centers. Perhaps a better way to link to  the other articles would be to have a link at the end of the Jewish  population section called "Other population centers" that can link to: Jewish_history.  What do you think? --Goodoldpolonius2 05:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see that I gave an inappropriate title to a link and I hadn't intended to do  that. Your new suggestion seems promising. I understand from your edit  note that you'll post again tomorrow and I'm looking forward to that. BrownBean 05:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * That's a lot better. I think the target article can be rearranged to make things work  neatly. BrownBean 05:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I like it how it is now; I was able to put all the links I wanted on to one line,  and we've shortened the History section by a line or two. I think it's  good now. One thing I'm not sure about: I like how the basics of the  religion are moved up and the practices now have a meaningful section of  thier own. But should we give this a title or just make it a lead?
 * Bottom line is, though, I think that one line or so isn't hurting anything.  Although, Goodoldpolonius2, you have a point about Template: Israelis being too long. Why not link to Israeli wars  or something and not list them specifically? But, as for this template, I like the additions. HereToHelp (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * In fact, Template:Israelis is just one line longer than Template:Jews and Judaism sidebar. Typography accounts for a lot.


 * I'd give "Jews and Judaism" a background colour. BrownBean 12:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * There is at the moment only one heading that's not a link: "Jewish religion  (Judaism)". Could that not be replaced with principles of faith,  somehow? BrownBean 13:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

If you can find a link for that, or a title for the lead, try it out. I think we pretty much have it, though. --HereToHelp (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Uh-oh, I just found this article that says that the title should  not contain links. However, this could give us a link for that title  without one. On the other hand, that info could be widely disregarded  and having links in the title are fine. Opinions? --HereToHelp (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not a title, it's a section header, so it's OK. BrownBean 01:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Looking back over that I guess I wasn't clear enough (i.e., my fault, not yours). I  meant the title of the template, Jews and Judaism.  The article that present the rule against links there is somewhat  sketchy, but if I am reading i right it means that the aforementioned  template title cannot include links. Why, I don't know, and if I'm  misinterpreting it please notify me. But if it means what I think it  does, we could move Jew  to the lead and Judaism  to that one section title that isn't a link. I hope that's clearer;  sorry I dodn't post this first. If there still is confusion, all you  have to do is let me know. Oh--since there are apparently three of us  involved (BrownBean, Goodoldpolonius2, and myself) let's use this talk  page instead of our user talk pages.


 * Does this seem simpler?


 * 1: The first line of links is shown as a section header, not a title, so you don't have to worry about the  rules.
 * 2: The section header "Jewish religion (Judaism)" is used as the link to  "Jewish principles of faith", so it saves space. (Perhaps there's no  need to use "Jewish religion (Judaism)"; it could be the link name.)
 * 3: (2) above leaves a little more space for some future addition in this  section.
 * 4: In the 'History of ...' section, a new line break gives room for a better description of "More".
 * 5: For appearance, I'd have a pixel or two of white space beneath the magen  David, but I won't bother at this stage; it's just a demonstration.


 * All of this is just suggestion. Use what you want. As regards the rules, if I  understand the general idea, anything that works well is absolutely  right. BrownBean 03:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Better, perhaps. But: So, my revision of the top segemnt follows, and of course we need to do  something about #3 above. Also, the links in the second section need to be reorganized to make more sense. --HereToHelp (talk) 13:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) A link to "Judaism" links to Judaism,  a link to "Jewish religion (Judaism)" links to Jewish  principles of faith.  That's pretty confusing.
 * 2) We no have no title. I'm not entirely sure that we can't have a link in the title (template:Israelis does), I was only bringing in  possibilities. Also, the and is still black and although, no, it  shouldn't be a link, it looks bad.
 * 3) I also discovered a repititive link: Talmudic era and Talmud link to the same place. I'm not  oposed to having the two similar links in the two different places; but  we should find an article or section specifically on the Talmudic era.  Or, instead of "Talmudic  era" we could have "Talmudic era"  (It's clearer if I show you the links without wiki formatting).


 * Does this help? BrownBean 01:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The links in this version do what they say and are reasonably logically grouped.  There are no duplicate links and it's narrower and shorter. BrownBean 02:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, that does help. What I mean by the links making sense is the second section (Jewish religion  (Judaism)). Either they should  be alphabetized or should be presented in some other logical order. You  rearranged them pretty well--in  mine, my point was to illustrate the basic concept--but I think that  Kashrut should come after Halakha becuase--, well here's my line of thinking: "The Principles of Judaism cause Jews to pray on  certain Holidays, and this is how they  pray. The Torah  was given to them on Sinai, along with part of the Talmud. The Talmud defined the Halakha which defined the Mitzvot, which number 613, and one of them is Kashrut." It should also be last because it  is a specific mitzvah, it just has more publicity then most (and if we  had to add another line to add that one link, I'd say don't do it  because the link is borderline on whether it should be there or not).  Perhaps my excerpt from the template, below, would work.  But, besides  that, I think have only one problem--I was hoping to find a place to link Talmudic era to, but there's not such page or  section. We can take it out, as you did, but I'd prefer to have something. --HereToHelp (talk) 12:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC) I  hope that wasn't too vague!


 * Also, we no longer have a title besides the Magen  David. I think we should put Jews and Judaism back, no links. I tried to put it  back in my sample below, but for some reason or other it didn't come out  the right size, and I'm not up to finding out why. --HereToHelp (talk) 12:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Point by point:

a) I'd say the template doesn't need a title. It's purpose is self-evident  and so, adding a title will add nothing except size.

b) In the "Jewish religion (Judaism)" section, the items are not in an ideal  sequence but what would be ideal will always be debatable. On the other  hand, the sequence I suggest keeps the template narrow and so it has a  practical benefit.

c) As you say, there is no article for "Talmudic era", which to me means there's no need to include it.

The full version shown here is compact and easy to understand. If those are significant considerations then perhaps it should be implemented.

BrownBean 18:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay. Sure, we can forget a title and a Talmudic era section if we must. But as for the order of the links, I took a ruler to my screen and your template and it was 5 centimeters. Mine was 5.3. That's but a couple pixels; and I think mine flows smoother. (Although, yes, I agree that yours is more narrow and that's desirable.) I'm going  to try out a compromise below. But since everything else is fine, let's just use this one section of the template for our examples; there's no  point taking up all that space.

That's 5.4 cm, so that's slightly worse. We could remove the (list) link and get it a good size, or we could try something like this:

That's 5 cm even, just like yours. Whichever one (if any) you like is fine.--HereToHelp (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Though I like the changes overall, I think the title "Jews and Judaism" clearly needs  to be in place (it can be without links), since this is an  international encyclopedia, and the Star of David is not be a universal  signifier of the topic.  As for the Talmud article, for now, we can  duplicate the links, with the goal of writing (and, again, I might do  this) a seperate article on the history of the writing of the Talmud for  the Jewish history section, so that they will eventually be different.  Right now, there is too much of a historical gap (1000 years) between  "Diaspora" and "Middle Ages"  I personally don't care much about which  order the Judaism links are in, but I think the template width needs to  remain the same. --Goodoldpolonius2 17:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, really, that we need a title. If you want to go ahead and put it in,  fine. if you want to go write something for the Talmudic era, grear.  Just &mdash I'm getting kind of sick of this template. It's time to  move on, and I won't put up much of a fight over the details. --HereToHelp (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Jewish peace movement
With recent changes to the template, we seem no longer to have a single link  relating in any way to the Jewish peace movement. There should be something, especially given four Zionism links. -- Jmabel | Talk Jmabel | Talk 07:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * What link would you suggest? --HereToHelp (talk) 13:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Jmabel, it might be interesting to put together an article on Jewish social justice  movements in general, and put it under political movements.  The civil  rights movement in the US, for example, had a large amount of Jewish  participation.  I might take a crack at it myself in the next few days.   Of course, Zionism is not antithetical to peace, so I am not sure that  the Zionism links should be contrasted with peace movements. --Goodoldpolonius2 17:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest that Zionism is antithetical to peace, what I  meant is that it is not as if we are steering away from listing  political movements with a bearing on the Middle East situation. As for what to include: we have Israeli peace camp, but do we have anything on the  international Jewish movement identified with the Israeli peace camp,  which would be more appropriate? If not, it would probably be worth writing.

In terms of some of what such an article might cover, I see (at a quick look) that we have nothing on International Jewish Peace Union (IJPU), the main such movement  internationally in the 1980s and 1990 (I think it still exists, but  probably barely, at least in the US); we have a cursory article on the  former U.S. group New Jewish Agenda and nothing on the related group Kadima (unrelated to the Israeli party of  the same name). We have a bit more than a stub on the main current U.S. group in this camp, Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, which I believe is now up to  about 32,000 dues-paying  members. There also is (or was) a Friends of Peace Now and an America-Israel Council for Israeli-Palestinian  Peace (AICIPP), which  in the 1980s supported the Israeli  Council for Israeli-Palestinian  Peace (ICIPP). Other past groups I don't know much about were Breira and the Shalom Network. We seem to have nothing on any of these, an overview article would probably be a good start.

In terms of publications, there is Maxim Ghilan's long-running I&P  (a.k.a. the Israel  & Palestine Strategic Update)  and Michael  Lerner's Tikkun.

I assume that there are some similar groups in Europe that I don't know  about. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Judaism Portal
Just when we thought we were done with this, we have one more link to put  in. I have two ideas:

OR we can make a link to the portal be the title (for some reason I can't get that to work without formatting  the whole template). --HereToHelp (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think yours is a fitting temporary fix, which is all a person can aim for. I'll make  a small style alteration only because it seems a simple way to make the  new link more obviously self-explanatory and the template a little  neater. For the longer term, the portal seems a good place to put a  comprehensive index; the template need then refer only to the portal  (and, perhaps, some major introductory sections). In an interactive  information distribution system, there are excellent ways to make all  this information easy to access, but they require a structure that an  editor doesn't have in this medium. -- BrownBean 20:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I was considering that way of putting the link; but whatever. The problem is  that the Portal seems too major to have that low down. I'd really like  it as a title. I went back in the history to get the formatting, so my  example  is to the left. The issue is that this makes the template a  line longer, but IMHO, I think it's worth it.--HereToHelp (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I've adjusted the spacing. Does this do what you want? I won't revert if you implement it. -- BrownBean 23:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that works very well. I saw that the spacing was uneven but frankly, I have no clue how to change it, thanks alot. I'll implement it. Looking over this, sheesh, we did alot of work. I'm ready to move on; but I guess I'll keep this in my watchlist anyway. If I hadn't I would have missed this whole thing. --HereToHelp (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Portal:Israel
What about this poral, I think it should be in this template. V1t 03:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Liberal Judaism
BrownBean deletes Liberal Judaism, calls this an "improvement", directs us to see the talk page as to why, yet  nowhere on the talk page is there a written justification for the  removal. This isn't surprising, since there isn't one. But why the pointless, unexplained deletion? Carolynparrishfan 18:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

If it's pointless and unjustifiable then why ask? It's obviously a gratuitous disregard of other people's intentions and objectives. --BrownBean 19:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Look, if it's not taking up more space but space that is there anyway and is  left blank—which is the  case—I say put it in. If BrownBean's deletion was for space, or to make room for any better alternatives (hint hint),then it would be justified. But since it does not meet this criteria, I say let's put it back.--HereToHelp (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Some questions
Yeshivish/Yinglish are very important languages spoken by a large portion of American, British, Australian, Canada, and  even Israeli Jewry, so why can't it be mentioned in the Jew Template  under languages? Dare I say that it is probably spoken now more than Ladino and Judeo-Arabic  is spoken.

Furthermore, why is Neturei Karta not mentioned in the Jewish political movements section, if the wiki is supposed to maintain a NPOV  and it should be equal in status to Zionism? Additionally, Charedi should also be listed in the Judaism Portal.--Rachack 19:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, there are plenty of Jewish languages not mentioned, and historical as well as  present significance has generally been a standard, Yeshivish is covered  in the Jewish languages template, however.  As far as the 5,000 Neturei  Karta, I don't really think that they would qualify as a significant  political movement, as they are both a religious group rather than a  political movement, and a small one at that with little impact on Jewry  as a while. NPOV does not require that all views get equal status -- Zionism is  certainly the most important political movement in modern Jewish  history, and many other movements are much more important than the  Neturei Karta, by any standards. Opposition to Zionism is dealt with in  the Zionism article. --Goodoldpolonius2 20:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Size is what's imporant. This template is big as is; I recently reorganized the  history section and was able to remove a line. If you can fit stuff in  there without going for another line or making it wider (there's no text  wrap; it just makes the whole template fatter) I'm all for it. The  languages setion looks like there's space avialable, but the politicts  area looks full.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

In the recent changes, Kabbalah  seems to have been dropped from the template. Given the widespread recent interest in the topic, I think we should try to get it back in  there. - Jmabel | Talk 06:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Minhag covers more ground but yes, is not as widely known or cared about as Kabbalah, nor is it as good of an  article. I'll switch out the two.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I gather that Kabbalah  has been removed again. If there is an argument against including this,  would someone please state it here, instead of just removing it  repeatedly? -  Jmabel | Talk 05:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed it from the history section, where it was an odd addition.  I have no  issues with it being in the religion section.

--Goodoldpolonius2 16:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed changes
I'd like to propose some changes. Rather than describe them, I'll post the proposed template on top of the old one to make the diffs visible. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Here it is. In addition to obvious cosmetic changes, I made the font a tiny bit smaller and tried to save blankspace. I moved some entries  around to make it more chrono/logical and added Jerusalem. ←Humus sapiens  ну? 05:00, 29 January  2006 (UTC)


 * I will support the smaller type, Jerusalem, and the "timeline" up there with  "History". I dislike the Menorah, the (portal)  links, the new border color, the special formatting paid to "Jews" over  everything else, and "View" this template over "about". No offense to  you or anything...but I love your idea for keeping the size down.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 05:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I strive to improve the WP (and not my ego, it's already perfect as it is), and  welcome constructive criticism. The Menorah is a much older symbol of  Judaism than Magen David, but if others dislike it here, I won't object.  Color is easily fixed (already done). The word "Jews" can be sized down  (here, I made it 125% instead of 160), but I thought that since this is  the "Jew" template, that should be emphasized. I removed the link to Portal:Israel. What do you suggest we do with  the link to Portal:Judaism? ←Humus sapiens ну?  05:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As for you ego, I'm suprised. But anyway, I think we should just keep this simple. I didn't name the  template; it probably should rest at Judaism,  but that's a whole other issue. If anything, this should list famous  Jews. Whatever. I think Portal:Judaism should be featured prominently  like before. Move Jews down to be classified just like the other topics.  Frankly, unless we want to just scale what we have down and rearrange  it, or do that and merge it with template:Judaism (which we'll probably  wind up doing), it doesn't need to be revamped. I might, however,  support the Magen David next to the Menorah with the Portal beneath it.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So much, actually, for Judaism. What about a combined merge,  move, and redesign, and make a template of famous Jews for this  template?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I likes it for the most part, including the menora on the top. I would recommend  reducing the width further by masking Principles of Faith as Core Tenets  or Basic Beliefs, and by dropping the Alternative Judaism|Other link.   We began a discussion a while ago about overhauling all the Judaism/Jewish/Israel/i templates  somewhere, that we really should take up again.  I think it's on Template talk:Jewish language.  Tom e rtalk  22:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the text at this size is disjointed and unreadable in Opera (9.0p1 for Windows). jnothman talk 00:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It could be a setting for your computer. "Font smoothing" or something. We should  verify that before we give up this very good idea when it comes to  economizing sapce.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How about that for the header? Feel free to space them out a little; I didn't know  how.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 02:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've spaced them out. And can't find any appropriate setting in Opera. jnothman talk 02:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe on your computer itself? System preferences or something? Maybe we could  get another Opera user.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 02:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Jnothman, how does Template:Israelis work for you? If so, maybe class="infobox" or font-size:11px do the trick. The font here is 80%. Does  bumping it up to 90% work? What happens if you increase text size in  your browser, similar to menu View/Text Size in FF and IE? Thanks. ←Humus sapiens  ну? 03:43, 30 January  2006 (UTC)


 * Except for the words "View this template" it works fine, but it's a much larger font. I can of course  zoom in (Opera has this feature and not an "increse font size"), but  that's sort of beside the point. When I get home I can see how it works  on other Opera versions/platforms. jnothman  talk 04:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I learned that it is preferable to use font-size in pixels rather than percentages.  Please see if this 11px/12px works better. ←Humus sapiens ну?  00:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks fine now. jnothman talk 13:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record: I like Humus's suggestions and changes. Well done! IZAK 11:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Before integrating the latest changes in the current tamplate, I'll try  to push the envelope and put the link Judaism portal  on the same level as Jews. It would save us a line and make it  more clear that this is not the portal. What do you think? ←Humus sapiens  ну? 01:27, 1 February  2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe. I'm personaly pushing for a Judaism template at Judaism and Jew articles here. That's  just my idea.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 03:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems to me that this is overwhelmingly about Jews, and only secondarily about  Judaism, and it should remain at Template:Jews and  Judaism sidebar. - Jmabel | Talk 07:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The "core principles" section has to go then. We could argue over things like  "persecution" and "history". Frankly, those are borderline and their  removal means a shorter template.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Two Pictures???
Do we really need two pictures at the top of the template? It seems to be common practice to only have 1 religious symbol at the top of a religion template. I think we should follow practice and choose one or the other. ALKIVAR &trade; 01:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Why follow, and not lead? :) Seriously, I don't see what is wrong with both. Menorah  is a notable ancient and modern symbol of Judaism, Magen David is more  modern, but both are easily identifiable. Perhaps we could find better  images, though. (take a look at ).  ←Humus sapiens  ну? 03:44, 9 February  2006 (UTC)
 * The menorah is a much more relevant symbol to Judaism than the maghen davidh is, whereas the latter has taken on  the rôle of a symbol imbued with religious symbolism by analogy with the  Christians' cross, although everything I've read treats the earliest  usage of the maghen davidh as a mystical rather than general-religious  symbol.  So--using the  menorah is actually a better idea, but since this is an encyclopedia for  the masses, the vast majority of whom are non-Jews, or even if  they weren't, unobservant Jews, the star would be more conspicuous by  its absence than its presence; so I'm all for including a symbol that  has meaning for all of Judaism (the menora) as well as  one that symbolizes, to "the masses", Judaism and Jewishness, among Jews  and non-Jews  alike, albeit indeterminately linked to either.  Tom e rtalk  06:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Parsi is ambiguous
Parsi is not an ethnic division of Persian Jews as the template indicates  incorrectly. The Parsi are a distinct religious group mainly from India. Needs to be fixed. --68.214.59.199 20:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * But Persian Jews made the entire template wider. Should't we just list a few major  groups, such as Ashkenazim, Sephardim, Mizrahim, plus anything else that  fits in one line, and leave the rest out? The full list is a click away  and here we do not list all of them anyway. ←Humus sapiens  ну? 02:13, 20 February  2006 (UTC)

Template Judaism or Template famous Jews
Suggestion: Template links are  incompatible with this template. To elaborate, Judaism will be merged into Jews and Judaism sidebar,  but the final product will sit at Judaism. Jew will have famous Jews.
 * Response: Bad idea because this template is inclusive of a wide range of topics, so  the word "Judaism", while seeming a good solution, is actually limiting.  If you seek  to create a new template for famous Jews, then why not simply create famous Jews  ! IZAK 06:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep Jew slim
The line containing newly added Midrash (which I am not against) is now the longest. Maybe this is wishful thinking, but IMHO if we create a new line in Judaism section,  we could both save space and add more content. If you agree, what links would you like to add there? I see our he: equivalent includes Elohim & Mashiah. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Tanakh (Torah/Nevi'im/Ketuvim)--HereToHelp 22:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Another section
Is it possible to include Jewish education? There's a few major networks of schools and organizations -- like the Associated Talmud Torahs and Solomon  Schechter schools  where I live -- that,  combined, encompass a wide variety of movements. (Just wondering.) Thank you. --Catchthedream 21:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably worth an article (or several; I bet some of them exist) of its own and a  paragraph and link(s) here. - Jmabel  | Talk 02:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Write the articles, and then we can link to Jewish  education here and  have a new template for all of those.--HereToHelp 02:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Jewish-Roman Wars
The link in the template is to what is now a disambiguation  page, making up a  large chunk of outstanding links. If they are such a cohesive category that they should be referred to together, then maybe that page should be  expanded and turned into a full-fledged article with links for further  information to the three specific wars that it now points to. Another option would be to point to the First Jewish-Roman War, since it refers to the other two  very early on. Dpv 12:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I was just about to change the link in the template to point at First Jewish-Roman War, but I thought I would check the  talk page first. Glad ot see someone agrees with me. I'll make the  change. Carcharoth 14:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic divisions
Sephardi and Mizrahi are not exclusive categories - as far as I understand, they are both  vague terms referring to the same people: ie, Jewish people from Spain,  the Middle East (ie N.Africa, Arab states, Iran & Turkey). As far as I'm aware, the terms are often used interchangeably. Whether or not to merge the Sephardi and Mizrahi articles is not a discussion that should  take place here. But this template should only refer to one or the other. Nomist 21:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that the communities are in some areas mixed does not negate the  distinctiveness of the two groups. Mizrahim include Yemenites, Jews of  the Caucasus and other groups that never received significant influx  from Spanish-descended  Jews. In my opinion the Template should further include such groups as  the Romaniote, not be arbitrarily whittled down. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Kabbalah
If noone will make changes I will place Kabbalah back to template - in a section of Judaism Core  principles. But not in a section of History. --fivetrees 13:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a recurring request. I have added it, along with Israel which was surprisingly missing.  Also, I've removed Israeli settlement. I don't see how the latter  deserves inclusion when even Politics of  Israel or Israeli peace camp are not. ←Humus sapiens  ну? 04:58, 30 June 2006  (UTC)

How did this template become only about "Judaism" ?
This template is FALSE if all its heading says is "Judaism" -- just take a look at the topics in it  and you will see so many that have NOTHING to do with "Judaism", such as  Culture (which is actually hidden by Culture  of all things! What a joke!); Jewish  population (and all  the sub articles of it); Jewish  political movements; The Bund  (what is its connection to "Judaism"? It's pure WP:OR to claim that); Kibbutzim (Hah! Not worthy of comment if  you don't get this); Haskalah  (It's part of Judaism, like Descartes  is a "rabbi"); Arab-Israeli conflict  (is pure politics, not the theology of "Judaism!); Persecution of Jews (is not a by-product of  Judaism). So please, whoever lost perspective here please get with the  program...this  template is not just about "Judaism" it's also about VERY secular  and even atheist  articles very, very far  REMOVED from almost any form of Judaism by any definition/s! Therefore the word Jews  MUST also appear in its heading. Thank you for taking note! IZAK 05:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with IZAK --fivetrees 13:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"And" Christianity, "Under" Islam?
Both links refer to Judaism and Christianity and Islam and  Judaism. There is no "under" anything in these titles, and even so, Judaism has lived "under"  both religions. So why the different wording? --OneTopJob6 01:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Limit to actual series
While being a useful an informative navigation tool, this template is very cumbersome  and takes up a lot of space. I feel it would be more appropriate if its usage (in the current layout) should be limited to articles that are  actually included in the template.

Peter Isotalo 12:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Optional section
This template is very large. Here is one possible way to help trim it down:

Important articles which are specific to various sections could be included in an  optional  subsection, accesible by a  paremter. Here is a demonstration of what I  mean. The subsection would only be included on pages relating to that topic.

This could be further refined to eliminate the "regular" section when the optional section is included, or to simply replace the  regular section with a larger one specific to the topic of the page. Let me know what you think. --Eliyak T · C 20:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It is also my hope that this method could be used to combine template:Jews and Judaism sidebar and template:Judaism. --Eliyak  T · C  20:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)