User talk:IZAK/Archive 12

JewHist-stub at SFD
Hi IZAK - you seem to be confused about what is happening at SFD. No-one is talking about getting rid of the template and category, simply renaming them to be in line with the stub naming conventions. All that means is that JewHist-stub and would become Jewish-hist-stub and. It would be a bit silly having this category as "xxx-related stubs" when all the others are "xxx stubs" (which they will be within a week), or having "JewHist-stub" when all other history stub subcategory templates are of the form xxx-hist-stub. I'd ask you to please reconsider your vote. Grutness...wha?  11:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation Grutness, I now see what you are saying and agree with you. IZAK 11:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

when you get a minute...
Can you look at Talk:Kaddish, specifically, my translation of lines 29-31? Artscroll doesn't have an English or interlingual siddur for nusa&#7717; eiðoþ hamizra&#7717;, and I don't have an aramaic dictionary... Thanks. Tom e rtalk 07:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC) Yeah, I know. I've been refreshing the page pathologically waiting for you to step in. ;-) I'm going to bed now I think...  ttyl.  Tom e rtalk  08:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Tomer old chap, how, as a regular Jewish human, am I supposed to know what "nusa&#7717; eiðoþ hamizra&#7717;" is in the first place??? (You think we all went to weirdo letter-writing school or som'n ???) IZAK 07:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * For you, I'll make it "nusach eidos hamizrach". :-)  Tom e rtalk  08:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * senk u veri mutz! By the way, jnothman just beat me to it, but I did add in my own changes. IZAK 08:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * By the way, you do know what happened on the 7th of December right? Sleep tight... IZAK 08:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Sepharad
I'm not really sure what to make of it... Jayjg (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's "odd". I edited it a bit, but it should prolly be merged into about half a dozen other articles and redirected to Sephardi.  Tom e rtalk  00:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

vote
Hi, there's a vote on at Talk:Mormon views about Mormonism and Judaism. Just thought you should know. Izehar (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Quote added by Ian Pitchford
A user has repeatedly added this quote:

Following the the war (and most notably during and after the trial of Adolf Eichmann) the mufti's'' role and the extent of his influence with the Nazis were inflated in what historian Idith Zertal describes as "a landmark in the process of the organized, explicit mobilization of the Holocaust in the service of Israeli politics and state policy, especially in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict". Zertal continues: "The transference of the Holocaust situation on to the Middle East reality, which harsh and hostile to Israel as it was, was of a totally different kind, not only created a false sense of the imminent danger of mass destruction. It also immensely distorted the image of the Holocaust, dwarfing the magnitude of the atrocities committed by the Nazis, trivializing the unique agony of the victims and the survivors, and utterly demonizing the Arabs and their leaders."''


 * I pointed out to him that this is predicated on three unverified premises:
 * a) The Mufti's Nazi-ties were exaggerated after the war.
 * b) This was done by Jews/Zionists to further their malign aims, by gaining sympathy.
 * c) There is a campaign to "explicitly mobilize the Holocaust in the service of Israeli politics and state policy."
 * I put it to him that before he can add such a POV quote to the article he must provide the writers answers to how, where and when this was done and not just the why (to gain sympathy by abusing the memory of the holocaust. jucifer 00:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jucifer: In this instance I happen to agree with you, he is espousing historical revisionism. The Mufti was an evil man who did not need "Zionists" to "bolster" his Jew-hating "credentials". On another front I do not agree with your editing-out material relating to Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson in the articles about Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik and Rabbi Yitzchok Hutner -- the three of them had a historical long-standing inter-personal friendship and theological rivarly going back to their days as Eastern European Torah geniuses who spent time studying in Berlin, a universally known fact. So why nit-pick? It just makes you look like you are "out to get" Rabbi Schneerson (with your own POV agenda), a rather pointles and counter-productice undertaking for anyone IZAK 09:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Portal:Judaism
Izak, Thanks for your good work, and thanks for your kind note on Portal:Judaism. I would be happy to contribute to the weekly parshah. Do you currently add the new section each week? Do you know what sources go into the material? Thanks for your guidance. Dauster 11:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Dauster: Thanks for your message. I traverse over a broad range of Jewish issues on Wikipedia and I am so impressed that someone is finally working on the Parsha project which has been an on-again-off-again project. Feel free to keep adding, I am sure that once others notice it, it will catch on, and people will add to it. In working to put content into Portal:Judaism I noticed your work in the Parsha area so I wanted to call on you to "keep an eye out" and change the Parsha section early each week, like say on every Sunday, if possible so that the over-all presentations on the Portal:Judaism keep current, and it's good to share responsibilities with so much going on all over Wikipedia. I only deal with the subjects in Category:Jews and Judaism and Category:Israel and Zionism and I am never able to keep track of my own "watchlist", let alone head into "virgin territory" all the time, so that's why I left you the note to help with Parsha on Portal:Judaism each week. Be well and Shabbat Shalom to you and yours! IZAK 12:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Izak: Thanks.  I will change the parshah item regularly Sunday evenings (Eastern US time).  It will be a pleasure.  And congrats again on your good work.  Shabbat Shalom to you and yours, as well.  Dauster 18:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Edits by Jucifer to Menachem Mendel Schneerson
Please see the edits to Menachem Mendel Schneerson and the discussion on the talk page and please give your input. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  14:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi Eliezer: I have tried to make User:Juicifer aware that it is counter-productive to adopt a hostile attitude to important Orthodox Jewish leaders. See my comments to her above at User talk:IZAK . Still, you will need to watch those articles that you know to be of great importance. Best wishes. IZAK 04:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

POV in District of Acre
I haven't checked out other District of X`s (referring to districts of Palestine before 1948), but in District of Acre I'm having a revert war with someone who claims that In 1948, as a result of both the rejection of the 1947_UN_Partition_Plan by the Jewish settlers in Palestine, among other things. Because I'm in the army now, I've really got no time for this, although I did add a few links and words that might help appease the other editor. Please take a look :) Thanks. -- Ynhockey 08:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Aaron Teitelbaum
Hi IZAK. There seems to be some issues at present involving people continuously changing and reverting the article on Aaron Teitelbaum. I've reverted the page and tried to incorporate some of the other contributors' changes, but if it keeps up, maybe you could step in. Thanks. ShalomShlomo 09:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Het and Khaf
Het and Khaf actually have different sounds, though few Ashkenazim distinguish them - ideally Wikipedia should try to be consistent in this, though it rarely is (see Challah and Chametz). In any event, I'm not sure why it would be difficult to simply move the articles back where they came from - is there some issue with that? Jayjg (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi Jay: I am not talking about the "Het" and "Khaf" issue. I am not disputing usage of "Khaf". I'm talking about the usage of Het for Hakham here as in "Hanukkah, Humash, Hazzan, Hivites, Horites, Hebron, Hermon, Horeb, Habakkuk, Ham, Hur, Heshbon etc". My point is that once an article has been set up with a "H", then it should be left that way, even though some articles also have the "Ch" as a first letter -- otherwise it becomes a free-for-all and some people will change things one way and others will change them another way, since there is no clear-cut policy about these things. The reason I am asking for your help is that even though one can easily do a "cut and paste" job of re-directing the article back, but with that method the edit-history of the article gets lost in the proces which makes a lot of people upset, so the correct thing to do is to ask for the help of an admin to revert the article back without the loss of that article's edit history. Best wishes, IZAK 14:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, but I don't understand why you or he don't simply use the "move" function to move the article back to the original name? Jayjg (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Oops, I just followed your advice and presto!... because in the past a red-lettered message would come up "this page already exists please ask an admin to move it." I guess that with all the latest upgrades in the Wiki soft-ware around here lately I was not aware of this possibility. Thanks again. IZAK 19:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote on my RfA


Hey ! Thanks for your support on my RfA. The final outcome was (57/4/3), so I am now an administrator. If you need help, have a question, or just want to chat (or if I get out of line!), please don't hesitate to let me know! Again, thanks! :D  Tom e rtalk 
 * You're welcome! Keep up the good work. IZAK 14:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hebrew Bible/Tanakh discussion
Hey IZAK, mah nishma?

I was wondering if you could summerize the discussion currently going on. I'll be honest, there was a lot being flung around and it was a bit hard to follow all of it. I would definitely like to vote, because I'm clearly opinionated in the matter ;) but as the discussion stands it's unclear on who's voting on what. More specifically, what the options are aside from Keep or Delete. PS, On a side note, remind me to ask you about Jewish/Israeli music later... or maybe just writing this down will be enough. --Hersch 20:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Hersch: Yes it is getting a little confusing. The Delete vote is to remove Category:Hebrew Bible because there already exists Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh. The guy who recently created Category:Hebrew Bible does not want the word "Tanakh" in the category's name. So to vote to Delete Category:Hebrew Bible means that the Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh will stay -- and that is my vote (meaning I am voting to Delete the new category). Those people who are voting Keep are saying that they prefer to have Category:Hebrew Bible without the word "/Tanakh" in the category's name. I hope this explains things to you a bit. Keep in touch. IZAK 21:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

your vote on Articles for deletion/List of Jewish inventors
Hi IZAK, would you apply the same reasoning to categories Slovak and Serbian inventors (which were created by the nominator of this afd)? They are both in my opinion only of usefulness to bolster national or ethnic pride. I don't look for inventors by nationality, I look for them by subject area. Regards Arniep 20:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Arniep: My areas of interest and work are in the fields of Category:Jews and Judaism and Category:Israel and Zionism so I am not getting involved in articles or issues outside of these. In the case of "Lists" and "Categories" for and about Jews I am now firmly against them. I think it's fine to cite a few examples or to have some VERY restricted lists but things have gotten out of hand and some people are creating the craziest lists and categories for Jews that have absolutely no scholarly, intellectaul, or human value. It's more of an obsession than a work of knowledge. If it's a vote on Wikipedia policy I would vote there, but I am not getting involved with subjects and people about which I am not an expert. Please stay in touch. IZAK 20:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Main page links
I've fixed them, hope they're ok now. Jayjg (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. IZAK 19:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

BCE Vote
There's a rather interesting vote on at Talk:Jesus. Just thought you should know. Izehar (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Radhanite
I put this article up for featured status. Your input would be most welcome. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The discussion and vote page are here Featured article candidates/Radhanite Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And now I'm being accused of ethnocentricity by Irishpunktom (pot and kettle?) Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Writing Hebrew
Hi, do you know how to write Hebrew on Wikipedia? I'm trying to write Lekhah Dodi, but there's a terrible bug I can't get around - I used to be able to, that's how I wrote Ein Keloheinu and Aleinu. Something's changed and I can't get around it anymore: I can't place breaks and punctuation in the right place. Do you know a way around this? Izehar (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I do not insert that much Hebrew into articles so I am not aware of the problem (yet). These users know a lot about Hebrew usage on Wikipedia: User:Gilgamesh (he has created a whole number of new templates); User:Jfdwolff (he used to have some Hebrew alphabet lists; User:El_C (knows Hebrew); User:Woggly (is a Hebrew-English translator); User:TShilo12 (has technical knowledge); User:Hoziron (inserts Hebrew); and these are users who are also sysops on the Israeli Wikipedia User:SHASHAZ & User:Almog. Best wishes. IZAK 20:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin rfc
Hi Joe, please look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/SlimVirgin2. Thanks IZAK 04:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I looked earlier when Jayjg emailed me and asked me to look. I have had no involvement in the matter, so it would take considerable research before I could endorse either side in good faith. It seems like there is a strong consensus in her favor so that my endorsement of either side would not matter much. Consequently, I'd expect that time investigating this would be time poorly spent. If you think I'm wrong, leave me an explanatory note on my talk. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * At this point all I wanted to do is bring the matter to your attention. I respect whatever approach you adopt in this case. IZAK 05:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey there.
Been lurking for several months now. Became a (beneficially) aggressive newbie several days ago. I understan that you are one of the "old salts" in the Judaism department. I would appreciate some input from you on my various projects. They're listed on my user page. Daykart 09:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Daykart (Descartes?) I am actually reviewing your contributions to Jewish related topics right now. One important piece of advice: Do NOT rush to create all sorts of junky categories because if they are basically useless they will be nominated for deletion very quickly. Hope you enjoy Wikipedia and I hope you do not come here with an axe to grind against Lubavitch in some strange way just for fun (and I am not a Lubavitcher by any span of the imagination), it's like wasting your breath, man. Try being positive. IZAK 09:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * By the way, How come you didn't tell me here what you told User:Rooster613?: "I am an anarchist and a former Lubavitcher. I'd appreciate if you'd have a look-see at my recent major contributions, they're listed on my userpage. Also, I'm willing to assist with any articles related to Yiddish, Chassidus, or Kisvei Koidesh.", sounds to me like you need to cool your heels some more ... IZAK 09:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I have an anti-Cartesian philosophy. I've been lurking for quite a while and have pretty much figured out the rules. I don't have a crazy axe to grind. I got all the axe-grinding out of my system with my minor vandalism. I attempt to stick to NPOV at all times, but we are all products of our conditioning. I'm honest, though; If I suspect that my writing is partial to one point of view, I will notify others. As for the categories, I feel that a category with more than twenty articles is overcluttered. That's just my sentiment though. Daykart 10:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Just a comment about your last point: You are mistaken, categories are designed to include hundreds of articles, the purpose of categories is to bring together scattered information so if you are now going to start splintering up categories then you are defeating the purpose of the categories in the first place. Twenty articles can all be linked together in a string of "See also(s)" on their pages, but categories are here to unite many more articles (hundreds actually) and sub-categories under one roof. So I strongly disagree with your view and I will be on the lookout to stop you from creating mini-categories that are of no use because they are functionally disconnected from other important categories and articles that they need to be connected to. IZAK 10:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No need to keep a lookout, I understand your point. Daykart 10:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually there will always be exceptions, see for example the few people in the Category:Hasidic rebbes (because we can't manufacture more rebbes than actually existed), but eventually the "rebbes" categories will be sub-categories of much larger categories about each individual Category dealing with each respective Chasidus or subject. As long as we create categories that will be functional, that is the important thing, and to split them up merely because we "don't like more than 20 articles in them" is not a good enough reason to start new ones. IZAK 11:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Although on a lighter note, I'm sure there are some folks out there who would love to be able to manufacture another rebbe. Daykart 11:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes, in that vein, Boro Park has manufactured so many new rebbelach up and down every block it's pashut dizzying. But I was referring earlier to zeir groise rebbes. I must go to sleep now... IZAK 11:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I wonder if the Liozhner is worthy of an article. Daykart 11:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I was just messing around with userboxes. Apparently, there are only three self-identified native speakers of Yiddish here. Can you help me out? Sometimes I see Yiddish rendered in YIVO orthography and sometimes in standard Hungarian. Is there a setting I can tweak to have it always show up in standard Hungarian orthography? Daykart 11:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Moved from userpage
El_C 04:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I am not sure who is addressing me, an anonymous user or El_C?, why doesn't the anonymous user get a regular Wikipedia user name? Secondly, it is true that I began the article a long time ago, but if you will examine the article's edit history you will see that many other editors have contributed much to it. Thirdly, if there is anything in the article that you have difficulties with then please feel free to discuss them on the article's talk page. Fourthly, you cannot just pop out of thin air and holler in a semi-accusatory tone into the cyber-air that you spoke to a "rav" (what is the name of this "rav" please?) and what is that supposed to mean exactly, some sort of threat? Finally, there have been so many articles and publications written about Rav Hutner that far exceed anything that is in the Wikipedia article about him, and that can be used as references if need be. Feel free to stay in touch and let me have your thoughts. IZAK 06:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Not moi, I just moved the comment from your userpage. Best, El_C 06:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yea El_C, I already figured that out. Sorry. Thanks. IZAK 06:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Parasha or Parsha
Hello! Can you comment on Talk:Parsha? --Sheynhertzגעשׁ״ך 09:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hello, yes, I have "commented" there now. Stay in touch. Thanks. IZAK

My RFA
Hey IZAK! Thanks for your support on my RfA. The final outcome was an unanimous (45/0/0), so I am now an administrator. If you need help, or have a question, please don't hesitate to let me know! Again, thanks! :D --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  03:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Eliezer: You are more than welcome! Sol zein mit glik und hatzlachah mit brachah, Amen! IZAK 05:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

New Tanakh category
Dear Izak, someone named Fischersc is going around adding a new Category:Old Testament people to all the Avos and Imahos pages (maybe more). Should this category be changed to Category:Tanakh people? Yoninah 09:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have seen this, and the way he is doing it does look almost like vandalism. However, it's not that simple, because to Christians, the people in the Tanakh are indeed "Old Testament people". Please ask the following three admins as to what they think: User:Jfdwolff; User:Jayjg; and User:Eliezer, because they all have excellent Torah standards and they are Wikipedia admins as well, so they would have a good sense how to balance this subject of "Tanakh vs. Old Testament". Please let me know what they say. Thank you and please call on me at any time. IZAK 05:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * They appear to be duplicates of pre-existing Tanakh categories. They should probably be deleted. Jayjg (talk) 04:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking care of it, IZAK. I'll do the same if I see that Old Testament people category pop up on other pages. Yoninah 16:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Jewish texts
I interlangued at Category:Jewish texts, is this OK? but what is "aron hasspharim yehudhi" (Jewish texts box)? --Sheynhertzגעשׁ״ך 09:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, this seems correct. IZAK 05:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

also: Jacob Neusner - how to read?([noisner]/[noizner]?) and where is his birthpace? --Sheynhertzגעשׁ״ך 15:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * His name is pronounced "noizner" (he is still alive and famous and I have heard his name pronounced that way.) IZAK 05:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

more
thank you! Do you know the full name and birth place, birth year/date of Baron Rosen(Rosen)? Please see David Günzburg. --Sheynhertzגעשׁ״ך 00:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi, I looked into this, but sorry, this is too much of an obscure topic, and I know nothing about it, and I doubt if there are any people on Wikipedia who would know. Try doing a search on Google is the best advice I can give you, unless you want to make a trip to the Library of Congress. Why are you into this weird stuff and why are you so obsessed with (mostly archaic) Jewish surnames of all things? IZAK 11:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --Sheynhertz<font lang=yi size=2px color=mediumaquamarine>געשׁ״ך 18:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Bergen Belsen.jpg
Hi, please add a source for this photo. Thuresson 22:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi, isn't it part of ? Thanks. IZAK 05:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Piyyut'im
Hello! Can you write the hebrew letter to Piyyut page with nquddah, daghesh (like addir hu), hebrew languages link (like lkhah dodhi)? --Sheynhertz<font lang=yi size=2px color=mediumaquamarine>געשׁ״ך 18:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I knew you are Yiddish native speaker, but where is birthplace? And also Polish User:Halibutt wrote Yiddish on my talk page. all man can speak yiddish, Azoy gut, ikh iberrosht zayn! (confused english and yiddish) --Sheynhertz<font lang=yi size=2px color=mediumaquamarine>געשׁ״ך 18:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * What mumbu-jumbo is this? What do I have to do with User:Halibutt? Half the time I have to decifer what you are trying to say and sometimes it's just not worth it... IZAK 12:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

also
also (please put nquddah, daghesh) Sh'atnez, Aleinu --Sheynhertz<font lang=yi size=2px color=mediumaquamarine>געשׁ״ך 09:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this to my attention. It should be Shatnez and I have now edited the article. IZAK 12:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Hebrew alphabet
Re: your question: "I have rewritten the articles on all the Hebrew letters here and before I replace the pages, your input would be appreciated. Thanks! Sputnikcccp 16:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)" Hi Yoninah: Your objectives sound very logical. I try to do the same, but often I find it necessary to edit or Wikify other articles related to Jews and Judaism to enhance their presentability, and also to make sure that facts do not get distorted. You should also monitor your "my watchlist" section so that articles you have written or added to don't get turned into mush while you are not looking. You are definitely on the right track. IZAK 07:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Saw this message, what do you think of it? IZAK 06:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC):
 * It looks like Sputnikcccp just added an extra line or two to an already over-wordy, half-intelligible, and religiously pareve article. I know we have to abide by NPOV, but calling Midrashim "folktales" is self-hating. I'm finding in general that so many people are editing Wikipedia that any given article is going be touched up at least once a week. I don't think Sputnikcccp's additions make much of a difference, and someone else can theoretically come along and change it all around when he's through. (Frankly, it's not going to be me; I'm now devoting my Wikipedia time to creating articles that will make a difference, such as new articles about Jewish topics and rabbis, while most editors seem to be spending their time editing and re-editing others' material). Kol tuv, Yoninah 21:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what to make of the article. It doesn't seem to be too bad; do you have any specific concerns about it? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * At this point, not really, I was interested to see what others may think about it. IZAK 04:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

New article
Hi IZAK. I see you recreated Gil Student just now.

Personally, I agree fully with your move; I thought the way it was deleted was an absolute sham.

Nevertheless, is this allowed by current Wikipedia procedure? I though once an article gets deleted its continued deletion is enforced. Maybe I'm just not current on these things... Dovi 09:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow, good going man! You have far more energy than I do... Keep up the good work. (We'll continue to repectfully disagree about Rav Elyashiv... :-) Got to go now. Dovi 10:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, I had no knowledge of anything about Gil Student's former article. Only when I wrote the article now did I see that it was once up for a VfD in JULY of 2005. In my honest appraisal there is no doubt in my mind that he is significant enough to merit his own article on Wikipedia. I have read some of his material as I am sure many others have. I cannot imagine why he was deleted. The only reason I could see is that the nominator who happened to be Eliezer did not like Student because he writes so convincingly that the late and last Lubavitcher Rebbe was not the Moshiach. I will defend the new article to the full. IZAK 10:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm just going to chime in and add that I agree that Gil Student deserves a wikipedia page at this point. He's got 40,000+ google hits, has written a book, runs a publishing house, and his blog is amongst the most popular in the Jewish world right now - that's certainly more notable than a lot of the people I see doing RC patrol :-) --Bachrach44 15:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Nor Gil can prove that Rebbe isn't Moshiach, Nor can the Chosidim that think he is prove that he is Moshiach (in enough of a way for everyone to except). Isn't there a policy about stuff which can't be proven...? 220.233.48.200 09:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * A gezunt in dein keppelle, mein teire :-} IZAK 09:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Tanakh / Torah / Old Testament
I noticed you had difficulty accepting category additions of Old Testament on several biblical articles. For Christians we do not call it the Torah or the Tanakh. Many Christians would not know what these words mean. For those who do not follow those names I was placing categories that would make sense to Christians. This was for navigation purposes. I see no problem in having the additional categories. I also noticed that you might you might be considering my changes vandalism. It is unfortunate that you would think that. My efforts are pure and true and I don't see how any of my changes could be vandalism. It was my understanding that Wikipedia was meant for all people of all faiths and understandings. By not allowing Christians the proper category to navigate through articles you are denying us that privilege.

Thank you for you time. fischersc 20:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe it would have been more proper if you would have discussed the category differences on my talk page before undoing the several hours I spent adding the Old Testament categories. Your actions have disheartened me. I look forward to you response. fischersc 20:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hello Fischersc: Thanks for your response. The questions you mention are not new, and for many years most people have managed to navigate with the categories that you now find it difficult to accept. Many Jewish scholars find the label "Old Testament" offensive. After much previous discussion over the years, there has basically been a consensus on Wikipedia to use the more neutral label Hebrew Bible (which you did not), and while not perfect, it is more acceptable to both Jewish and Christian scholars. (See Talk:Hebrew Bible.) Recently a vote was held in favor of not using the term Hebrew Bible in the categories of Category:Torah and Category:Tanakh. In addition, many of the pages where you had placed "Category:Old Testament people" was redundant and definitely NOT needed. For example, it is not necessary to add Category:Old Testament people to individual names in Category:Kings of ancient Israel and Category:Kings of ancient Judah when those categories are already sub-categories of Category:Old Testament people. It also makes no sense to add "Category:Old Testament people" to those who are already in Category:Christian prophets. So much for the redundancies you created (which also took me a few hours to undo.) Your comment that "Christians we do not call it the Torah or the Tanakh" only indicates your POV because the label "Old Testament" is a later historical fabrication of history, and is not accepted by either Judaism or Islam. In any case since Christianity DOES NOT  DENY the truth and the validity of the Torah and the Tanakh that form the core of the "Old Testament", and since from the Christian perspective the "Old Testament" includes more than just the accepted Torah and Tanakh of Judaism, I have made Category:Old Testament people the super-category that contains the sub-categories of Category:Torah people and Category:Tanakh people and many others, so you have actually gained and not lost anything. Similarly with Category:Old Testament places which now includes far more sub-categories that I have added. Thank you. IZAK 04:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Not just offensive, I have seen many rulings that hold it is in violation of the commandments that can be found in Sefer HaMitzvahs 13 and Sefer HaMitzvahs 14. 220.233.48.200 08:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Was that "a word from our sponsors" :-} ? IZAK 09:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I am confused as to which commandment calling the Torah the Old Testament a violation of? These mainly have to do with idol worship.  Christians do not worship idols.. fischersc 04:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Look I am not interested in a flame war - so I am just state what it is according to Jewish laws. It has to do with Negative Mitzvah 4, and with the churches containing idols-not-used-for-worship of Jesus, Merry and others, which according to this law are still called idols but have a special name, that doesn't exist in english. Negative Mitzvah 15 is a prohibtion of saying the word Jesus with your mouth, as he is used for an idol-not-used-for-worship. Your whole basis on the new testament is Jesus, which falls under a few violation mainly Negative Mitzvah 28 (because Jesus is also found as an idol but not-for-worship, which as explained above still falls under an idol), Negative Mitzvah 313 (Saying that it is old, implies you accept that it is old, which logically means you accept the new. Which is in violation of this) and because of the last one Negative Mitzvah 47. Also Negative Mitzvah 29 prohibates us from having any pity on you execpting the term old testaments. This is what some Rabbis pasken which must be obeyed - Positive Mitzvah 174, some pasken more violation. But the 613 mitzvahs is the foundamental foundation of Orthodox/Rabbinical/Torah Judaism. An online copy of Sefer HaMitzvahs is here and here. With blessing, 220.233.48.200 16:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I am assuming then that you follow these laws. When you say it "prohibits you from having pity..." what exactly does pity mean? Is it merely giving aid or more? When were these Jewish laws created? fischersc 22:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I am in favor of using shared categories. This should be accomplished three-sidedly, as the contents of the Tanakh/Old Testament differ for Catholics/Orthodox (between them differences are minor), Protestants and Jews. I would like to refer everyone to the Dutch model, where I actually gave up using the categories Tanakh so that a common language could be reached. Beyond the desirable sake of finding a common language in a shared project and a little alteration when writing articles (as an art style), I do not see why the Tanakh but not the Old Testament should be called Hebrew Bible. This would be Christian POV. gidonb 12:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I am also in favor of shared categories. However, the term "Old Testament" automatically implies the presence of a "New" (and improved) Testament, which is inherent Christian POV. Perhaps this new super-category of "Old Testament people" could be renamed "Bible People" or "Biblical People" instead? Yoninah 13:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yoninah: There already is Category:Bible which includes many sub-catgories. Take a look at how it's structured to acquaint yourself with the many sub-categories relating to our discussion here. ThanksIZAK 04:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Also this falls under violation of Negative Mitzvah 313 and Negative Mitzvah 47  possibly more, but from what I have seen it is those 2. With blessing, 220.233.48.200 16:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

However, if you are referencing Jewish law as a reason to remove the words Old Testament then aren't you pushing your pov? There are millions upon millions of Christians who have millions upon millions of bibles printed using the words Old Testament. If that is offensive then you need to just deal with it. I think you are taking it to far and watering down reality. I don't think any Christian would have a problem with you calling your version the Tanakh or the Torah. We call it the Old Testament. Couldn't each category be used to accomodate all points of view. I don't think the npov policy means that no points of view are to be expressed, that would lead to a dry and boring encyclopedia. I would rather want all points of view expressed so each person can see the variety that makes life. It does seem that I have stepped on your turf and it seems that you and your friends have been established here for awhile, which means you basically own the articles you monitor. This is the problem I am finding with Wikipedia. The old guard rules while anyone new with a different point of view can't change anything. So I guess I let you and your friends be to rule your wiki pages with the utmost of your Jewish pov.

I was under the impression that Wikipedia would be beyond political correctness. Apparently it is the epitome of political correctness. fischersc 15:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You should read Hebrews at Bible Gateway (various versions) to understand the Christian perspective of the Hebrew Bible. This is a New Testament letter written to the Hebrew people. fischersc 17:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Fischersc: Let us use logic and history as our guides and not theology. No-one, not even Christians question the fact that before anyone had any ideas to create a "New Testament" there was only one Torah for over one thousand years and only one Tanakh for over five hundred years. Christianity is a much later religion than Judaism. So there is both a logical and historical precedent at work here. Then, the Category:Old Testament books and its sub-categories are in fact in many cases Wikipedia super-categories because they are part of a broader subject not restricted to Judaism alone. Like in all categorizations, if, for example, the the reader clicks onto the Category:Torah people on a page, they will be taken to that pages sub-categries which they can find at the bottom of the Category:Torah people page, and so forth. So why create double loads of work and obvious redundancies? IZAK 04:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Keeping the name of Old Testament is important theologically for Christians. We don't call it the Old Testament just because it was written a long time ago. While it may be offensive to Jews by calling it Old, making it seem bad or outdated, it is pivotal to the new way of life that Christ offers us. It is important to differentiate between the Old and the New Testament because to us Jesus Christ is the pivotal point which the Old and New meet. For myself personally I am facinated by the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament because it helps explain so much of the New Testament, which was written by Jews. It is important for us to understand the Old Testament in relation to the New Testament so we can have a bearing on were our beliefs came from. fischersc 05:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Zionism (disambiguation)


 * Fischersc: By the way, if I may point out, since Jesus is only "Christ" to Christianity and not to other religions, therefore the correct and NPOV way to refer to him is as Jesus on Wikipedia. As for how you view the "Old Testament" it is not there merely to "explain so much of the New Testament, which was written by Jews" (as you say), but rather, the so-called "Old Testament" is the one and only never-to-be changed Torah, a part of the Tanakh, central to Judaism until the present time, and for all Jews who practice Judaism. Thus the Torah can never be "replaced" or sub-sumed by any other book, and any claim to do so must be rejected, just as Judaism totally rejects Jesus' claim to be a "Christ" (the Greek word meaning a "Messiah"). Unfortunately, the majority of Christians believe in Christianity's claims of Supersessionism (i.e. the traditional Christian belief that Christianity is the fulfillment of Old Testament Judaism, and therefore that Jews who deny that Jesus is the Messiah fall short of their calling as God's chosen people) which to Judaism is just another example of heresy and apostasy, so you need to cool your Christian zeal when approaching such a broad audience as exists on Wikipedia. And you should be particularly careful in making any changes to Wikipedia articles and categories etc. IZAK 05:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The category already exists; a duplicate category with a POV name (i.e. "Old Testament") should not be created. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Further discussions
If I were to change existing articles and, hypothetically, add information regarding a Christian perspective on a Torah book, I would not remove anything existing, I would most likely create a subsection labeled Christian Perspective or something like this. My desire is not to kick you out or over rule your beliefs.

I don't think Wikipedia should be completely absent of Theological interpretation either. There are many mainstream theological understandings from various religions concerning the same texts. Muslims have a different understanding of both our religions and texts. If a Muslim were to modify the content of the Isaac article and make the core of the article focused on the Islamic interpretation of Isaac, who would be right? Personally I believe the way the Jews do, that Isaac was the son of promise not Ishmael, Muslims believe differently. They do have a small bit at the bottom citing the differences, but who wins the core article? I would assume that if anyone tried to change that article to state the Muslim view it would be promptly reverted. But is the article as it stands now really NPOV? Some would say yes, and some would say no. If the true definition of NPOV is not to offend anyone then the entire concept of an encyclopedia following that policy is bogus and worthless.

Concerning your input above; Are you not expressing your POV in stating what you say about the Torah? Also when you say, 'Unfortunately, the majority of Christians believe in ...' You are doing the same thing you decry! By saying "unfortunately" you are implying that the claims of Supersessionism are bad or wrong. I have never heard that term before by the way. Also this is a talk page. Talk pages should be free to discuss and talk without the dreaded worries of NPOV. We need to have proper discussions and open minds about the work on this system. If your Jewish laws forbid you to do or say or talk about certain things then it may be necessary for you to cool your zeal as you state about myself. I do not want to raise any blood pressure here I want an open and intellectually honest discussion. There are important things for you and the Jewish people and there are important things for myself and Christian people. Even within Christianity there are many differences of opinion/interpretation/acceptance.

Again, a side note of small talk: Pardon my ignorance but do Jews still await a Messiah or do they no longer look for one? Does it have to do with the rebuilding of a temple in Jerusalem? fischersc 06:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Fischersc: What I wrote about the Torah above is not "my POV" at all. It is basic Judaism. Most Jews today are secular and are not very familiar with the Jewish religion = Judaism. Many people express all sorts of views and just because they may belong to a certain faith, it does not make their views into that faith's objective known and accepted beliefs. So it is always best to frame a question in terms of what Judaism says and not what "Jews" say about xyz. In addition, there are a number of Jewish denominations, which have serious disagreements about the practice and application of the 613 commandments mandated by the Torah. The article Jewish Messiah will fill you in on some of Judaism's beliefs concerning the Messiah (and you will see that all of them reject Jesus as their Messiah). What I was disputing above was your use of the word "Christ" and not Jesus. Jesus is the central character in Christianity no-one disputes that, so the analogy to Isaac is not correct. While to say that Jesus is the Christians' Messiah is valid it is not valid to assume that he is that to other faiths, because he is not. On the other hand, the Biblical Isaac is first a character in the Torah of Judaism which no-one disputes. What other religions that came along much later in time decided to say is their POV but it does not detract from what Judaism had taught, and continues to teach, about him all along since he was part of Judaism's Torah to begin with, all along. As you correctly anticipate, many Biblical articles that are derived first from Judaism do indeed have sections "Christian Perspective" (as you correctly describe it) in them, so you have obviously not read many of the articles (sometimes there are even confused and confusing meshed views in articles which makes understanding the subject/s very difficult for the novice). Finally, you will find that all the Jewish and Judaism editors on Wikipedia are not afraid to discuss anything about Judaism, but what many of them do strive to do is to provide an ongoing Judaic (and Torah) perspective and assurance that Judaism's views are not "drowned out", so you needn't be concerned that any of us here are getting "our blood-pressure up", if we did, we wouldn't waste our time on writing and editing Wikipedia articles. IZAK 07:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Well I would say that I do enjoy a decent discussion on topics such as this and I appreciate your continued patience. So would you mean to say that usage of the word Christ needs to be prefaced with the word Christian to make Christian Christ or Christian Messiah? Or some form of that? Why is mentioning the word Christ by itself offensive? Especially if you know the person stating it is a Christian. Now I would understand the need on an unbiased npov article but in general discussion that would be quite burdensome. Could not the other party realize and mentally understand that the person on the other side is from a given point of view and not hold that against them? In real life if I had to watch everything I said and did so as not to offend anyone I would go crazy! Again, I understand the importance when giving input on a specified impartial collaboration, but not for talk and discussion. fischersc 07:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Fischersc: My main point was that in most articles the word "Christ" is POV since by associating that word with Jesus, what in Christianity is a given, it is not so in other religions that totally deny that Jesus was the Christ. (Remember, the Greek-derived word "Christ" means "annointed" in English which is what the word "Messiah" (Mashiach) means in Hebrew.) So, Judaism teaches that the true Messiah (Mashiach) has not come (yet) and that it was most certainly not Jesus, so to call him "Christ=Annointed=Messiah=Mashiach" is dead wrong. Moslems only view Jesus as an important "prophet" but not as the Christ (I'm actually not sure what they are waiting for, do you? I think they just want everyone to believe in Allah as of yesterday.) Be assured that I know this is only a talk page, when it comes to articles we all need to mind our editorial ps and qs. IZAK 07:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems they agree with the promiss this world to the children of Ishmael. And the next is to the children of Yisrael (person). With blessings, 220.233.48.200 19:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Using Category:Christian Old Testament
Perhaps if the category was called 'Christian Old Testament' to differentiate it from the Old Testament. This would remove the confusion readers may have with the Hebrew Bible. It is only my intention to produce the most common and wide spread nomenclature for this collection of books for Christians. Allowing categories and article additions that cross between Judaism and Christianity would be beneficial not negative. There is a lot of content on Wikipedia that is offensive to me. Especially on Jesus and other Christian related articles. Things that go against my point of view or theology however, I must let them have their say as. The Jesus article is one of the most vandalized. Allowing the different points of view and variety would be better in the long run. If votes and decisions have been made and a new person comes by and desires to add/change things shouldn't the discussion be reopened rather than stay closed. I think it would have to work this way to stay true to the spirit of Wikipedia. Not everyone knows to look at the Talk pages and voting discussions before editing. I didn't realize this at the time I made my additions. Personally I have learned a lot already reading the articles from a Jewish perspective. It adds to my understanding of my faith and knowledge. I would not want you to remove your pov from anything you have done because it would remove the value in it.


 * Dear fischersc, thank you for your eloquent and very reasonable comments and conclusions. I would also support the dual categories of Christian Old Testament and Hebrew Bible or Torah. However, I am new to this discussion and am not aware of all the water that's gone under the bridge to reach the current consensus on category names. I'll have to defer to IZAK on that. And yes, by the way, I do live in Israel, but I am a native Californian. Yoninah 22:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Fischersc: Wikipedia is not perfect and there is always room for sensible discussions and contributions and for amicable solutions. I agree with Yoninah that "Christian Old Testament" is a very thoughtful suggestion. Let us see what others think. I will try to find a place to have a more open discussion about this. I will keep you posted. IZAK 04:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Totally oppose. It would be like saying Moshe was part of the christians, because the name is going to be Christian Old Testament People. He was not christian. It defantly will be opposed according to Judaism. With blessings that it should not go aganist Judaism, 220.233.48.200 20:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

That makes sense I didn't think of that. fischersc 22:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

In Israel?
On a side note are you in Israel? fischersc 22:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Why do you ask? Yoninah 21:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that most of the posts on here are about 12 hours or so after mine and it was just a guess.