User talk:Shirahadasha/Archive Oct 2007

Help needed
Remember there was an edit war about the Ashkenazi jews picture and you protected the page when the minority (i) supported picture stayed, but then you returned the one supported by majority? We have the same situation in the Template:WW2InfoBox. A majority decided that the new version is batter. Yet the looser side started reverting, and an administrator protected the page, with the image NOT supported by the majority in it. I tryed to explain him that it's not ok that a minority started warring AND gets what it wants, but he didnt listen to me. I hope an administrator could solve this, please. M.V.E.i. 16:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Never mind, User:Hu12 has removed the offending remark. At any rate, thanks for your involvement and comments. MrDarwin 02:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up
I saw your accidentally voted twice in Satori Son's Rfa, so I went ahead and indented your second vote to avoid it counting twice. Hope this was alright! Jmlk 1  7  03:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability (religious figures)
Note: starting draft of proposed guideline --Shirahadasha 22:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Archdiocese of Miami
I have removed the threat of legal action you have alerted me to. The material on this page labeled Church Scandals clearly violates Wikipedia's own policies. There is no reason for it to be on the Archdiocese of Miami page other than anti Catholic propaganda which this clearly is. I have asked for an administrator to remove it at least twice, giving clear reasons listing the Wikipolicies it violates; there is clear evidence of a consensus of editors except the one who added the material, that editor's talk page (DominvsVobiscm) clearly identifies him as a vandal, yet, in spite of overwhelming reasons supporting the removal of this material, the material remains. I will not report Wikipedia to the Catholic League but Wikipedia must consider that it is inviting others to do so if it does not follow its own policies and remove this materialNancyHeise 15:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Your recent post on my userpage
You have no idea who said what to me on my talk page, because I don't keep trash there. So now I am civilly asking you not to write me anymoreFlaviaR 21:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Barneca RfA thank you spam
Shirahadasha, thank you for your support during my RfA. If the concerns that were brought up by other editors gave you second thoughts, rest assured that I'll keep all of the comments in mind in the coming months, and will try again later. In the mean time, if you see me doing something stupid, please let me know. See you around. --barneca (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.
I saw your addendums to the Talk:Who is a Jew? page, and wanted to thank you. Unfortunately, FlaviaR seems to be focused solely on gettign the Halakha view in, to the stated exclusion of other views, and I'm trying to make this clear to her, but it's not working. She's removed your warnings, but at least that means she saw them. ThuranX 22:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, FlaviaR has proven to be intractable. Her civility didn't improve, but her unwillingness to see the page as an article about the question, instead of as a place to find 'The true answer', led her to leave the page, and possibly the project. We picked up another 'detractor' for the project, but I doubt she's really likely to say much at all, and is mostly 'sour grapes' to the whole thing. Thanks again for trying, though. ThuranX 11:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it's not sour grapes; it's a realization that the entire page is devoted to informing underinformed people that there are those even more underinformed than themselves. And my civility quite matches yours - you are not only intractable, you are condescending - and I am certain that she did not "try" with you they she "tired" with me.FlaviaR 19:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yom Kippur
Shirahadasha, it is my clear understanding as a lifelong jew, that Shabat starts on Friday at dusk and finishes on Saturday at Sunset, not Sunday as the page previously titled it. I am sure there is some sort of missunderstanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.79.68 (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your welcome to Role of Women in Judaism
Thank-you for your welcome and invitation of participation. I will try to contribute when I have the time. If you have the time I'd appreciate some thoughts from you about the edit history of Role of women in Judaism and also a few articles on Reform Judaism, in particular Reform Judaism and Progressive Judaism.

I'm concerned about the arrangement of the Reform Judaism articles, mostly because it would make it hard for me to place material (yes cited material) in the right place. Much of the material in "Reform Judaism", IMHO really belongs in Progressive Judaism. I'd even go so far as to say that Reform Judaism should be merged with Progressive Judiasm and that Reform Judaism be turned into a redirect to Progressive Judaism. Depending on the amount of material specific to each country a sub-article (Progressive Judiasm in XXX) might be merited.

The problem is that "Reform" is just one of the terms used to describe the Jewish religious response to the Haskalah. Outside the US, communities call themselves liberal and progressive as well as reform. Jointly they have chosen the name "World Union of Progressive Judiasm" to refer to themselves. Individually, the choice of "Reform" over other synonyms has little meaning - it isn't possible to make assumptions about a particular stance based on choice of name.

Discussion about the above two paragraphs probably shouldn't be carried out on user pages. Please feel free to move the above paragraph to the appropriate page and leave a note on my user page where to look for the discussion. Yours, Egfrank 08:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I moved your comment about necessity to the role of women article talk page from my own talk page and made my response there. Normally I would ask first, but you made a good point and it didn't seem particularly personal. I hope that is OK. Egfrank 08:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi! I believe "Reform Judaism" is the term used in a large number of Judaism articles. I would suggest bringing it up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism rather than attempting to deal with it individually here. I don't know if these movements are sufficiently similar that they can all be presented as having a single outlook in general or if the matter would be issue-by-issue. Best, --Shirahadasha 14:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Not substituting Category:Progressive Judaism for Category:Reform Judaism
Absolutely. Lest your concern come from the new categories, I have stuck with common practice in the reform movement (I grew up in the states so *I* tend to use "Reform Judaism" when I'm not trying to be NPOV :-)). That is, using progressive in situations that are international and reform in situations that are to the best of my knowledge are exclusively US (e.g. Reform camps) or, in the case of the UK, referring specifically to congregations belonging to the Movement for Reform Judaism.

BTW - my initial concern was about the choice of title for the main article, not the use of the term Reform, especially in category titles. With appropriate redirects it is always possible to use multiple terms. IMHO that is really our only option as the term of choice will depend on where one lives and what umbrella organization one's synagogue belongs (if our reader happens to be liberal/reform/progressive).

Kol tuv, Egfrank 18:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Halivni
I can't bring a definite source saying Halivni is important (Except N Encylopedia Judaica). Its simply so self-evident that to swear that "Halivni's work is important to modern Talmud study" would constitute a Shvuas Shav. Take a look at this article for example and virtually any other recent Talmudic article would do as well. If you think necessary I can reference the NEJ Talmud article. (though I dislike referencing an encyclopedia for another encyclopedia.) Chag Sameach.Wolf2191 20:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Epistemology and NOR
I think you made some of the most thoughtful comments regarding epistemology on WT:NOR and I was interested in your perspective, even if I don't completely understand or agree with it. I have been thinking about the problem, and have posted some comments recently that the problem with PSTS is insufficient granularity. I suspect this may be counter to your anti-epistemology view, if I understood it correctly. So I would appreciate your comments on these conclusions there. Dhaluza 01:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)