Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 29

WP:JEW Editnotices
Hi, I recently created an edit notice for a) the "home page" and b) the membership page of the project. I was wondering whether or not (and if so where) anyone else thought more editnotices are needed around the pages related to this WikiProject. Thanks, Magister Scienta talk 03:12, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Jews in Kashmir
I think this very poor stub should probably be a redirect but I'm not sure where, any suggestions? Dougweller (talk) 11:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would suggest redirecting the article to History of the Jews in India. Magister Scienta talk 14:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: Jews in Kashmir has been redirected to History of the Jews in India. Magister Scienta talk 02:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have fixed up the article and it now stands alone as History of the Jews in Kashmir and is part of both Category:Jewish Pakistani history and Category:Jewish Indian history for obvious historical and political reasons since the region is historically and religiously divided and disputed between India and Pakistan. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Classic Judaism
This article was deleted in April (see Articles for deletion/Classic Judaism) on the grounds that it was an essay, not an article. It has recently been recreated by user Rabroy. While I find the thing interesting and, perhaps, even important, I see nothing here that would change that essential determination. There is no indication that this is an analysis or philosophy that has gained any kind of notoriety; there are no declared adherents of classic Judaism, no self-proclaimed Classic Jewish congregations, no rabbinical school. Of the many rabbis identified in the text as adherents of the "classic Jewish" school, none of them, to my knowledge, ever used the term or identified themselves with this ideology.

At the time of the deletion discussion, in conversation on user Rabroy's talk page, I urged him to identify schools or congregations that espoused this ideology explicitly, or to bring critical books and journal articles discussing this philosophy by name. While he has added a great deal to the text as it was then, he has still done none of those things.

I don't want to be the bad guy here, but do others agree that Classic Judaism is still not worthy of an article? --Ravpapa (talk) 07:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks like an essay. It looks like a great essay that I would be happy to read if it were published in Tradition, Jewish Quarterly Review or really any scholarly publication.  Once published it would then be an excellent source for an article about the topic "Classical Judaism".  At least here in Israel, it is not a term I've heard.  Similar ideas I've heard include some of the work being done by Rabbi Nathan Lopez-Cardozo (http://www.cardozoschool.org/) but I have not heard the term in question. Joe407 (talk) 07:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to let everyone know, I put an essay-like tag on the article. Magister Scienta talk 03:18, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion, again
Please see the discussion at Articles for deletion/Classic Judaism (2nd nomination). Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It was speedy deleted per WP:CSD. IZAK (talk) 09:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

New Template:Criticism of Judaism
A new template has been created today, Criticism of Judaism. As you can see on the right, it appears to cover a very eclectic range of subjects. I am confused by it; I'm not sure I understand why these articles have been chosen or arranged in this way. Any other thoughts on this? Jayjg (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There was a Template:Criticism of Islam. Some people were upset (see this Tfd discussion) that there were no "criticism" templates about other religions. Apparently, this is the result. Debresser (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, it's some sort of response to that template, but I find this one very confusing, as I said - there seems to be no structure at all, and the "People" section mixes respected philosophers and famous economists and writers with charlatans, religious polemicists, Holocaust deniers, and rabid antisemites. Jayjg (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is anyone else here doubting whether this template really ought to exist? Magister Scienta talk 02:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

There probably needs to be a split somewhere between the subjects relating to internal criticism and those relating to the whole religion. A few of the people I wasn't familiar with (but found them in Category:Critics of Judaism, so please remove those that aren't considered notable scholarly critics of the religion. It's only created yesterday, so feel free to improve it where you can. Thanks, Icarustalk  12:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is Conservative Judaism listed? To include criticisms of Conservative Judaism? (but then why not criticisms of other movements within Judaism?) to imply that Conservative Judaism is a criticism of Judaism? I think this whole topic needs more thinking out. Ricardianman (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Conservative Judaism is included because there's an article about criticism of Conservative Judaism. The only reason there are no similar articles about other Jewish religious movements is because nobody has written them. Like Jayjg and Magister Scienta, I'm not sure what the purpose of this template is, or whether we even need it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Canadian Yeshiva & Rabbinical School
Does this Yeshiva really exist?

It reputedly opened in 2009, but still has no courses or students. According to the sources, it offered some courses to the local Jewish community, but will not offer a program leading to a degree or to ordination until fall of 2012 (the third time they have announced postponement of their program).

Is this yeshiva accredited by anyone? Is the ordination that they propose to offer recognized by any existing Jewish denomination? Or is this all hype? Can anyone enlighten me? --Ravpapa (talk) 12:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Good questions Ravpapa. Here are some points to ponder about the problems you raise:
 * 1) Just clicking on the first citation in the article gives many of the answers, especially to the problems of pushing and attempting to thrust this new institution's so called "Classic Judaism" philosophy. See the "First mainstream Canadian seminary opens officially" article from the Canadian Jewish News, which must also be in on the PR push, as it takes it on itself to call a yet-unborn institution the "First mainstream" one??!! Who defines "mainstream" here? The "main stream" of what and of which religion? because it's part of a ecumenical school. Guess "mainstream" means "classic" but it's only according to them.
 * 2) The founder, Sperber even has the temerity to say to critics that "To them, I would ask that they be silent"!
 * 3) Sperber "also noted the uniqueness of the school being part of the Toronto School of Theology (TST), a consortium of seven theological seminaries affiliated with the University of Toronto.
 * 4) In addition they claim that: "The new yeshiva, which has an interfaith advisory board, is housed at U of T’s University of St. Michael’s College. It is not affiliated with any Jewish denomination. Instead, the school hews to what is described on its website as “classic” or “pre-denominational” Judaism." So there you have it, all very confusing, they need to sort themselves out before thrusting this brew onto WP.
 * 5) They are welcome to do as they please, but they cannot come along to WP and impose their views as a fait accompli of Jewish life, religion and history. Let them work it through in Toronto, and they are welcome to explain what the school believes but they cannot create new notions ex nihilo and hope no one minds or notices.
 * 6) And here we see there way they are trying to be a self-appointed philosophical nexus between Conservative Judaism and Orthodox Judaism and admit they are welcomed by neither!: "In an interview following the convocation, Rabbi Roy Tanenbaum, the school’s rosh yeshiva and the driving force behind its creation, told The CJN that supporters of the Conservative movement’s Jewish Theological Seminary “might worry that this will draw away from the Jewish Theological Seminary, when we don’t think it will, because JTS follows a much different pattern of Halachah than we do.” As well, he added, some Orthodox people question whether the yeshiva is “really” traditional, because of the Conservative background of some of its faculty members."
 * 7) Why they want to be called a "yeshiva" or "rosh yeshiva" is a mystery when they are funded and affiliated by secular and even Christian sources. It would be like renaming genuine yeshivas "monasteries" and rosh yeshivas as "cardinals".

There are plenty more questions and blanks to fill in... Shabbat Shalom. IZAK (talk) 09:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether it exists as a post-secondary institution is a different question then whether it fits everyone's idea of what a true yeshiva is. The answer to the first question is yes; the answer to the second question is subjective. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 11:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Vale, do you know if it is accredited by the state of Ontario or by the Association of Advanced Rabbinical and Talmudic Schools (AARTS) to grant academic degrees? --Ravpapa (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't believe so. My understanding is that they are a "prospective member", and are in the process of becoming a full member, of the Toronto School of Theology which is a degree granting institution affiliated with the University of Toronto; the TST is accredited by the Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada (ATS). The CY&RS is also seeking accreditation with the ATS in its own name and "may become the first yeshiva in North America to establish a formal relationship.". This does raise the question of what this institution's relationship is with the formal Jewish community or the community of yeshivot and rabbinnical schools however, the articles about this institution in the Canadian Jewish press, ie the Canadian Jewish News and the Jewish Tribune don't include any criticism or dissenting opinion. In any case, even if there is some issue about the nature of this Yeshiva as an institution recognised by the Jewish community they do seem to be in the process of receiving recognition as a legitimate institution by academe in general. It certainly would be fair to include questions of the school's legitimacy within Jewish denominations, religious Jewish academe or the Jewish community, and specifically whether any denominations would recognize the credentials of rabbis who graduate from this school - but any such criticism or questioning would have to be sourced and, thus far, I haven't seen any sources that raise any of the concerns or criticisms that individuals have brought to the fore here. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This article from JTA may be instructive. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

the rosh yeshiva is affiliated with one of the toronto shuls that left USCJ after the gay ordinatin tshuva. It seems clear to me its oriented towards those Canadian Conservative congregatons who find USCJ and JTS to have moved too far "left" so its not surprising at all that they position themselves as "classic" Judaism, or that they use the term Yeshiva (which is used by the Conservative Yeshiva in Jerusalem, and Yeshivat Hadar in NYC) lots of people are reclaiming the terms Yeshiva and Rosh Yeshiva from the Orthodox. The Canadian shuls in question do not call themselves a "denomination" AFAIK, but I think there will be many Jewish institutions on both sides of the 49th parallel where mismachim from here would be welcome. Ricardianman (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Hebrew transliteration
How would one spell Moishe Tokar in Yiddish/Hebrew? I gather that ‎משה is Moishe, but I'm not sure about Tokar. Kaldari (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "tet alef kuf ain reish" This is the reply I got on Facebook from somewhone with that last name. Debresser (talk) 10:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Kaldari (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

A-class nomination for Tay–Sachs disease
Could there be a user to close it? It's time, the two reviewers reviewed it, no opposes. Over a week. Ebe 123 → report on my contribs. 15:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Help required
I would like help improving this article, if anyone can spare the time. Thank you. :-) -- Marek  .  69   talk  23:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like an interesting article, but you know he's not within the scope of this WikiProject. I'm not saying people shouldn't help out, but typically not every article with just some relationship to Judaism is considered part of this project. Cheers, Magister Scienta talk 23:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

'Jewry in Music' (plug)
For anyone who is interested.....I will be giving a talk on my recently-published book Jewry in Music: Entry to the Profession from the Enlightenment to Richard Wagner (Cambridge University Press) as part of the event series of the Institute of Jewish Studies, at the Gustave Tuck Lecture Theatre, University College London, at 18.45 on 22nd February. Reception from 18.15. Entry free, voluntary donation if you like to the IJS. Contact me if you want further details - David Conway aka--Smerus (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds interesting. Thanks for the notification. Debresser (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month
Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Judaism will have interest in putting on events related to women's roles in Judaism. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Meir Shiff
I'm extremely wary of noting this here, given that I understand the feelings against the kind of English used in the JE, EJ etc. And I don't want personal attacks as a min again. But all the same someone might want to take a view at the recent page moves inserting "HaKohen" into various bio stubs drawn from the Jewish Encyclopedia. If the project is happy with the "HaKohen"-izing of all these articles then fine, let them be without RM, and 100s more will be needed, but be aware that it will probably make these bios more difficult to find for English speaking general readers and lead to more mistakes and mislinks. Thanks for your time. With respect prefer not to enter into discussion. No more to say that will add anything. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed.
 * "Nathan Adler" Frankfurt gets 1160 hits on Google books; "Nathan HaKohen Adler" Frankfurt gets one (and that's in German). Even if we add the 9 more for "Nathan Hacohen Adler" Frankfurt, it is very clear that there is a WP:COMMONNAME for this Rabbi, which per the requirements of WP:TITLE is recognisable, natural, precise, concise, and consistent with how other articles are named.
 * I have no problem with "HaKohen" appearing when the subject's name is first given in line 1 of the article, that seems to me quite useful. But the article should be just the shorter more concise "Nathan Adler". Jheald (talk) 02:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move at Alexander Suslin
It would be useful if somebody could help. I'm not sure English is his first language, and it is hard to understand why he is so keen to have this article (Alexander Suslin) renamed from what he's written. Jheald (talk) 12:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC on Jewish lists
For any interested editors: there's an RFC at Talk:List of Jewish Nobel laureates regarding whether lists of Jews (or that specific list of Jews) need to explicitly define in their ledes who is a Jew for the purpose of that list. Jayjg (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Can I ask those interested to consult the RfC for an explanation of what the issue actually is, and to ignore Jayjg's entirely misleading and inappropriate violation of WP:CANVASS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:CANVASS, especially CANVASS where it says (emphasis added is my own) "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion might place a message at one of the following: The talk page of one or more WikiProjects (or other Wikipedia collaborations) directly related to the topic under discussion.". The notice here is completely appropriate and an example of proper notification of interested parties. -- Avi (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A neutral notice here may be appropriate: Jayjg's misrepresentation of what the RfC is about isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * He almost quoted the RfC question word for word, your wording I might add. What misrepresentation is there? -- Avi (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The RfC question was "Should the lede section of this article include an explanation of the criteria used to determine inclusion?" This isn't about 'lists of Jews' in general, it is about a particular list, which happens to be about people who are (or are represented to be) both Jewish and Nobel laureates. I said nothing whatever about 'defining who is a Jew' - I asked instead whether the lede should make clear what the criteria for inclusion are. This is entirely normal where there is room for doubt in the possible criteria for inclusion - and this room for doubt has led to unnecessary edit-warring etc. It seems to me to be self-evident that we should explain to readers the grounds on which a list is compiled, but Jayjg seems to think otherwise, which is why I started this RfC. That he chose to cloud the issue by implying that I was asking Wikipedia to make rulings on what a general 'criteria for determining Jewishness' should be is totally misleading, and in fact entirely contrary to everything I've said on the subject. This is clearly a contentious and sensitive issue, and it isn't Wikipedia's job to do anything other than show, with due weight, the differing perspectives on the issue. As it stands, the article in question does nothing of the sort, and instead implies that there are specific criteria, without telling us what they are. I can see no objection whatsoever to us (a) explaining the criteria we use for inclusion, and (b) making clear to our readers that there is no one single objective definition of 'Jewishness', and that our list is therefore of necessity subject to provisos. Wikipedia articles are written for the benefit of our readers, and not to suit the perspectives of contributors, and I'd have thought that it would benefit our readers more to actually understand the process by which a list was compiled, and perhaps also to learn a little more about the complexities of Jewish identity in the process. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Doesn't "or that specific list of Jews" mean that particular list? I'd hope the readers of this noticeboard are intelligent enough to realize that the RfC is about that list only, at least as of now. On the other hand, consensus on that discussion may be used as precedent for other discussions, stranger things have happened, so it is not out of the question to think of the more general issue, or at least have it at the back of one's mind, even when dealing with the specific. Also, I believe that anyone who has any question about the criteria used to compile a list of Jews would likely click on the wikilink Jews, whose first two sentences sum up the conundrum rather succinctly: "The Jews…are a nation and an ethnoreligious group, originating in the Israelites or Hebrews of the Ancient Near East. The Jewish ethnicity, nationality, and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation." That should inform the reader instantaneously that the issue of who is called a Jew is more complicated than mere religious affiliation or genealogy. -- Avi (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the reference to "the complexities of Jewish identity". A Jew is a person who was born to Jewish parents or who converted to Judaism. Are there any individuals on the list that we are discussing who fall outside of that definition? Bus stop (talk) 05:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. All of them. It isn't a definition. It is an assertion that a definition isn't needed: "the issue of who is called a Jew is more complicated than mere religious affiliation or genealogy". AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * AndyTheGrump—the List of Jewish Nobel laureates is a compilation of those individuals that reliable sources assert are Jewish Nobel Laureates. Bus stop (talk) 05:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Is it? How often are we using the same source to assert that the person is Jewish, and is a Nobel laureate? All to often, what we seem to have is a clear assertion from one source that person X has won a Nobel prize, followed by a desperate trawl through other sources to indicate that this person has been described somewhere or other as being Jewish. Not only is this synthesis, but it is utterly unnecessary if the intention that the intersection between 'Jewishness' and 'Nobel laureate' is much greater than could be explained purely by chance. I'd say that by any reasonable definition of 'Jewishness' whatsoever this has been amply demonstrated, and the whole undignified statement of the obvious only loses credibility by such trawling for further evidence. Sadly though, Wikipedia seems to prefer (judging from the relevant article) that each and every Nobel prize winner has to be assessed again not on the basis of deserving the prize, but on the basis of whether they are 'Jewish' or not, and whether they can be included in our list. I'll abstain from making further comment on what the consequences of such arbitrary categorisations have all to frequently been... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * AndyTheGrump—if one source asserts that an individual is Jewish and another source asserts that the same individual is a Nobel laureate then it follows that that individual is a Jewish Nobel laureate. Why would it not? I am assuming that the sourcing for both facts are of good quality. Bus stop (talk) 06:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you consider Richard Feynman a good quality source on this matter? He was (a) of self-asserted Jewish descent, and (b) a Nobel laureate - but he made perfectly clear that he didn't consider one having any connection whatsoever with the other. The Nobel committee doesn't classify prize winners by ethnicity. The prize winners appear not to classify themselves by ethnicity. But our article does. Why should Wikipedia be engaging in original research to demonstrate the linkage between one and the other? And by what right does Wikipedia assume that it can pronounce on who is 'Jewish' (and meriting inclusion on the list), and who isn't? And, getting back to the RfC, on what basis can Wikipedia justify making such pronouncements without telling us the criteria on which the pronouncement is made? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Andy, you objected to my summary of the RFC stating (above) I said nothing whatever about 'defining who is a Jew' - I asked instead whether the lede should make clear what the criteria for inclusion are. To begin with, I actually said "explicitly define in their ledes who is a Jew for the purpose of that list" (bolding added for emphasis), which means something quite different. Moreover, what do you mean by "criteria for inclusion", if not defining who is a Jew for the purpose of that list? You had previously moved the article to the name List of Nobel laureates that Wikipedia has decided are 'Jewish', but won't say why. In that very discussion you stated in bold Define Jewish... - evidently our (non-existent) criteria for inclusion aren't obvious to everyone. It's quite obvious that by "criteria for inclusion" you are talking about who counts as a Jew for the purpose of that list, and who does not. To what else could "criteria for inclusion" refer? Who counts as a Nobel laureate for the purpose of that list? Jayjg (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The simple fact is that it isn't me that is asking anyone to engage in 'defining who is a Jew' - it is the contributors to the list that are doing this - without telling anyone how they are arriving at their conclusions. As you are fully aware, I have repeatedly argued that trying to shoehorn individuals into simplistic categories is at best misleading, and at worst downright offensive. In any case, regarding the issue at hand, either there are criteria for inclusion that 'define who is a Jew for the purposes of the list' or there aren't - and if there aren't the list is arbitrary, and has no business being on Wikipedia. So are there criteria? And if there are criteria what are they, and why shouldn't we tell our readers what they are? I have repeatedly asked this and all I've had from you is obstruction. These are simple questions that deserve an honest, straightforward answer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But Andy, the "criteria for inclusion" have been repeatedly made clear, and they are no different than for any other Wikipedia article or list - we go by what reliable sources say. I'm one of at least a half-dozen editors who has said this now. That's honest and extremely straightforward. The question that I have repeatedly asked, and on which I have been met with only "obstruction", is why this list should have different requirements than hundreds of other similar lists, including Featured Lists. I also "deserve an honest, straightforward answer", and "I don't care about those other lists"/"I'm not discussing those other lists"/WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not "an honest, straightforward answer". Featured Lists don't fall into the OTHERCRAPEXISTS category. Jayjg (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

So the criteria for inclusion is "Nobel laureates described by reliable sources as being Jewish"? Can I take it you have no objection to me adding this to the lede then? Obviously it begs the question, but at least our readers will be aware that we aren't pulling the list out of thin air. And yes, "I'm not discussing those other lists" is an honest straightforward answer. It is demonstrably true. It is also fully in compliance with what we are supposed to be doing when discussing articles, as opposed to passing judgement on the intentions of contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * AndyTheGrump—you refer to individuals as being "described by reliable sources as being Jewish". This is not necessarily appropriate language as such language could cast doubt on the veracity of these individuals being Jewish. In fact they are Jewish. Were we to have reason to believe that they were not Jewish then we would have reason to remove them from the list. I think we should not be considering the insertion of language that could cast doubt on the reliably sourced fact that the individuals included in the list are Jewish. If you doubt that an individual is Jewish (on the referred-to List) then you should be bringing sources to support any such contention. Bus stop (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Bus Stop, that is a ridiculous argument. It would imply that 'being Jewish' is an unequivocal 'fact', when anyone with the slightest knowledge of the subject knows full well that it isn't. We have an article on this very subject - Who is a Jew? - and that article is likewise based on reliable sources, which demonstrate conclusively that this is an issue of some contention. As you are aware, when there are different (non-fringe) sources supporting differing perspectives on an issue, Wikipedia should make it clear to readers that such disagreements exist. If we are going to use sourced opinions to decide the question, we should make it clear to our readers that this is what we are doing - or do you think we should pretend we are just guessing? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * AndyTheGrump—you say, is an issue of some contention." If there is "contention" then you have to bring sources. A Jew is a person who was either born to Jewish parents or who converted to Judaism. I don't find that particularly contentious. I find that straightforward. You refer to "different (non-fringe) sources supporting differing perspectives". In fact there are no "different (non-fringe) sources supporting differing perspectives" at the List of Jewish Nobel laureates article. There are sources that soundly support that the individuals on the list are Nobel laureates and Jewish. You are bringing no sources of your own. The sources presently in place support the inclusion of the individuals on the discussed list. You are saying that "such disagreements exist" when in fact there are no "disagreements".'' Sourcing is sound at the article "List of Jewish Nobel laureates". You would need to point to an individual on the List and present an argument that sourcing is weak. You are not doing that. Alternatively you would need to present your own sources that may serve to contradict sources already be in place. Once again, you are not doing that. Sources either support inclusion or support removal of the names of individuals on the List. Thus reliable sources matter heavily in these discussions. You are presenting an argument but you are failing to present sources. Bus stop (talk) 03:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * " A Jew is a person who was either born to Jewish parents or who converted to Judaism". That has got to be about the most monumentally idiotic 'definition' anyone could come up with. I've no interest in reading more of your vacuous blather. Please leave this discussion to people capable capable of rational debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * AndyTheGrump—what do you find problematic at the "List of Jewish Nobel laureates"? I believe the individuals on the List are well-sourced. You need to point to what you perceive as inadequately sourced entries in the List or you need to bring new sources that might serve to cast doubt on the sources that are already in place. Bus stop (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * What do I find problematic in the "List of Jewish Nobel laureates"? Its implication that Nobel laureates can unequivocally be categorised as either 'Jewish' or 'not Jewish', for a start. This is an outright falsification. There is no agreed definition of 'Jewishness'. You suggest that 'a Jew is a person with Jewish parents', but even ignoring the fact that you are merely shifting the problem back a generation, what about a person with only one Jewish parent? You know full well this is an issue of real concern amongst different Jewish communities and theological perspectives. Halachic law for instance seems generally interpreted as saying that 'Jewishness' to be exclusively inherited through the maternal line - but this perspective certainly isn't that of all followers of Reform Judaism (and neither, apparently, is it yours if your arguments at the Adam Levine article are to be understood). And likewise, your assertion that it is possible to become a Jew by conversion is deeply problematic, in that a convert to one form of Judaism may very well not be recognised as a member of the Jewish community by a follower of another form. You know this. But you somehow seem to think that the problem goes away if we rely on 'reliable sources' to make unequivocal assertions about something that clearly cannot be definitively asserted in the first place. Compiling a list by pretending that there is a general litmus-test for 'being Jewish' that simply doesn't exist does a disservice to our readers, and isn't exactly complementary to the differing strands within Judaism and the broader reaches of those of Jewish descent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * AndyTheGrump—in fact there are Jews. You are expressing that Jewishness is a somewhat unknowable thing when in fact Jewishness is fairly well-defined. You are nitpicking at any inconsistency that you can find. What remains dwarfs the minor problems you turn up. Reliable sources recognize that Jews constitute an identity. Despite your argument du jour there is the enduring fact of the existence of Jews and an identity associated with Jews. Why would you think that reliable sources would not be able to identify accurately Jews? Reliable sources can accurately identify an entity even if that identity can have its grey areas or areas of poor definition. This is not due to a highly developed skill at a reliable source. It is because Jews are an entity that have a solidity of identity. A Jew is an actual type of person. Reliable sources know this. You are searching hard for exceptions to definitions involving Jews. What you are failing to recognize is the integrity of the definition that remains behind after you have found fault with prevailing definitions. What we are expected to do is to defer to reliable sources. Such sources are expected to be knowledgeable and honest. Furthermore you are given carte blanche to bring sources of your own—something you are not doing. Were there doubts that an individual were Jewish there would probably be a reliable source revealing this. Yet you presumably are not finding sources saying that there are any doubts about the Jewishness of the individuals on the referred-to List. These are Jewish people on this list. Reliable sources are identifying them as Jewish people. Jewish is an identity that is real. There is a solidity to that identity that you seem to be overlooking, but reliable sources are not overlooking the very real existence of Jewish people. If you want to find sources which argue that Jews are a mirage or a figment of the imagination, then we can examine those sources. But I hardly think we should be overlooking the reliable sources that we already have, supporting the "List of Jewish Nobel laureates" article just because you express doubts about the concept, the solidity, or the veracity of Jewishness. Bus stop (talk) 11:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * " A Jew is an actual type of person". You can actually write that on Wikipedia? On talk:WikiProject Judaism? I think the word for that is chutzpah Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us as to what you think the distinguishing characteristics of this 'type' are that enables us to distinguish them from other 'types'? This is the 21st century, not the 19th, and I hoped (perhaps naively) that we could manage to describe people as individuals, rather than shoving them into metaphorical boxes. I'm sure that I need not point out the consequences of such metaphors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Andy, you wrote ''So the criteria for inclusion is "Nobel laureates described by reliable sources as being Jewish"? Can I take it you have no objection to me adding this to the lede then? Well, of course those are the criteria for inclusion, because they're the criteria for inclusion for all'' lists. Why on earth would they be anything else? This is Wikipedia, we add material that is supported by reliable sources! The real issue here is that nagging, still-unanswered question: to repeat from my previous post: The question that I have repeatedly asked, and on which I have been met with only "obstruction", is why this'' list should have different requirements than hundreds of other similar lists, including Featured Lists. I also "deserve an honest, straightforward answer", and "I don't care about those other lists"/"I'm not discussing those other lists"/WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not "an honest, straightforward answer". Featured Lists don't fall into the OTHERCRAPEXISTS category.'' Andy, where is that "honest, straightforward answer"? Jayjg (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You want an 'honest, straightforward answer'? All right, I'll give you one. I am heartily sick of your repeated attempts to assert ownership of articles, and your ad-hominem attacks on the integrity of contributors. 'Go fix something else instead' is nothing other than diversionary tactics, and has no place in appropriate Wikipedia content disputes. Working on Wikipedia is a voluntary activity, and none of us are entitled  to give orders regarding where anyone else works. I consider the 'List of Jewish Nobel laureates' to be a highly problematic article, for reasons I have already made entirely clear, and choose therefore to spent a small amount of my Wiki-time working on it. You, on the other hand, seem to edit almost exclusively within a single subject area. Maybe, if you were to 'fix something else instead', you might become a better contributor... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * AndyTheGrump—address the entirety of what I wrote, instead of one sentence alone. I don't think there are "distinguishing characteristics" of Jews. Sources matter. This project only succeeds when we defer to sources. The "List of Jewish Nobel laureates" is supported by sources. You are not bringing sources to support your argument. As a respecter of this project I am not willing to defer to one editor who has an opinion that is not supported by sources. The onus is on you to show support for some aspect of your argument in sources. Bus stop (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Andy, your response would fall into the "I don't care about those other lists"/"I'm not discussing those other lists" category, which, as noted, isn't an answer. You took offense to this specific list long before I was even aware of it, out of the dozens of Jewish lists on Wikipedia. Perhaps this has something to do with your contention that "Being of Jewish descent, and being a Nobel Laureate, are two unconnected matters, and one has no relation to the other. Or, at least they shouldn't be.", but it's clear this list bothers you in some way that, for example, List of Jewish actors or List of Jewish American mobsters doesn't, and without doubt it has nothing whatsoever to do with me. Jayjg (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is the only answer you are going to get. If you have any valid grounds for suggesting my editing in relation to a clearly-contentious article (the AfD closed as 'no consensus) has been in any way improper, then raise the issue at an appropriate place. Otherwise, I suggest you stop trying to read my mind, and putting words into my mouth, and concentrate on issues relevant to the topic at hand. (and BTW, you appear to have edited the both the article and the relevant talk page before I did: ). AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are correct that I edited the article and talk page before you did, and I am correct that your singular focus on this list alone has nothing whatsoever to do with me. Jayjg (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Since I don't have a "singular focus on this list alone" (see my contributions history ), there is nothing for you to be "correct" about. Anyway, this thread has wandered wildly off-topic (in as much as it had one, beyond my questioning its appropriateness), so I suggest we all find something more useful to do with our time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * AndyTheGrump—I think you have done more in this thread besides "questioning its appropriateness".


 * As a for instance you have said, "What do I find problematic in the "List of Jewish Nobel laureates"? Its implication that Nobel laureates can unequivocally be categorised as either 'Jewish' or 'not Jewish', for a start. This is an outright falsification."


 * Please let us be clear: the article "List of Jewish Nobel laureates" does not say that anyone is not Jewish. Its purpose is to include those who are Jewish. Its purpose is not to exclude those who are not Jewish. This may seem like a minor point. But the article does not indicate that anyone is not Jewish. I am not sure whether or not you would go so far as to argue that the list does indicate who is not Jewish by their omission from this list, but that would be a matter of unintended consequence. I am wondering about your notion of it being a "falsification" to compile a list of those (Nobel laureates) who are Jewish. Can you explain what is false about following "reliable sources" as they set the precedent for a list of this sort? How could falseness pervade the range of sources that can confirm that someone is Jewish? If such falseness pervades such reporting on the Jewishness of these people that we presently find included in our "List of Jewish Nobel laureates" article, would it not be reasonable to expect to see in reliable sources some dissenting opinions pointing out that in fact some of these individuals are not Jewish? Can you explain why you have thus far not presented even one source supporting that anyone on the "List of Jewish Nobel laureates" is not Jewish? Do you not see a problem in that the List is supported by perhaps 211 references and you have not yet presented even one source to support that anyone on that List is not Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Biblelanding.com
I note that at Tribe of Ephraim an editor is changing links from meggido.us to Biblelanding.com, evidently the new domain. Is that a site we should be using? It's got a Q&A section also. Dougweller (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

We need to talk about the glut of images in the Parashah articles
I'm not going to be online much to discuss this in the next few days, but it's something I've been meaning to bring up for a while. Almost all of the articles on each of the weekly Torah portions has a massive amount of pictures. In many places text is sandwiched between facing images, something that is explicitly prohibited by the MoS. So we all really need to take a look at the articles and decide what should stay and what is surplus to requirements. We have interwiki links and image galleries for a reason, so let's discount the use of those, but the number of images in the main articles is just ridiculous. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 07:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Lev Landau
User:Honorsteem has decided to remove Lev Landau from any Jewish categories; he seems to be arguing that being born into a Jewish family isn't indication enough that an individual is Jewish. The List of Jewish Nobel laureates article lists four sources for Landau being Jewish, aside from the one listed in the Lev Landau article itself. Opinions on the matter would be welcome. Jayjg (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you cite the page number in 'The Shengold Jewish Encyclopedia' (one of the references) for Lev Landau being Jewish, and preferably tell us exactly what the source says - this source seems to have been used in some cases in spite of not actually stating that the person is Jewish. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * While I hate to become a participant in this debate, I feel obliged to add that The Shengold Jewish Encyclopedia should not be considered a RS. As I wrote several years ago at the article's AfD, it is a children's encyclopedia. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it appears to be such. Could you give me a link to the AfD discussion? I wasn't aware we'd ever had an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Nobel Prize Winners — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry - I thought you meant we'd had an article on the 'The Shengold Jewish Encyclopedia'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL. No, I don't think so. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Back to the point, ignoring the Shengold Encyclopedia, we have 3 citations in the List of Jewish Nobel laureates, and another in the article itself indicating he was born into a Jewish family. Honorsteem apparently does not think that is sufficient for inclusion in the categories. Opinions on the matter would be welcome. Jayjg (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A kick in the behind would fit him for removing sourced information... Why is it that people dislike Jews being smart? Debresser (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are going to be handing out arse-kickings, one or two for using Shengold as a source for something it didn't say might be appropriate - not to mention a swift boot in the behind to whoever keeps adding people to this list with no cited source for them being Jewish at all. As for 'disliking Jews being smart', there is obviously a problem with stereotyping - one which our list of Jewish Nobel Laureates seems rather keen on preserving... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, all of a sudden I might remember that I am not the violent type. :) Debresser (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Kohanim authors of Rabbinic literature
Category:Kohanim authors of Rabbinic literature seems to be very similar to (perhaps a recreation of) Category:Rabbinic Kohanim, which was deleted in April 2010. Would someone who is more knowledgeable about the subject than I am please evaluate whether the concerns raised in the April 2010 discussion apply to the current category? Please note, also, that Category:Kohanim authors of Rabbinic literature was discussed in September 2010 and that discussion ended without consensus. Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for sources at Yosef Yozel Horwitz
Howdy, Over the past few days, User:-- -- -- has done a wonderful job of adding information to the article Yosef Yozel Horwitz about the Alter of Novardok. I tried to help out a bit and the challenge is that the only sources I'm finding seem to be individual recollections that are hard to qualify as WP:RS. does anyone here have a published (book or online) reliable source that can be used to improve this article? Joe407 (talk) 04:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Should the lede define the narrative as a "myth, in the academic sense"?
An RfC has been created at Genesis creation narrative. This is not an attempt to canvass, because people on both sides of the dispute are being notified.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Halacha/Halakha/Halakha --> Halakhah
I have been editing various pages throughout Wikipedia in order to standardize this. Halakhic seems to get twice as many results on a Google search than Halachic, and among the more scholarly Jewish publications, it seems to be spelled Halakhah, not necessarily Halacha. Also, certain websites spell it this way, including Kol Hamevaser, JTS, Jewish Virtual Library, and MyJewishLearning. I think that this is because the word ends in the Hebrew letter Hei. I'm not sure why the Hebrew letter has been neglected. Therefore, I believe that this is the best way to spell it. Anyway, all of these redirect back to Halakha anyway, so it doesn't really make such a big difference. Just what the main title is on the actual main page of the article. I would think that I can get more support for it here on the main Talk Page for WikiProject Judaism because people see this more often. Also, Aggada redirects to Aggadah for the same reason that I mentioned (the letter Hei). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.153.78 (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC) Therefore, we should probably either change Aggadah to Aggada, or Halakha to Halakhah in order to make Wikipedia more consistent. 129.98.153.78 (talk) 06:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think all your edits have now been reverted (yes, I took part in that). If you see an honest mistake, that is one thing. If you see something that doesn't really matter on some page, that is already another thing, but still. But if you see the very same thing on a dozen of pages, you should have stopped and wondered whether all Wikipedia was waiting for for the last ten years was this change of yours. That is true in general, and that is true in this specific case as well. But I am happy you are now here to discuss it. Debresser (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A simple Google search shows twice as many findings for the spelling without the "h". The Hebrew spelling is secondary to the the English, the rule being that where there is an accepted English spelling, that one is the one that should be used on the English Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Elias Abraham Rosenberg peer review
Hello, I've opened a peer review for Elias Abraham Rosenberg (who was the first recorded Jew in Hawaii). I'd welcome a peer review from someone with experience in Judaism related topics. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Dates of birth/death needed
In ictu oculi (talk) 11:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Goodman Lipkind
 * Shlomo HaKohain of Greece

Possible greater cooperation across religion and philosophy projects
Please feel free to make any comments you might wish at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion regarding possible more closely coordinated activity between the various religion, philosophy, and mythology WikiProjects. John Carter (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See the counter-proposal there at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

What kind of "Exodus" is this on WP?
As Pesach approaches it is propitious to focus on related themes and articles that need help. Please apply your skills to improving The Exodus article with solid editing and adding some truly authentic Jewish sources. I tried to start a few changes and have begun a discussion about what a pathetic patchwork of (mostly) hogwash this article presently is at Talk:The Exodus. Thanks in advance, IZAK (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Book of Habakkuk discussion
Participation would be welcome in Talk:Book_of_Habakkuk. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Jesus was Palestinian?
As of March 1, apparently he was: File:Palestinian infobox v2.jpg. Many sources (perhaps mistakenly) assert that he was a Jew who practiced Judaism. Those with informed opinions on the issue are welcome weigh in at Talk:Palestinian people. Jayjg (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The oldest known name of the region is Palestine-Syria from Herodotus ca mid 5th c. BC with seven uses of that term. Thus all sub-groups in the region are legitimately, albeit not conventionally and I think solely for modern political reasons, referred to as Palestinians or Syrio-Palestinians, depending upon how one wishes to handle the Greek in English. From the writings of the historian Josephus we learn Jews took that name from their land of Judea. In those days political units had their special gods. Athens was the capitol of the city-state of Attica as Jerusalem was the capitol of the city-state of Judea.


 * Again according to Josephus the Maccabean dynasty conquered Samaria, Idumea and the Galilee and imposed their Yahweh cult practices on them on pain of expulsion. The people living in these three city-states and Judea are properly referred to Palestinians, modern politics notwithstanding.


 * The Gospels take pains to point out in many places and ways that Jesus was a Galilean. (Given the political structure of the region that appears to have been deliberate to say he was not a Judean/Jew.) Therefore he was not a Judean and therefore not properly referred to as a Jew. It is correct to assume the Judean cult practices had been imposed on his ancestors and therefore on himself. The Judean Yahweh cult is not a creedal religion and given the Septuagint's Yahweh requires draconian punishments for violation of its cult practices there is no way to assume as with creedal religions the Judean cult practices would become accepted. Josephus specifically mentions circumcision as one of the cult practices imposed on the conquered. Imposing ritual genital mutilation to be done by Judeans who had to be paid on top of it is adding insult to injury.


 * As late as the emperor Julian (the apostate) he refers to the Christians as Galileans.


 * [Digression only! This easily explains the animosity towards the Judean priests who were the enforces of the cult practices and who imposed their decisions and laws by force. It also explains that while the teachings attributed to him are markedly different in some ways they are nearly identical in others. As a conquered and subservient Galilean his success was a threat to their rule. Samaritan teachings are also similar but not identical but do center on the rejection of the Judean priests (later rabbis) which appears to be what they shared with at least one Galilean. Similarly Herod, a "conquered" Idumean, appointed as king of the Judeans/Jews caused their hatred from the beginning.]TWIIWT (talk) 09:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Jesus and messianic prophecy
I do not see any of a Judaic prescriptive on this page and it appears that it should have it but i am not of the faith nor do i know the history very well so i may be wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.168.142 (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * ISBN 1879016117 is a good start. JFW &#124; T@lk  10:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Slrubenstein
I saw yesterday that Steven Rubenstein passed away recently. תנצב״ה. JFW &#124; T@lk  09:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A great loss. Dougweller (talk) 13:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear that. Debresser (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Sad news indeed. See Steven Rubenstein - a work in progress, and as yet lacking many cogent details, but at least an indication of what else this great Wikipedian had been up to away from the computer keyboard. He'll be missed... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

A new barnstar
Just created a new barnstar, primarily intended for WikiProject Hebrew languages but which can be used for Hebrew and other Jewish and Israeli topics more generally. I am planning to do some more barnstars in the future, including religious, cultural and national barnstars.



—Tom Morris (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You chose a most interesting text to overlay on the star. Some call it the "sixth book of the Pentateuch". Debresser (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You'll have to forgive me, I'm but a British Gentile born to lapsed Anglicans and taught by Roman Catholics. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * What's the text? (Never mind, I see it now.  Cool.) Also, wouldn't six points be a little more appropriate than five?  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is that you can't read the Hebrew in its entirety. Compare with an object such as this. Bus stop (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing debates about The Exodus
There is still much discussion about what the article about what The Exodus should be. If you are able, please see the discussions at Talk:The Exodus and Talk:The Exodus. There is an important need for editors knowledgeable about Judaism's and classical Torah views on this subject. Most of the discussions lack this and would benefit from serious Jewish knowledge and input in this regard. Thanks! IZAK (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Passover
Passover is in danger of being omitted from Selected anniversaries/April 6 this year because of the original research maintenance tag in the middle of the article. Thanks. — howcheng  {chat} 04:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for input in discussion forum
Given the closely linked subjects of the various religion, mythology, and philosophy groups, it seems to me that we might benefit from having some sort of regular topical discussion forum to discuss the relevant content. I have put together the beginnings of an outline for such discussion at WikiProject Religion/2011 meeting, and would very much appreciate the input of any interested editors. I am thinking that it might run over two months, the first of which would be to bring forward and discuss the current state of the content, and the second for perhaps some more focused discussion on what, if any, specific efforts might be taken in the near future. Any and all input is more than welcome. John Carter (talk)

Automated message by Project Messenger Bot from John Carter at 15:44, 5 April 2011

Article request
I would very much like to see an article on the book How Jesus became Christian by Barrie A. Wilson. I bring it to the attention of this group in particular because the book seems to have won an award for Canadian Jewish literature, the author himself being a professor at York University in Toronto. I would be particularly interested in the material regarding the "Jesus Cover-Up Thesis" he is said to discuss in the volume, and to what degree it might refer to earlier, similar thinking. John Carter (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I will freely admit I found this thread by looking through John Carter's contribs, and I found it odd to be stashed in amongst a slew of tagging on Christian articles, so I came to check it out. First of all, "this project" likely cares nothing for anything about Jesus, as Jesus does not figure in Judaism in any other manner then as a tool used by Christians throughout history as an excuse to persecute Jews.  For that reason, I find your broad statement deciding that it is of interest to this project to be offensive, and I might as well say it so nobody else has to bother.  Lastly, it did not win a literature award - it won a 2009 Helen and Stan Vine Canadian Jewish Book Award for history.  The professor in question is also a specialist of early Christianity, not Judaism. Lastly, considering that a scant few years later this book is out of print and in bargain bins (see Amazon), it is likely not a work of any real value to the field, and if the Amazon reviews are anything to go by, this a biased and simplistic book that is trying to prove a fringe theory. MSJapan (talk) 02:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Franz Boas
Should the Franz Boas article be articulating that "…he did not identify himself as a Jew" based on this source? Also please see the discussion on the Franz Boaz talk page about this. Bus stop (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Talmud
Can someone please address the issue of sex with minor children as described in the Talmud? I didn't see any reference in any of the existing articles. If this was already discussed somewhere, can you please provide a link. Thank you. USchick (talk) 02:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The site you link to, come-and-hear.com, is a notorious antisemitic website. Fortunately, it's not being used as a source anywhere on Wikipedia (I hope). Why should any Wikipedia editor be particularly concerned about what's on that site? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * An all-time favourite of people who want to depict Jews as barbaric. Yes, the Talmud contains graphic legalistic discussions, much you one would read in books of jurisprudence from any other culture. The Talmud was written in a time when in many cultures it was okay for minors to marry. However, a close read of the discussion does not say anywhere that it is okay to have sex with a minor, and indeed numerous other sources strongly discourage the practice.
 * I agree with Steven J. Anderson that one should not rely on anything written on Come and Hear. It uses an outdated translation of the Talmud without any of the modern commentaries to pull down Judaism (read the thinly veiled attacks from Carol Valentine on the site's main pages).
 * USchick, in what way to you wish us to "address the issue"? Is there a secondary source you would like to incorporate into any particular article? JFW &#124; T@lk  09:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about the web site itself, the official unabridged Soncino Edition of the Talmud published in 1935 seems like a credible source and the entire translation is available in pdf format online. If there was a concealed translation for so many years, shouldn't that be addressed somewhere? Like in the article about the Talmud itself? It's not a secret, it's an interesting fact in Jewish history. I'm not out to "expose" anything, I approach the subject with respect, that's why I'm here to discuss it. USchick (talk) 04:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If that is the case, could you answer my question about secondary sources? JFW &#124; T@lk  22:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Rabbi Jane Rachel Litman's article in Sh'ma p.2 USchick (talk) 07:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see why we should place particular emphasis on that source. Could you be clearer as to what you are hoping to achieve? JFW &#124; T@lk  23:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, I was interested in making a connection in history of when society went from being sex positive to sex negative, and this seems like a missing link. We went from having child brides in Judaism with very positive sexual relations, like the Sabbath bride, and where the husband is obligated to provide sex along with food and clothing – to Christianity, with virgin birth and sex as a taboo. Seems like this happened in one generation. Do you have a source you can recommend for this change? Does anyone talk about it? It obviously happened, but why? USchick (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

"Sex positive"? That Sh'ma article makes it clear that the Talmud is discussing "rape". What's positive about rape? The only positive there is that the rabbis of the Talmud creatively found a way to avoid making the victim's fate worse. --Dweller (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Your assertions strike me as original research. JFW &#124; T@lk  21:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not if I can find a source. USchick (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Good luck. That might be difficult. JFW &#124; T@lk  21:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI, the same information is published by a rabbi, not antisemitic with commentary from the Chabad library, starting with Halacha 13 as a secondary source.   USchick (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's just a different primary source, the Rambam's Mishne Torah in translation. And the source you present is not saying it's permitted to have intercourse with a minor, but that intercourse with a minor is not treated in Jewish law in the same way as intercourse with an adult. There's a difference. Furthermore, Chabad's gloss on the text you cite, makes it clear that though it's not considered intercourse, it's a "transgression". I'll assume you're interested and not just making mischief here. The implications of whether it does or does not count as intercourse are many and profound, for example, if a young girl is persuaded into having sex, is she thereafter forbidden from marrying a Cohen? Rambam makes it clear that in his opinion, the answer is that she can still marry a Cohen. --Dweller (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It does not constitute original research, quite the contrary in fact. Any jewish scholar or any person with extensive knowledde of the Talmud can confirm this. I agree with USchick, this iformation should be included in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.39.119.128 (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you'll find any genuine Talmudic scholar who'll tell you that the Talmud is particularly "sex positive". Even within the confines of marriage, when sex is encouraged (or even obligatory), it's also prohibited for roughly half of every month. And in Temple times, the Nidda laws were even more stringent than they are today. As far as sex with minors goes, the Talmud deals all the time with extreme cases, because by learning the extremes, you can infer the usual. Even in the extreme cases linked to above, it's clear that what is being discussed is the aftermath of a violation of victim and law - the rabbis are just trying to understand its implications. --Dweller (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed moves
There are discussion underway at the talk pages of Books of Chronicles, Books of Kings, and Books of Samuel as to whether or not to move those pages to article titles reflecting the singular nature of each of the works in the Masoretic text, rather than the current Septuagint-based titles. The input of any interested editor would be greatly appreciated. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 05:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Rabbi
Should we on Wikipedia use "Rabbi" or"rabbi"? This question was raised on my talkpage after I changed all capital "R"'s to regular "r"'s in two related articles. There seems to be some contradiction between Mos and WP:JOBTITLES, and some room for various interpretations of the latter. I will be happy to see the community opinion here. Debresser (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the general rule is that you should capitalize "Rabbi" before a person's name but not elsewhere. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That is my understanding, too. Yoninah (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, as far as I can tell, that's the sort of word that get's capitalized before a name but not anywhere else, like "president" or "pastor". Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 20:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Isaiah 7:14
PiCo has made a lot of questionable edits to Isaiah 7:14, which includes deleting most of the material in the article. Given his tendency to edit-war, I can't fix the problems with it by myself, so can anyone here take a look at the edits and tell me what you think?Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Should Jewism redirect to Judaism?
Should Jewism redirect to Judaism? Please feel free to weigh in here. Bus stop (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Sephardic art in the Balkans 1920s
I created Daniel Kabiljo a couple of days ago, could I have some help on linking it into more generic articles - thanks. Gallery In ictu oculi (talk) 12:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Was Judaism in the Middle Ages a proselytising religion?
Your expertise would be helpful at Talk:Middle_Ages. Thanks, --Dweller (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Top-priority articles?
The Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, and its earlier edition edited by Mircea Eliade, has been counted as the standard reference work in the field of religion. I have gotten together a list of the articles, all of them of some substantial length and most if not all with individual reference sections, at User:John Carter/Religion articles. I believe that the default idea of a "Top" priority article is an article that any encyclopedia should have. Considering this encyclopedia is allegedly the best in the religion field, I think it makes sense to include the articles they have as "Top" priority. Also, considering most if not all of those articles are directly relevant, in some way, to "religion" as a whole, I believe it would make sense to tag at least those articles with the "WikiProject Religion" banner as well, with top priority assessment. Would that be acceptable to the members of this project? John Carter (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Symbol for infoboxes?
From the main page's anniversary section I just browsed into Jewish revolt against Constantius Gallus and Jewish-Roman wars, and noticed the military infoboxes have an iconic symbol for the Roman forces but not the Jews. Since the latter article has a prominent image of Romans hauling off a menorah as a symbol of a victory, I was thinking perhaps it would be good to use that as the Jewish symbol? As I read in Hanukkah the holiday has regained nationalistic/military dimensions, and so it doesn't seem inappropriate to me - but I know next to nothing about Judaism. ;) Wnt (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Good idea. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know of any specific logo or banner that was employed by Jewish fighters at the time, and the two most appropriate symbols would certainly be the menorah and the star of David. The Star of David wasn't really adopted as a symbol until later, so the menorah is probably the best bet. I'm not sure exactly how to insert the icon, but there's a good icon-ready image at File:Menora.svg you can use. --Bachrach44 (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Link sought
I wonder whether members of this project could help me find an appropriate link for what would be considered the "classical" tradition or period of Judaism. In an article on the "classical tradition" as it's usually understood in the West, as the heritage of classical antiquity, my source makes it clear that this is only one so-called "classical" tradition; other world cultures with a classical tradition include India (for which I have Classical India), China (Chinese classics, though perhaps there's a better link for that one), Classic Judaism, and Islam (Islamic Golden Age). When I posted the article, Classic Judaism wasn't a redlink, but it's now been deleted. I was hoping there might be a section in another article that elucidated what's meant by "the classical tradition of Judaism." Cynwolfe (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Azerbaijani Jews
Hello. I would like to seek some advice from people interested in Judaism and Jewish people topics with regard to the article Azerbaijani Jews. We have a dispute on how to organize a section on Antisemitism, and what is appropriate for inclusion there, in line with the common practice in similar articles in Wikipedia. Any comments on talk of the article would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Grand master  19:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Grandmaster, the article should correctly be named History of the Jews in Azerbaijan (rather than redirecting from there) and then it would make sense to include topics relating to antisemitism and anything else that relates to them. IZAK (talk) 08:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The article has now been redirected to the correct name of History of the Jews in Azerbaijan and thus can legitimately contain any events, facts and history, relating to Jews in Azerbaijan. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Draft of New Article on Tefillat Tal and Tefillat Geshem
Hi, all:

I have been working on rewriting the article on Tefillat Geshem and Tefillat Tal. I'm not looking for an assessment yet–actually, I haven't published it yet–I'm just looking for some outside opinions about the organization and structure of the article. You can find it in my sandbox. Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed MOS for Religion
There is now a proposed general Manual of Style for Religion and other articles relating to ethoses or belief systems at WikiProject Religion/Manual of style. Any input would be welcome. I personally believe at least one of the reasons why many articles in this field have been as contentious as they have been is because of lack of such guidelines, and would very much welcome any input from others to help come up with some generally acceptable solutions to some of these problems. John Carter (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Sephardi Jews topics
Category:Sephardi Jews topics, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

A Baal Shem from Michelstadt, Germany and his grave
by the way: I just added images of a jewish graveyard (and related images) from Michelstadt, a town south of Frankfurt/Germany. Obviously this graveyard is the aim of some pilgrimage of orthodox (hasidic?) jews - even street signs give hints to the Baal Schem of Michelstadt, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Seckel_L%C3%B6b_Wormser - the person was known as Seckel Löb Wormser in his German form, see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seckel_L%C3%B6b_Wormser. Unfortunately I cannot read hebrew (and I just try to write English) - perhaps someone can add a description / translation of the hebrew plaques. Karl Erich Grözinger, a leading scholar of jewish studies in Germany, just wrote (in 2010) a book about Löb Wormser. Best wishes --Plehn (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The first line (a half arc) says "Ba'al Shem miMichelshtat", then his name "Yitzchok Arye aka Zekel Leib, rabbi of Michelshtat and the Orenwald province", and 8 lines of praise beginning with the 8 letters of his name. Debresser (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Maimonides
Interested editors please join the discussion at Talk:Maimonides. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Noach (parsha)
Although I am pretty sure this isn't going to be deleted, I do think that some sort of guidelines would be useful for our [Weekly Torah portion]] articles. Take a look at Bereishit (parsha) - not a pretty sight (literally). Too much is just a copy of the Torah (which is I believe what led to the AfD, some is original research (I've asked at WP:NORN about the key word counting, but can someone here explain why it's there anyway?), etc. We have the same problem with Suras and possibly similar articles. Dougweller (talk) 10:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've thought for some time that the parsha articles were a travesty of WP:EL but was always reluctant to touch them for fear of setting off a firestorm. They do need some cleanup, and we need a way to separate content that belongs in articles about the parsha from content that belongs in articles about the various subjects. --Bachrach44 (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Related RfC
Please comment at Template_talk:Religion_topics. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Shlomo Aviner
The Shlomo Aviner page has some issues, including what appear to be some violations of WP:BLP and WP:V. There also appears to be an edit war going on. Someone with more knowledge of the situation than me might want to get involved. --Bachrach44 (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There is one editor who seems to be trying to remove sourced but non-complimentary information. I think he will be dealt with easily enough. Also. I see no recent posts on that article's talkpage whatsoever. That would be the logical first place to raise any concerns about WP:BLP and WP:V. Debresser (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC on God
There is a request for comment regarding the scope of the article God at Talk:God. Any and all input is welcome. John Carter (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Reminds me of that old joke of the guy who goes up to the urinal and sees an inscription "God is dead -- Nietzsche" .... and just below someone had scribbled "Nietzsche is dead -- God"! So it should be fun watching WP editors trying to figure out the who what how, why, when relating to God! IZAK (talk) 06:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Weekly Torah portion parsha discussions again
Please see Talk:Chayei Sarah (parsha) for new discussions about the content and sources of the 54 weekly Torah portion articles. Please keep track of that discussion as it unfolds. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

List of rabbis
I just pruned some entries from this list, but it really could do with some more eyes. I'm half tempted to AfD it because it's doing a very bad job at replicating the work of Cats. --Dweller (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd support an Afd per your argument that it is an unnecessary substitute for a category. Also because there are no inclusion criteria. (Note, I am a rabbi too, ordained and all. Perhaps somebody would like to add Dovid de Bresser - former rabbi of Kemerovo and Kemerovo Oblast.) Debresser (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Gore Vidal
The section on the Gore Vidal article about his well known anti-Semitism has been deleted. There is a discussion on the article's talk page that claims he was not anti-Semitic, just anti-Zionist, but the entire section was deleted, rather than just editing it to reflect that. What should be done with this section of the article? Restore it as it was, restore it with edits, or leave it deleted? --PiMaster3 talk 14:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The removed statement was neutrally worded and sourced. Which would be a reason to say it should stay. But the removing editor posted a polite message on the talkpage with a good rationale, that the source doesn't reflect Vidal's true positions. So I would be very careful before coming to any conclusions. First reach consensus on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 15:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Exodus dispute
There is a dispute right now on the exodus. One editor is trying to radically re-write it in accordance with a very liberal brand of protestant scholarship.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 06:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Protected. JFW &#124; T@lk  07:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Just noting that the 'one editor' has said he'll leave Quarkgluonsoup's version alone. Whether the 'very liberal' claim is right I can't say as I haven't looked at it in detail. Dougweller (talk) 13:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

"Who wrote the Torah?"
Please see the discussion at Talk:Abraham. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I Created Six New Very Useful Jewish Population Maps
I created the three Soviet Union maps today and the other three before. I would like to know what everyone thinks of them. And for the record, I already put all of them in at least one article where they would belong. Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism of Gadol page
I apologize if this edit is not in proper format, but I am not a computer wiz. That being said, I have tried very hard in the past year to put a lot of good work into the Wikipedia page for Gadol, and have done lots of good work in terms of adding dates, neglected figures, published material, location of activity, along with footnotes. But for whatever reason, Gedolim associated with the Mizrachi keep being removed. I thought putting up a list endorsed by Rabbi Fendel would end the vandalism, and it did for a period of time, but recently again, Rabbi Soloveitchik of YU (who WAS listed in Fendel's last work, after he accidentally omitted him in a previous work) was removed from the list! If anyone can get that page to stop being vandalized based on hashkafa, I would greatly appreciate it. I never removed anyone for Hashkafic reasons, I only added missing gedolim (from ALL streams. I don't play politics. Sfardish, Yekkesh, Hasidish, Modernish, Tzionish, Haredish, etc. In shamayim (or genhenem, where appropriate) Hashem won't ask what type of Kippa you wore. For example, I once added the missing Steipler Gaon from an earlier larger version of the list when I noticed he was missing, as I added teh Baba Sali, etc, etc.) Sinat Chinam is the cause of Galut, so please stop participating in hashkafic removals of certain names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.102.168.8 (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Scrutiny of edits by new editor
Please see the edits of and tell me what you think of them. I reverted his edits to Isaac Luria today, and then later on History of the Jews in the United States as well. Was I right to do so? Debresser (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * These are pretty close calls. I'm inclined as follows:
 * For History of the Jews in the United States, Maryester has already reversed your revert, and I think that probably has to stand overall. You might move the complete text of the letters and responses that Maryester quotes into the footnote, because that is too much detail for an article of the scope of "History of the Jews in the United States."  (It would not be too much detail in an article on Peter Stuyvesant or even an article on History of the Jews in New York.)  But I don't think you can outright exclude this information here.
 * For Isaac Luria I fully agree with you, and think such an approach would require discussion on that article's talk page. If Maryester attempts to reverse you on this, I will do the second revert (so you don't get near 3RR), and will put a notice on Maryester's talk page.
 * StevenJ81 (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

"Authority," of WikiProject Judaism within Wikipedia--and who might wield it
All of these discussions/arguments about editorial differences between religious-oriented and secular/academic-oriented editors (cf. weekly Torah portions, the Exodus, Abraham, etc.) bring the following question to my mind: At what point does "WP Judaism" per se have a right to step in and say, "Wait a minute: From the perspective of Judaism, such and such POV is required to remain intact and recognizable in these articles"?


 * If there is such authority at some point, who wields it?

Additionally, one point seems glaringly absent on the secular/academic side: while Jewish religious scholarship has some bright lines it does not cross, there is plenty of authentic scholarship within Judaism over the millenia. Why doesn't that count? And why can't WP Judaism speak up for that?

StevenJ81 (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Jewish scholarship does count, and we do speak up for that. E.g. the consensus is to consider Jewish sources that relate to previous Jewish works not as primary sources, and therefore acceptable as "good" sources according to Wikipedia standards. Debresser (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Debresser. I have a few other points to raise here.
 * 1) We are, primarily, an encyclopedia. As such, I think it is most reasonable that we first and foremost follow the existing encyclopedias out there in terms of article structure, content, and suchlike. Regarding the parsha articles, honestly, having looked through several reference sources of several faiths, and religion in general, I have seen no articles on them on an individual basis. I have however seen several articles referring to religious devotional practices, religious ceremonies, and the like. Personally, I would think that it might be in everyone's best interests if we concentrated on the topics which can be found in existing encyclopedias first, and then go on to others. The list of articles on "Israelite religion" (which basically deals with Judaism prior to the destruction of the Temple) and "Judaism" in the Encyclopedia of Religion, arranged in subtopics as per the internal arrangement of that book, can be found at User:John Carter/Religion articles under those two headings. Several of those articles don't yet exist, including the articles on religious observances I mentioned above. I am full well aware that there are multiple other reference sources, and have no objections to seeing articles in all of them, provided they meet our notability standards, included here, but I do think it makes sense to start with the "biggest" topics first.
 * 2) There is no explicit or implicit reason of which I am aware that we cannot have multiple articles on a similar topic, if there is sufficient encyclopedic content of all sorts regarding that topic, and if the sub-articles can themselves establish notability. I have no doubt that we could reasonably have multiple articles on, for instance, Abraham, given the disparate views expressed in reference sources about him, which themselves could probably establish notability of some of the different views. But there are matters of WP:WEIGHT and other factors to take into account here as well.
 * 3) Honestly, I personally think that this project, like Christianity and the other religion projects, should take advantage of the free reference databank subscriptions available to wikipedia editors. I myself have only one such subscription yet, but the information available on those databanks includes a large number of reference sources, and those sources can be used to help determine our own content. This would include, certainly, possibly separate articles on the views of various topics of different religious groups. Maybe doing something to create and develop some of the primary topics would help as well. Articles on primary topics can contain the basic information on multiple subtopics, and if done correctly even those subjects which might not merit separate articles for themselves, either based on notability or amount of encyclopedic content about them, can at least have the existing encyclopedic content on them included in some article, with perhaps redirects until and unless someone researches the topics well enough to the point that separate articles are warranted. John Carter (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Debresser is correct. And Wikiprojects have no authority in the sense I think it's being used here. They can set guidelines so far as they don't conflict with en.Wikipedia guidelines and policies, but en.Wiki guidelines and policies are what articles need to follow. Dougweller (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My thanks to all for responding so far. I guess where I am having some trouble is this:
 * Per Debresser's comment up top, I'm not sure whether all of the editors we have been working with recently truly buy into "Jewish sources that relate to previous Jewish works [are not] primary sources, [and are] therefore acceptable as 'good' sources." At very least, we seem to return to the same ground more than occasionally.
 * Per Dougweller's comment here: I wouldn't argue that Wikiprojects should have "a lot" of authority. But--just to take an example--if WikiProject Judaism says articles of Weekly Torah Portions are notable, why shouldn't that close the notability part of the debate? (OK, that part has been settled. I know.  This was just an example.)
 * StevenJ81 (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * First, it is worth noting that no WikiProject, simply by virtue of being a WikiProject, has any authority per se whatsoever. If it did, then the several thousand WikiProjects which do exist, some of which have no more than a single active editor, would be able to say that they have "authority" over content relating to their specific topic. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines take priority over any WikiProject partially because of that unfortunate possibility. So, referring to the example you used, WP:N generally takes priority over any WikiProject. Generally, though, the individual editors who may be associated with a given WikiProject might include some who are sufficiently knowledgable about policy, and have access to enough sources, to be able to establish notability as per wikipedia's policies. That isn't true in all cases. Having myself helped created many of the WikiProjects and work groups that have been proposed snd met initial guidelines for viability over time, some of them can and do die out in some cases fairly fast, like when a TV show is cancelled or a band breaks up.
 * The question regarding "primary" and "secondary" gets a bit problematic in some cases. So, for instance, would an independent document, or possibly in some cases official document, written by an official of the Catholic Church, maybe an archbishop?, qualify as "primary" or "secondary" for the Catholic Church and/or for the archdiocese the archbishop heads? These questions can get difficult sometimes. And, yes, there are and have been quite a few WikiProjects which become, ultimately, in some cases, little more than a collection of POV pushers. I am not saying this is one, but that does and has happened with some projects.
 * In general, no one editor's, or one group's, statements take priority over policy. If a group of editors can, by collaboration, demonstrate that a given piece of content does or does not meet guidelines and policies, fine, then it does. If they can't, and in several cases there aren't that many people actively involved, then policy is implemented.
 * The goal of most WikiProjects is to find and develop the related content, and to gather together those individual editors who have the resources and interest in developing them. However, ultimately, their simple existence as a WikiProject or work group or task force or whatever does not, and should not, give them any real authority. We are here, first last and foremost, to put together an encyclopedia. We assume that the editors associated with a given WikiProject are among those best qualified to do so, and most of the time they are. But the primary goal of assembling the encyclopedia still takes priority.
 * Also, for what it's worth, if I was one of those you indicated might not think the weekly torah portions meet notability, that isn't and never has been my real reservation. The question has been what sort of content related to that subject should be included in specific articles on the individual readings. We don't have any clear guidelines regarding that. So they fall in one of the "gray areas" of extant policy and guidelines. If I could find any encyclopedic articles on any liturgical readings, Jewish, Christian, or other, to use as a template for such articles, I would have pointed them out. Unfortunately, to date, having looked in several reference sources, I haven't seen any. And there is a question as to what "encyclopedic" content in wikipedia there can be regarding topics which aren't covered at length in any other encyclopedias, particularly regarding topics as significant as liturgical readings. I have, like I said, seen trade journals of Christian sermon "outlines," but that's a different matter. They can and do establish some notability, but they don't necessarily indicate how to structure any articles here. And it has been indicated elsewhere, in policies and guidelines, that not everything that is notable is necessarily encyclopedic.
 * Those questions were, in fact, the primary reason I mentioned the articles in the list I made of encyclopedic articles. Their content and the sources they cite could, presumably, provide some hints as to how to structure content regarding those subjects, including Jewish, Christian, and presumably other faiths' liturgical readings. And I do think it probably would, in general, make sense to start with the most important or broadest topics first, and make sure that they are covered to a degree, before going on to less important or narrower topics. And, yes, as the editor of the Christianity newsletter, I am trying to help make sure the same thing happens in content related to that topic as well. John Carter (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding, John. I can see your point concerning WikiProjects, and in fact assumed something similar myself.
 * At the same time, just to use Judaism as an example, eventually experts on Judaism (whatever that means) ultimately need to make the call on Judaism-related topics. I would not do the same, for example, in Christianity-related topics, even though I have learned a bit on the subject over time.  (See an edit I made, only very reluctantly, at Liturgical Year--and then, only because it was a Jewish-insight-driven correction.)
 * To answer directly, yes: You are one of the editors I was questioning, and I appreciate your more detailed explanation here. I have never assumed bad motives on your part.  However, what I have seen at times on your part is an assumption that your Catholic experiences should somehow automatically (or, let's say, substantially) translate to Judaism-related topics.  That just might not be the case.  Just to give an example in the instant case, the closest parallel in Judaism to the schedule of liturgical readings in a church would be the weekly haftarah (prophetic) reading or the holiday Torah reading, not the regular, weekly Sabbath Torah portion.  And I doubt anyone would think these readings would deserve a series of articles in their own right.
 * Then, once you assume that the cases are not identical, the issue becomes, "What is appropriate to discuss in the context of the Weekly portion itself?" Frankly, some duplication is probably unnecessary--but some probably is necessary, unless you assume the reader should have to ping-pong between the Portion:Noah article and the Person/Character:Noah article. I don't think that is an appropriate solution, either.
 * I'm not really trying to argue this specific question again. I'm using it to illustrate.  The larger point I'm trying to make is that some editors (not you, at all, here) are trying to make major edits on Jewish topics even though some of their assumptions (whether about notability, appropriateness/inappropriateness of certain duplication, or what have you) may not be valid in this setting.  That's where I have a lot of trouble with all of this.
 * StevenJ81 (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope you realize the same statement could be made, ultimately, unfortunately, by any editor regarding any topic which they believe they are particularly knowledgable about. FWIW, my own actions are guided, primarily, by what I see in the reference works in the libraries to which I have access. I personally live in St. Louis, and go to the Saint Louis University library, which Gordon Melton described in his book on religious libraries as one of the best religious libraries on the planet without qualification, and the Washington University library, counted one of the 10 best academic libraries in the country, among others in the area, including various seminaries and other schools. Basically, between them, I have access to, probably, more reference works about Judaism than possibly many or most of the editors more active in this project. Now, I acknowledge that, honestly, some books are not on the shelves when I look for them, like is true for anyone, but I haven't seen myself those articles in reference sources yet. This includes I think about a dozen reference works specifically about Judaism, although in all honesty I can't remember which I consulted at any individual trip to those libraries. There is to my eyes a question between "expertise" and knowledge of encyclopedic sources, and, by extension, "encyclopedic content". As per WP:PILLARS, we are, ultimately, an encyclopedia. That means the content should be encyclopedic. How would we determine what is and isn't? To paraphrase something History2007 said regarding Christianity articles somewhere, one good rule of thumb might be to say something with substantive content in two encyclopedias or other reference sources is encyclopedic, and what isn't might not be. So far, I haven't seen any such outside encyclopedic content on the weekly Torah readings, although I admit I haven't checked for sections in articles or necessarily all religious encyclopedias, as some might be off the helves when I look. That is, to my eyes, maybe the most objective and unopinionated way to go.
 * Honestly, I have to question the assumption in your own statement. I do not see myself as having any "expertise," Catholic or otherwise, and I don't think any individual's judgment of their own expertise should be taken into account here. I base my statements, in almost all cases, on the encyclopedic or other highly regarded sources I have access to, in the university libraries, on databanks, and elsewhere. Some books, like I said, aren't on the shelf sometimes, but that is another matter. My own opinion, about Catholicism and other things, is, basically, the encyclopedic sources are what we use, not the personal opinions of any editors. If someone could demonstrate to me that there are substantial encyclopedic content about these subjects in any encyclopedic source which might not go into trivial details, I would be more than willing to acknowledge my error. Some sources, like say a mythical 80 volume source on the Raelians, might include a lot of trivia, but I haven't seen any of that type regarding Judaism. But, honestly, with the sheer number of religion and philosophy reference sources out there, I don't see that there would be any reason to have to call for making individual judgments about almost any subjects, but simply basing our conclusions on what qualifies as encyclopedic on what is treated at reasonable length in one of the hundreds or thousands, I don't know, of reference sources about religion in some form. The only exceptions I could see would be regarding subjects which are recent developments which are perhaps too new to be included in the available reference sources and maybe articles on some individual books by academics, TV shows and other media relating to the subject that meet notability criteria for those topics, that sort of thing. John Carter (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and as a PS, the only field in which I would ever remotely consider myself as an individual pesonally even remotely "expert" is maybe the religion of the early Indo-Europeans, with some functional ability regarding how myths change over time and to a lesser extent early Celtic religion/mythology, more or less in accord with the Religiongeschichteschule primarily and to a lesser degree the writings of Mircea Eliade, as that broad field of archaeoanthropology was my major area in college. I rarely edit that material, because much of it is wildly speculative and thus of dubious encyclopedic value except perhaps articles on the individual authors of theories, and because it, honestly, ain't that important. Up until a few years ago, as I think can be demonstrated here somewhere, I myself had trouble differentiating the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches. John Carter (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion
There is a discussion on the Beitar Illit about the removal of part of a generic text which is sourced to general sources, not specific to Beitar Illit. Please weigh in. Debresser (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Genesis creation narrative
Discussion on name of Genesis creation narrative article at Talk:Genesis creation narrative. -- 203.171.196.112 (talk) 06:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

L'Arche (magazine)
Shalom. I just created this page: L'Arche (magazine). Greatly appreciated if you could expand it. Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Interwar Jews in Poland as caste
There's a discussion at Talk:caste about the view, first proposed by Lenin, but adopted by at least one contemporary sociologist that interwar Jews in Poland are well described as a caste. More knowledgeable editors should comment on that (and perhaps add balance from competing views if any). Tijfo098 (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

'Feast of Trumpets'
Is Christian observances of Jewish holidays really a Christian celebration of a Jewish holiday? Dougweller (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Land of Israel
The issue is pretty much whether the primary of meaning of "Land of Israel" is geographic Israel/Palestine or the biblical scene of the phrase (or for that matter if there's a significant difference the biblical scene of the phrase, and geographic Israel/Palestine). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Ishmael
I've removed some OR added to this article recently, but could someone take a look at the changes made by a new editor as I don't know enough to know if these are according to policy. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Apart from the one in line 84, where some relevant information was removed, they seem fine to me. Debresser (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I need some help with this term
I have been seeing a number of articles written in a manner that seems to be somewhat contentious in my view. Perhaps this project can assist me. I don't understand the use of the term "Jew" in the singular being referenced in articles. This seems to be a purposeful attempt at disrespect and an inappropriate use of what I see as, at the very least, a loaded phrase, and at most - an outright bigoted terminology. Please correct me if I am wrong but, isn't the proper term to describe this faith and the people of the religion - “Judaism,” “Jewish people,” or “Jews” rather than the single word “Jew”? My preliminary search for a quick answer came up with the following Google disclaimer that made me even more concerned:. As I have been volunteering on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and a number of disputes have begun but then closed for various reasons I have decided that it is best to seek help from the projects! Please feel free to answer here or on my talkpage! (While I can't help but think already I know the answer...I feel this needs to be addressed in a more formal way)--Amadscientist (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I am a Jew. I am Jewish. Same to me. The disclaimer from Google and its reason do not distract from that. Fail to see the issue. Just judge on a case to case basis whether there is an insulting connotation, and I am confident you won't find any problems in Wikipedia articles. Debresser (talk) 09:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The google page you've linked to is about a specific search term which returns a specific result which many google users found unsettling. Much like the words "black", "liberal", or "gay", the term is not inherently problematic, however all of those can clearly be used in an inappropriate context. Google still has a hard time discerning context which is why they had their issue. If you've seen places on Wikipedia where you think the word Jew is being used inappropriately, I would be curious to see them. Can you provide examples? --Bachrach44 (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

613 commandments
Please help rephrase the first sentence of this article. Talk:613_commandments. Debresser (talk) 09:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Belshazzar's Feast (Rembrandt) incorrect hebrew?
I've put a note on Talk:Belshazzar's Feast (Rembrandt) that the last letter of the Hebrew is wrong (since it comes from the middle of the letter's crown (like a Zayin) rather than the right side as a Final Nun. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to put that in the article?Naraht (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied there, that you are factually mistaken. Debresser (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Kashmiri's Israelite connections
What do Judaic editors make of the discussion at Articles for deletion/Kashmiri descent from lost tribes of Israel? Your expertise would be appreciated. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Possible religion related goals for 2013
This is probably more than a bit presumptuous on my part, but I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion asking what if any sort of goals we might be able to reasonably set for the next year, in wikipedia and other WF sites as well. I figured the wikipedia probably gets more attention, which is why I started the discussion there. But I would be very interested in seeing any input regarding what the editors here think might be the areas here most in need or meriting additional attention. Maybe, and at this point it is just a maybe, maybe we might be able to get some input on such topics if we have some idea what it is we really need to work on. Anyway, I would welcome any input anyone here might have. John Carter (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Abba Arika and Rav
WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIME suggest that the article on Abba Arika should really be at Rav.

The article currently at Rav is a bit of a mess, but could be either:
 * heavily pruned and moved to Rav (disambiguation)
 * or moved to Rav (title) or some similar page title

If people disagree with my interpretation of PRIME, then we still have COMMONNAME to deal with, which would necessitate moving Abba Arika to something disambiguated from Rav like Rav (Amora).

Any option taken would need appropriate hat notes.

I wondered what people here thought of the idea before I make any suggestions at the article talks. --Dweller (talk) 11:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I personally am in favor of merging "Rav" into "Rabbi". Abba Arika should definitely be renamed to something Rav (..), where ".." should be something like Jewish sage or Amora. Debresser (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The title Abba Arika should in my opinion be changed to Rav which will make searching clearer and easier to understand by end users (∼∼∼∼) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BookaBazza (talk • contribs) 10:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Marit ayin
This question on the Misc Ref Desk prompted me to create a new article on Marit ayin, as we didn't seem to have one. Contributions welcomed.

Incidentally, I had a quick look on Hebrew Wikipedia, awkward, as I can't type there, and couldn't find their article on it. If they have one, I'd appreciate it if someone added the interwiki link because for obvious reasons, the bots aren't always great at doing this for he:

Cheers --Dweller (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Interwiki link added, along with a couple of tweaks. But it's still a stub, and I can't tackle it myself.  StevenJ81 (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Yom tov sheni shel galuyot
We don't appear to have an article on this. Best I could find is the decidedly scrappy information at Rosh_Hashanah. What's the best article title to use? --Dweller (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I had recently noticed that myself as I was reworking Jewish holiday. I had been thinking that it belongs in the Jewish holiday article under "General Concepts" after the section about Melakha.  I'd call it just "Yom Tov Sheni," either there or in an own article, just because the rest gets too long.  StevenJ81 (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the previous editor, that this is best treated in the general article about holidays. But I think that if the header doesn't contain "shel galuyot", then it should sart with "Also called in full 'yom tov sheni shel galuyot' ". Debresser (talk) 00:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi guys, just stumbled onto this. Obviously this is a very important halakhic topic that deserves an independent article, as it already has in Hebrew and in French (the French article is surprisingly full). In general it's always good to check the Hebrew and work in tandem. In this case that should probably also be for the title: Normally use full formal designations in an encyclopedia (as the other languages have in this case), rather than popular short versions like "Yom Tov Sheni". Dovi (talk) 08:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it deserves its own article as it's such an important (and poorly understood) issue. A section in Jewish holiday would be good, too. --Dweller (talk) 10:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Under way at Yom tov sheni shel galuyot. Please also note I've made some comments about the title of Jewish holiday at Talk:Jewish holiday - I'd be really grateful for some input. --Dweller (talk) 10:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As I commented over on the talk page, I'm all for changing the name to Jewish holidays. But you caught me on American Thanksgiving, so I missed the original discussion.
 * Concerning Yom tov sheni shel galuyot: I take your point on the name. Still, I wonder if we shouldn't actually name it "just plain" Yomo tov sheni anyway, because then we could incorporate Rosh Hashanah into the article.  The concepts there are related but by no means identical.  (Yes, I know the French article carries the full name, yet discusses Rosh Hashanah.  And the Hebrew article mentions it and treats it as "exception to the general rule.")  Just my two cents; final decision up to you. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I created Yom tov sheni as a redirect to Yom tov sheni shel galuyot. I think we can use both the present name and the short one, and still discuss Rosh HaShanna in either case. Debresser (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The article on the French Wikipedia Yom tov sheni shel galouyot is very detailed. If someone here speaks French a translation of that article would be a very good starting point. --PiMaster3 talk 02:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Gezera?
I'm as close to certain as I can be that yom tov sheni is a gezera, but I can't see it listed at Takkanah. I can't think of another option other than either: Help anyone? --Dweller (talk) 10:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * a) I'm wrong
 * b) that list isn't supposed to be comprehensive
 * c) it is supposed to be comprehensive, but it's missing
 * d) it's there and I'm just not seeing it.
 * It is derabbanan, yes. Debresser (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The selection of notable Israeli Jews in the montage that appears on the top of the article Israeli Jews
Please participate in this discussion and share your opinion. Thanks. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 05:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Jews by country
I have noticed that for many countries there is an article "History of the Jews in..." but no "(nationality) Jews", which is a redirect to the first one (for example, Argentine Jews redirects to History of the Jews in Argentina, same goes for Brazil, Mexico, etc.). I understand that, ideally, there should be both, as in American Jews and History of the Jews in the United States. But when there is only 1 article, is it acceptable to have them under such structure, or should they be moved to "Argentine Jews", "Brazilian Jews", "Mexican Jews", etc? Cambalachero (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think "History of the Jews in..." is best. Most countries have a Jewish history that is far more notable than the current status of Jews there. ypnypn (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur. Debresser (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Portal
I added two sections: "In the News" and "Today in Jewish History". Both need a bit of work, so any help would be great. ypnypn (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

10 years on WP
To all my friends at WikiProject Judaism: This month, I am celebrating my 10th anniversary as a Wikipedian: User:IZAK/awards. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 10:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Mazel tov, IZAK, and many more happy years of happy editing, ad meah ve-esrim! JFW &#124; T@lk  15:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I subscribe to the previous editor's wishes. :) Debresser (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Portal Review
I submitted Portal:Judaism for a portal peer review. Take a look and contribute! ypnypn (talk) 01:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Regional categories
Does Category:Jews need to be in all the categories added to it in this edit? Debresser (talk) 22:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Definitely not. For example, hardly any of the Jews I know are "middle eastern". Furthermore, as Jews can be converts of any previous ethnicity, every single one of those additions is simply nonsense. People are often puzzled by the fact that Judaism is simultaneously a religion, ethnicity and a culture, with a complex Venn diagram of where those factors overlap or not. --Dweller (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree; most Jews have not lived in Asia for 1000+ years. I reverted the additional categories. ypnypn (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Mercy seat
I've never heard of the expression "mercy seat" in British English/British Jewish(!). Is there another commonly used translation of "Kapporeth"? My English/Hebrew chumash translates the term in Shmot 25:19 as "cover". It was just basically an ornate lid, wasn't it? It seems to be a Christian term and the whole article seems to be rather slanted toward a Christian view to my eyes. NB Kaporet redirects to Ark of the Covenant (not to Mercy seat) and Kapporet is a redlink currently. --Dweller (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've never heard of "mercy seat" either, so I guess it's a Christian concept. There's no need to delete it or anything... ypnypn (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of substantially editing, not deleting. There are some WP:PRIME issues to consider with the page name and redirects. --Dweller (talk) 00:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're referring to by quoting WP:PRIME. By the way, reading the article again, it seems best to rename "Ark cover" which would be more neutral.
 * See this! --Dweller (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I still don't get what you're saying. -- ypnypn (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I would personally go with renaming as "Ark Cover." But I don't know for sure.  Would most Christians looking for the reference look for "Mercy Seat"?  Does it matter which is really the article name, as long as the other redirects to it?
 * I would also recommend editing the redirect at Kaporet and adding one at Kapporet, both to go to that place. (And note:  If someone typing in "Kaporet" really wants to go to the Ark of the Covenant, that term and link still appears in the first sentence here.)
 * Dweller, I'm also not quite sure what you're referring to by quoting WP:PRIME.  StevenJ81 (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Can some one review my new article?
Hi!

I've written a new article on R. Moses Isaac Tedeschi. Can some one review it please?

Thank you, Inkbug (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

New article
This new article may interest some followers of this wikiproject -- Stars of David: Prominent Jews Talk About Being Jewish.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Blood libel
An ip made some fairly substantial edits without any sort of references. I don't know much about the subject matter, but it might be good to take a look at. NativeForeigner Talk 20:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I took a look at the changes, some stuff was moved around and probably improved, but looking at the comments that the person put in their own edits, the person at the very least means well. For example, there are somethings that the editor marked as . While there might be room for discussions about the changes, they appear to be the work of a good editor. In fact, I'm going to the talk page for that IP and invite him to register.Naraht (talk) 03:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested article
Hello from WP:BELG! I am trying hard to improve the coverage of Belgium-related history articles and a search reveals that there is no article on The Holocaust in Belgium, a significant gap in the coverage of Belgian history. Since the topic calls for a knowledge of the history of the Holocaust rather than the history of Belgium per se, I wondered whether anyone here would be interested in writing it. If so, I'd be very grateful! --Brigade Piron (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenburg
Please review may article, Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenburg in general, and specifically as relates to User:MadmanBot's copyright concern. Thanks. Fintor (talk) 08:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Cyrus the Great
Extract from Lead: What is sometimes referred to as the Edict of Restoration (actually two edicts) described in the Bible as being made by Cyrus the Great left a lasting legacy on the Jewish religion where because of his policies in Babylonia, he is referred to by the people of the Jewish faith, as "the anointed of the Lord" or a "Messiah".[15][16] It strikes me that anyone unfamiliar with the Hebrew word "Messiah" as simply meaning "anointed" would be significantly misled by the tautology at the end of that extract into thinking that "people of the Jewish faith" regard Cyrus as a divine saviour-type figure. --Dweller (talk) 11:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. --  YPN YPN  14:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So simply remove the words "or a 'Messiah'". Shouldn't that be discussed simply on the talkpage of that article? Why take it here? Debresser (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I was looking for consensus here, among those that understand the issue, before I take it there, where not everyone would. --Dweller (talk) 06:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I made the edit. I think this is a simple enough matter. The lack of reactions seems to point to that conclusion as well. Debresser (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Jehovah or Yahweh
Ran across - does it matter? I'm never quite sure what to think when I see changes like this. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact, both were wrong here. Since the word is "Yah". The best way out, simply to avoid controversy over "Jahweh" or "Yehova" is to use the English "God". Which I did. For what it's worth, "Yehova" is likely to be an artificial mistaken reconstruction. Debresser (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, meant to thank you for this. Dougweller (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

List of Jewish monarchs
New article that could use attention - does it duplicate anything? Dougweller (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Need to review edits
I would suggest that this group of editors take a look at this User's addition - almost ever edit is questionable. .Moxy (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment
Please comment on Talk:Land_of_Israel. Debresser (talk) 11:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Naming tractates
I'm hoping to develop a consensus as to how to name Talmudic tractates. It seems that for unambiguous names (such as Bava Kamma), the name alone is used. But when there can be confusion (such as Shabbat), sometimes it's Ta'anit (tractate), and other times it's Megillah (Talmud), or Orlah (Mishnayoth). There should be just one form for all the tractates - what should it be? --  YPN YPN   ✡  02:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, theoretically there should be one article on the tractate, one on the tractate in the Mishnah, one in the Bavli, and one in the Yerushalmi – so maybe we should have Shabbat (tractate), Shabbat (Mishnah), Shabbat (Bavli), and Shabbat (Yerushalmi)?
 * In theory that would be best, but in practice these articles wouldn't be long enough to survive. --  YPN YPN   ✡  04:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Bavli
BTW, I just noticed that Bavli is an article about a neighborhood – what should one do about this? Inkbug (talk) 06:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We could make a disambiguation page. The question is whether "Bavli" should redirect to the disambiguation page, the article about the neighborhood, or the article about the Talmud. Debresser (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that it should redirect to Talmud and have a hat note there. Inkbug (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Kol Akavod
I wanted to give a small, but public, kol akavod to a certain editor who has made important contributions to Jewish holidays and other articles in a serious and quiet way. This project benefits immensely from such editors. Debresser (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of alternative names for Metatron


The article List of alternative names for Metatron has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * List contains abundant unsourced information, links to deleted articles, "misspellings," and generally unencyclopedic content. It may reflect original research. Its notability is debatable. Efforts at improvement have not turned up reliable sources.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ℜob C. alias &Agrave;LAROB  04:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

RFC on Meta
Hello everybody, this is to inform you that a [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Harassement,_intimidation_and_WP%27s_rules_infringements_and_abuse_by_French_WP%27s_administrator_JPS68_and_others. RFC on Meta] concerning serious abuses, violations and defamations by some WP's French admins against French WP's contributors involved in editing articles about the Israeli-palestinian conflict facing continuous harassement including unfair treatment of Anti-Semitic issues and accused to be Zionist/Israeli propagandists. Thank you for your comments. Yoav, 81.218.206.83 (talk) 10:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello
I am a new editor, and I generally focus on articles pertaining to the Israel/Palestine conflict. One of my main goals is to ensure that the articles in question remain balanced and neutral, and to prevent extremely partisan viewpoints (eg. Zionism is colonialism, Israel is South Africa/Nazi Germany, Jews are Khazars, etc) from upsetting this balance. I have had a great deal of problems along the way. If any of you are mentors, I would appreciate your help. Thank you.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose an obvious reason for your troubles is that those articles are a minefield. And one has to have a great deal of tact to find your way between the opinions and the editors who adhere to them. Good luck! Debresser (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Yetzer tov vs Divine soul
Is Divine soul the article about yetzer tov, or is the concept of a not limited to kabbalah. If the concept is limited to kabbalah then yetzer tov should probably redirect there, but if it's a general Jewish concept then it should probably be a redlink. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My inclination (excuse the pun) would be to say that the Divine soul article is talking about a particular way of looking at the Yetzer Tov. Therefore, I think it should redirect to Divine soul, until it gets its own article. --  YPN YPN   ✡  02:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I found a target, Jewish principles of faith. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Moshe Friedman & Holocaust Denial
Notorious Moshe Friedman - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Friedman Sources I detailed made many changes and without valid sources or even accurate information they continue to perpetuate Holocaust denial. Please interested editors pls assist. I provided sources and very clearly detailed everything. They just continue changing sans facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tellyuer1 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality issue on Jewish diaspora article
See this...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jewish_diaspora

Evildoer187 (talk) 13:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

God or god of Israel
FYI: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters In ictu oculi (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for Answer
Hello! Please tell me why jews (I'm Christian) will celebrate passover at 27th of March while first fullmoon after vernal equinox will occur at March 25th. Many thanks en advance

With regards and friendship Georges Theodosiou January 11, 2013 email: chretienorthodox@hotmail.fr


 * Actually, you have it backwards: Passover begins at sundown on March 25, while the full moon occurs on March 27 at 9:30 UTC.


 * I could give you a long, complicated answer, but let me try to give you a very quick answer instead. The text of the Torah does not state that Passover begins on the full moon; it states that it begins on the 15th day of the first month (the month of Nisan) on the Jewish calendar.  Jewish months are basically lunar, begin approximately on the new moon, and last approximately 29.5 days.  So 15 Nisan will certainly be approximately the day of the full moon.  If you look up in the sky the night of March 25, the moon will surely appear full.  But there are three reasons that "approximately" is not always "exactly"; I will state them here, but I encourage you to look at Hebrew calendar for details.
 * Even if the first of Nisan is the day of the new moon, the full moon coming 14.75 days later could occur on 15 Nisan or 16 Nisan. Nevertheless Passover is 15 Nisan.
 * The only month directly tied to its new moon (conjunction) is Tishrei, the autumn month of Rosh Hashanah. Other months are then based on the mean length of the lunar (synodic) month, 29.5 days, resulting in a regular pattern of alternating 30 and 29 day months. This could make new moon of Nisan be off its conjunction time by another day.
 * The calendar rules allow for postponement of the beginning of Tishrei by up to two days after the new moon (conjunction) in order to prevent certain holidays from falling on certain days of the week. This moves all following months off the conjunction day as well.
 * The reasons for the last two of these are too complicated for a short explanation, but I hope you found this helpful. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. That is basically correct, although in the modern Hebrew Calendar it is not Tishrei which is delayed. The only two months which can change are Cheshvan and Kislev, each of which can be either 29 or 30 days. All other months are fixed, and it is these two months which adjust the dates (together with Adar Sheni, but that is a different matter). I hope that helped, Inkbug (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia
Is anyone here involved with the Simple English Wikipedia on a regular basis? I happened to wander there for some reason today. I replaced the Jewish and Israeli holidays template (which was an old version from here) with the most current version. I looked at the holiday articles there, and they're generally stubs. However:
 * The Shabbat article there was 90% about either (a) Shabbat's effect on the Christian Sabbath, or (b) its observance by Jewish Christianity. Somebody really needs to add a Jewish perspective to that article.

Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That article isn't really about Shabbat; it's about religious Sabbaths in general. What needs to be done is rename the article Sabbath, and create a new article about Shabbat as it pertains to Judaism. --  YPN YPN   ✡  18:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)