Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 27

Archive 20←Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30

Elazar Shach

There seems to be an edit war going on, on the article on Rav Shach, between User:Jayjg and User:Winchester2313. Please see Talk:Elazar Shach if you can help.Nerguy (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Again... Debresser (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Jewish views of poverty, wealth and charity

I have just created an article in mainspace titled Jewish views of wealth and poverty. Suggestions for improvement are welcomed at the Talk Page. Or just be bold and edit the article directly. Thanx. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't you realise that "Jewish viwes" is the same as "Views". "Over the course of Jewish history, different attitudes have been held towards poverty and wealth." Of course there has. There is not a cabal of Jewish ringleaders who decide what all Jews are to think or how to behave. I am sure the "Jewish views" throughout the ages on this matter range from one extreme to the other. This is not the palce to document opinions of various Jews on such an impossibly ill-defined subject. Besides, for a page about "Jewish" views, there seems to be an awful lot of Chrisitianity. Using Christian values to contrast and be used as a yardstick to measure the morals to those of another religion is a terribly bad move. And why the massive section on moneylending. Does this page document how Jews became wealty or poor aswell? Maybe rename to Views on how rich Jews made money off the poor Christians using biblically prohibited usury. Yup, that's much more accurate. Chesdovi (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
It's no different from what Noleander did. It is cherry-picked from minor sources and ignores some very important ones. It might have helped if you'd sought opinions before moving this to article space, because I was sorely tempted to send it back to AFD. JFW | T@lk 22:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
So what do folks think the best grounds for deletion are? Re-creation of Noleander's content? Coatrack of every bad thing anyone has ever said about Jews and money? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

OK... so Jayjg sent the article back to the drawing board (by moving it back to my userspace) for some rework. I've reworked it somewhat but the reason that I'm moving it back to article mainspace is that I've taken it about as far as I can on my own and I would like to solicit the help of other editors in improving it. I removed the content contributed by Noleander, expanded the article to discuss Jewish views towards charity and welfare thus motivating a change in title to Jewish views of poverty, wealth and charity.

I would really like to ask people to read the article and look at the references before vomiting all over it. I think the rewritten article does say something substantial and, taken together with Christian views on poverty and wealth, actually provides some insights. (Well, they were insights to me, anyway.) The key thing that I took away from researching and writing these two articles is that, perhaps one reason that Christians thought Jews were greedy is that there is a strong strain of Christianity that holds up poverty as an ideal and wealth as evil whereas such notions are kind of alien to Judaism. Judaism seems to be much less conflicted about wealth as long as it does not oppress the poor or lead to arrogance. Judaism calls upon wealthy people to care for the poor but does not castigate them just for being wealthy. Another insight that I gained from reading Lifshitz was that coerced charity in the form of communal welfare is a concept that is rooted in the Talmudic times whereas it is a relatively recent invention in Western societies (late 19th century). Thus, communal charity is a very strong part of Jewish society (for example, American Jews are the largest donors to charity in the U.S.). The issue also leads to a continuing heated debate about the extent of the welfare state in Israel.

@Jfdwolff: It's true that the sources used are "minor". They are arguably even more "minor" than Noleander's were. This is an unfortunate consequence of my using Google Books as my primary research tool. Can you improve the article by using better sources? I would appreciate the help.

@Chesdovi: Please re-read the article. The original article was never as POV as your comment suggested. The rewritten article is even less so.

  1. The idea put forth by Kravitz and Olitzky is that Jewish attitudes towards wealth changed as the Hebrews transitioned from being nomadic herders to being farmers and then to being urban dwellers. One might argue that all civilizations made these transitions but not all civilizations had written Scriptures that dictated specific rules of social conduct such as protection of the poor and provision for the needy. Kravitz and Olitzky assert that the rabbis were compelled to modify the mitzvoth in the Torah to accomodate the needs of urban society.
  2. A key idea from Lifshitz is that an urban society can no longer rely on the voluntary efforts of individuals to provide for the poor. An organized communal approach that includes coerced donations is required.1
  3. Of course, there is no "Jewish cabal" but there is the collected wisdom of the rabbis as ccmpiled in the Mishnah and the Gemara. For a while, I contemplated using the phrase "Judaic views of..." instead of "Jewish views of..." in an attempt to signal that the article intended to discuss specifically what Judaism's views were as opposed to the views of arbitrarily selected individuals who happened to be Jews. However, the convention in use seems to be to have articles that begin with "Jewish views on..." so I decided to follow the convention.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 03:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Talmud rabbis of the Land of Israel

Guys, please can we have some input over at the cfd on Category:Talmud rabbis of the Land of Israel. Sefira tonight is 16. Gut Chodesh. Chesdovi (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Holocaust categories for deletion

Please note the following:

Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The Arizal was a Palestinian

I have reverted some edits of User:Chesdovi recently, which resulted in this WP:ANI case.

One of the edits is this sick edit, which shocked me by its antisemitic POV. Please see a few more examples of things that need to be fixed.

In addition, I think it is about time this WikiProject take note of the subject for which the WP:ANI case was opened, since I feel a little like a lone voice in the wilderness in my arguments with Chesdovi, who - as I just now found out - has a history of quite a few blocks in connection with WP:ARBPIA. Debresser (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Calling the Arizal Hakodosh Palestinain in neither anti-semitic nor achronistic. You are confusing modern day politics with centuries old classification of Jewish sages in the Holy Land. Don't let the I-P conflcit blind or confuse you. The Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine is out of sink with all other similar categories, and spans to larger period. A category for all Palestinian rabbis throughout the centuries if sorely needed. There is no shortage of RS which refer to such rabbis as Palestinian and we should not be any dfferent. We simply cannot have a category called the Land of Israel Gaonate or Gaonate in the Land of Israel instead of its proper usage in RS, namely as the Palestinian Gaonate. Chesdovi (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I don't have strong feelings one way or the other but I think the right thing to do is to bring more editors into the discussion rather than edit war between yourselves. It's clear that each of you has strong opinions on the subject, but please, let's try to discuss this calmly, okay? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Just to be clearer: I was speaking of the dispute at AN/I concerning categorizing rabbis. With regard to the specific edit cited above, I reverted it because it was redundant: it resulted in a sentence that read "Palestinian rabbi ... in Ottoman Palestine." — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the statement that the rabbi was a Palestinian is problematic. Due to the current meaning of the term, we should be very careful before applying it. This doesn't seem like a case where it's necessary. —Ynhockey (Talk) 19:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The current meaning of the term being what exactly? Chesdovi (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Ynhockey's argument is one of several that have been explained to Chesdovi on his talkpage for the last week. He is playing dumb again now. Debresser (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Please ignore Debresser and kindly answer for yourself. Thanks. (Debresser, whatever the "current meaning" of the term is, it should not impede on us using "Palestinian" as a classification for Jews who historically lived there, as the term is used by contemporary sources to do just that. Indeed, Having asked SD no less than 3 times what the definition of Palestinian is so I could understand the "controversy" here, she bascilly shyed away saying "Thats not up for me or you to decide." It all depends on the sources! (All she did say is that "Palestinian" is not what I think it is!) All you answered is something about being not being born there and that we can't use it because "there is too much confusion with the term Palestine being an ethnicity and not a geographical location." (I'm sure I responded that that is not an issue which should preclude our usage here.) But you never, and I repeat, never spelt it out what exactly the confusion is about such a rabbi being regarded as of Palestinian ethnicity; It may just be that many of these rabbis are in fact of Palestinian ethnicity? Believe it or not, there have always been Palestinian Jews. If on the other hand you meant all along what Ynhockey has called "confusion with regards to current usage", well you should have said so. You never did, even after I signalled that may be the case at 09:50, 28 April 2011. My answer to that is, notwithstanding the fact that the media and political arena may refer soley to the Arab Palestinians of today as "Palestinians" that does not preclude us using the term for the historic group of Palestinians. We cannot limit wikipedias view of Palestinian to being people of only the WB and Gaza, the modern nationalitiy of today, when Palestine was regarded as the whole region for hundreds and hundreds of years beforehand. You see, the term may have a number of meanings, and they are all current. The difference between them is really not enough for us not to use the term in reference to Jews who lived in historic Palestine. I reiterate: This classification is used in RS. I will agree however, that the categories in our case be placed under Rabbis by Geography, and not nationality b/c of this issue. Chesdovi (talk)
See the article Palestinian people. —Ynhockey (Talk) 16:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
See Palestinian. Chesdovi (talk) 02:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: An Rfc has been opened on Category_talk:16th-century_Palestinian_rabbis closely related to this issue. Debresser (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Białystok

Hi all, I am reviewing the city of Białystok for GA status and it needs sourcing - this has been removed and I wondered if anyone thought it sourceable and notable? Old-country heritage and all that? If anyone does and can source it, great. If folks think not notable then no big deal. My knowledge of the subject matter is minimal. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore - more content at Białystok and History of Białystok wopuld be very helpful, if anyone has any. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Images for deletion

Please see:

---Chesdovi (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

---Chesdovi (talk) 11:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed something to look into. I left a commentary on the latter picture's discussion. Debresser (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Problematic maps?

The maps on Template:Palestinian nationalism, although countered by Template:Jewish nationalism and the region of Palestine, seem problematic, as it is lifted from images used on website such as [1]. Chesdovi (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

New article - Port Jew

I have created a new article titled Port Jew. Apparently, this was a hot topic in Judaic social studies a few years back. I've only provided a very high-level summary of what the concept of a Port Jew is. If you can help expand the article, it would be much appreciated. Also, if you can suggest articles that should link to it, that would be great, too. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Ed Miliband

Discussion has arisen at Talk:Ed Miliband#Ethnicity in infobox regarding whether or not Ed Miliband is a Jew; knowledgeable views would be appreciated. Jayjg (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Rabbis categories for renaming

Please note the following:

Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Warning message: After the above are closed, I intend to nominate Category:Talmud rabbis for rename to Category:Amoraim. Chesdovi (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Quit the "warnings" Chesdovi, that's a terrible way to "discuss" things and rather try starting discussions to achieve real WP:CONSENSUS to long-standing category names instead. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh. Someone's actually interested. Great! Let the discussion begin: Chesdovi (talk) 01:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Chesdovi: No point in being funny. You should know by now that if well-know Judaic editors are busy and not checking in with this project page, it is perfectly ok and in fact necessary to notify them on their talk pages and ask them to come over here. I would suggest you contact some key well-known Judaic editors such as Users Jayjg (talk · contribs), Jfdwolff (talk · contribs), Lisa (talk · contribs), Dfass (talk · contribs), Avraham (talk · contribs), Yehoishophot Oliver (talk · contribs) and invite them over, especially if you see, and obviously know by now, that your proposed changes are stirring controversy. That is the way WP:CONSENSUS is built and how WP:WAR is avoided. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 03:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
First you berate me for having the audacity to nominate without discussing here first. Then you tell me leaving a message here is not good enough and expect me to go round chasing people. Is that really how things work round here? Just to let you know, as far as I'm concerned my nominations are not controversial. If you feel slighted that your darling categories are being tampered with, you go get other people invovled to stick up for you. Chesdovi (talk) 03:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Even if you thought when creating them that they were not controversial, but by now you must have noticed that they are controversial. Debresser (talk) 06:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the statements mentioned above regarding notifying specific editors, this strikes me as strange. Now people are supposed to figure out which editors are notable and notify them? It is good to know that editors are open to requests on their talk pages, but if they cannot be bothered to check the project page every few days, that is their problem. The idea of an "elect" group of editors (and I note at least one prolific editor not listed) is against everything Wikipedia stands for.Mzk1 (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree completely. The Cfd guidelines recommend to inform a category's creator or heavy contributor. That is a more usable guideline. Debresser (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel by century

Please see centralized discussion at Category talk:16th-century Palestinian rabbis#Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel by century regarding the proposed new parent Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel by century (itself a sub-category of the main Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel) that would have twenty main sub-categories covering the 2000 years of the exile from the times of the destruction of the Second Temple circa 70 CE until the establishment of modern Israel in 1947/8:

  1. Category:First century rabbis of the Land of Israel
  2. Category:Second century rabbis of the Land of Israel
  3. Category:Third century rabbis of the Land of Israel
  4. Category:Fourth century rabbis of the Land of Israel
  5. Category:Fifth century rabbis of the Land of Israel
  6. Category:Sixth century rabbis of the Land of Israel
  7. Category:Seventh century rabbis of the Land of Israel
  8. Category:Eighth century rabbis of the Land of Israel
  9. Category:Ninth century rabbis of the Land of Israel
  10. Category:Tenth century rabbis of the Land of Israel
  11. Category:Eleventh century rabbis of the Land of Israel
  12. Category:Twelfth century rabbis of the Land of Israel
  13. Category:Thirteenth century rabbis of the Land of Israel
  14. Category:Fourteenth century rabbis of the Land of Israel
  15. Category:Fifteenth century rabbis of the Land of Israel
  16. Category:Sixteenth century rabbis of the Land of Israel
  17. Category:Seventeenth century rabbis of the Land of Israel
  18. Category:Eighteenth century rabbis of the Land of Israel
  19. Category:Nineteenth century rabbis of the Land of Israel
  20. Category:Twentieth century rabbis of the Land of Israel (until 1948 when they then become Category:Israeli rabbis since Israel becomes an official country, but they could also be included in the above if need be). Thanks, IZAK (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Jews in Calabria

Hello, I' m a Calabrian: there is a fault in the article, because Calabria was a Greek-speaking region for centuries, so our Jews didn't speak Italkian or, at least, not in the province of Reggio di Calabria, the stronghold of Hellenism in Italy. Many Jewish surnames in our province have a Greek origin like "Cuzzocrea" (cut flesh), referring to Jewish religious rules about food :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1204grandine (talk • contribs) 09:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

New article - History of the Jews in the Ottoman Empire

There was a bunch of material in History of the Jews that was too detailed (e.g. details of individual antisemitic events in the Ottoman era) that I wanted to move out of that article. I found History of the Jews in Turkey but that still seemed like it was too broad an article for these details so I created History of the Jews in the Ottoman Empire using text copied from both History of the Jews and History of the Jews in Turkey. It's a medium-length article at the moment but I think there is more material that can be added. For example, we could add material on Dhimmitude and the Marrano bankers who came from Iberia, fleeing the Inquisition. Your feedback on ways to improve the article would be appreciated. Or just be bold and edit the article directly. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The old Jewish Encyclopedia (notwithstanding the grounds for caution discussed in the section below) has quite a detailed article on the history of the Jews in the area: [2], which may be useful for checking your new article is properly comprehensive. Jheald (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem during the Second Temple Period

An editor has been attempting to move all material about ancient Jerusalem to articles that don't mention the Second Temple. If you're interested, please comment at Talk:Jerusalem during the Second Temple Period#WP:BOLD attempt to institute suggestion above. Jayjg (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Stereotypes of Jews

I found Stereotypes of Jews and I have to say it was (and still is) a sorry excuse for an article. I have tried to improve it somewhat but there's still a lot of work to be done. Just Google "Jews stereotypes" and you'll see that there is just a wealth of material on stereotypes of Jews in different countries and oodles of reliable sources that formalize what the various stereotypes are (a lot of the article text was unsourced) and discussions of where the stereotypes came from as well as statistical data on how prevalent the various stereotypes are in specific countries. I am starting getting this stuff incorporated into the article but it is a humongous amount of work so I would sure appreciate help from other interested editors.

BTW, there is also a huge amount of material on Stereotypes of Jews in literature so I created that article as a subsidiary article to Stereotypes of Jews. Once again, I started to flesh out this article but it's a huge topic and I sure could use help from other editors. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 08:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hang the filter as high as possible: Refer just to the most well known scientific sources giving the best insight into the general backgrounds, plus just up to three of the main precise examples how stereotypes about jews came into being. And for the rest be cruel and reject. It must become the opposite of an erratic collection that reproduces lots of phobic quack-quack-quack packed anew.--fluss (talk) 09:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps the article should be merged into Antisemitic canard. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
No, I respectfully disagree. If you look at the current article, you will see that there are things that are not suitable for that article. Jewish mother stereotype and Jewish American Princess are two examples. Also, there is discussion in the literature of positive stereotypes of Jews as well as discussion of so-called "self-hatred" as expressed by Jewish American authors. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a proposal to merge Stereotypes of Jews with Stereotypes of Jews in literature. If you have an opinion on this suggestion, please express it here. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 09:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Should Ishmaelites be merged with Arabs?

Since the term "Ishmaelites" is a Biblically-based name on Ishmael is it correct to merge it with Arab people? See discussion at Talk:Arab people#Merger proposal from Ishmaelites. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

List of synagogues in Egypt

Many of those listed are one liners. I suggest they be redirected to List of synagogues in Egypt? Chesdovi (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Can we have some input here at (Talk:David Miliband#Internal link)?

An internal link to Jewish is objected to. (Please click on the previous link to see that this is the Jews article.) I did not initiate the referred-to internal link—another editor did. But I don't object to it. In fact I support it.

It is explained to me at User talk:Bus stop#internals that:

"The thing is as you know linking to Jew is undue when we have no idea what the external means and who is a jew at all. The content is king - it mentions Jew so be happy without directing to internals so vague ."

But I find:

"But the upbringing of both Marion and Ralph could not have been more different from the stable, loving home they gave their children. Both of them Jewish, they separately fled the Nazis, avoiding almost certain death in the concentration camps that claimed the lives of millions of Jews."

I find the wording "Both of them Jewish…" to be perfectly clear. Therefore I fail to see the basis for an objection to an internal link to the term and the article Jewish. (Again—this is the Jews article.) Bus stop (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

See WP:OVERLINK. Or do you really think that Wikipedia readers need to read the article to understand what 'Jewish' means? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump—WP:OVERLINK would not be applicable here. The link is simply there for the convenience of the reader. Bus stop (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
(Reply to your post before you edited - how about thinking first, and then posting?) "An article is said to be overlinked if it links to words that can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia. Overlinking should be avoided, because it makes it difficult for the reader to identify and follow links that are likely to be of value. Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article". Clear enough, if a little ungrammatical. The topic of the article is David Miliband. I'm sure that 'most readers' have at least some grasp of what 'Jewish' means, and as far as I can see, that David Miliband is Jewish no more 'relevant to the topic of the article' than the fact that he is an 'elder son', a 'politician', and many other details. Note also that the fact that he has Polish Jewish paternal grandparents is Wikilinked. And no, we don't link everything that a reader might 'conceivably' be interested in. If you have come here to look for support for your ethnotagging exercises, I suggest you come up with better arguments than that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be clicked on. It is there for convenience' sake. Bus stop (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
No. It isn't there, per WP:OVERLINK. Or are you proposing a change to policy? If so, this isn't the place to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I have created a draft article at User:Pseudo-Richard/Antisemitic canards related to money, banking and finance. The premise here is that there is a related subset of antisemitic canards that are related to money, banking and finance and that should be discussed together. This new article provides a way to do so. The text of the new article was created by copying the relevant text out of Antisemitic canard and expanding various sections. Please take a look at it and provide your feedback on the Talk Page. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I have taken another whack at the same topic but from a slightly different perspective. Please look at the draft article at User:Pseudo-Richard/Economic antisemitism. Please provide your feedback at User talk:Pseudo-Richard/Economic antisemitism. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 08:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

3 NJ synagogues at AfD

Please see:

  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Beth Sholom (Cherry Hill, New Jersey)
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Emanuel (Cherry Hill, New Jersey)
  3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregation M'Kor Shalom

Thank you, IZAK (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Can we put a banner for articles almost entirely based on the Jewish Encyclopedia

This came up as I am studying Orchot Tzaddikim. The article, entirely taken from the rather suspect (but unfortunately on-line) Jewish Encyclopedia, has a list of quotes from the book, which appear to be cherry-picked to fit in with the worldview of the JE, i.e. the German hochschule that invented what in the U.S. in is called Judaic Studies, and is perhaps (please correct me on this) one of the main antecedents of Conservative Judaism. (I do not mean that as refecting negatively on Conservative Judaism, only that it is a particular POV.)

The point is, it is anything but NPOV. I would hate to lose the article, because it has a link to the Hebrew Wikimeida version, which is a wonderful resource with beautifully set text and photocopies of manuscripts.

So would it be possible to include a banner that would say something like, "This article is largely based on the 190? Jewish Encyclopedia, and reflects the particular viewpoint of that publication. It should be understood in that context. Please help improve this article by adding sourced material from other viewpoints."

By the way, a nice book recently came out in Hebrew describing (mostly as an anthology) the various pre-war rabbinical seminaries (as oppsoed to yeshivot). Did you know that the Hochshule actually ordained women, although by the end (perhaps by then) the "ordination" was more academic that rabbinic.Mzk1 (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

We have a template, {{JewishEncyclopedia}}, that's supposed to be used at the bottom of articles that are based on Jewish Encyclopedia articles. It produces the generic statement "This article incorporates text from the 1901–1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, a publication now in the public domain."
As a policy, Wikipedia doesn't disclaim sources. Editors are responsible for finding other sources that balance the POV of the Jewish Encyclopedia. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Could you please mention which specific policy you are referring to? Articles consisting entirely of one controversial source (as JE is) outght to at least be tagged.Mzk1 (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
WP:V. If a source doesn't pass muster as a reliable source, it shouldn't be used. We shouldn't use a source and add a note saying "This source is unreliable." — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
It isn't unreliable. It is POV. It is not uncommon to collect opposing POV sources to create balance. So, it needs to be balanced or tagged.Mzk1 (talk) 11:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
By the way, articles that use the {{JewishEncyclopedia}} template are added to the hidden category Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, so in theory they should be easy to identify. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Articles that use a single source (anyone), and may be innacurate or biased, are tagged with {{One source}}. This tool would allow later to find the intersections of "Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia" and "Category:Articles needing additional references" Cambalachero (talk) 03:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Just a reminder that Jewish Encyclopedia articles can also be tracked through the WP:JE project, an index of all the articles in the JE which attempts to link to their nearest equivalents on WP. WP articles that are substantially or almost entirely based on the JE should be marked with a bold JE in the list; WP articles that are less closely based, but reference the JE should be marked REF:JE; and those not based on the JE text but which give the JE as an external link should be marked EL:JE.
We can use the JE text as it is now out of copyright; and for the most part, most of the JE material is solid, factual and uncontroversial. But you would certainly be doing WP a service if you were to look through and tag any articles where you think there's any problem, either through reflecting the POV of only a single source, or because there is valuable material from more recent scholarship that should be added. Jheald (talk) 10:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your support, although I would surely disagree with that statement regarding it being "solid, factual and uncontroversial", particularly the latter. There have been some heated debates on this issue before. At any rate, the article mentioned is clearly very POV. It doesn't even mention the most basic things about the book, such as its structure of listing character traits and their opposites, and giving (generally) the good and the bad of each. The quotes are clearly cherry-picked, if you read the book. The closest I could come was the partisan sources tag, which I placed on that article only. I could use a better one, but the JE, in my opinion is not a first-rate source. It is, in fact, a weakness of wikipedia, that there is a natural tendency to go to internet sources, which are often inferior.Mzk1 (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


This is my take on the JE, as I expressed it on the Orchot Zaddikim talk page:


As far as the JE, it is as fine a source as most. It certainly does reflect the thinking of its times and of its editors, and it is important to be aware of this as you certainly seem to be, but that is true of any encyclopedia. Would you ban encyclopedias as sources in general? Dovi (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


While I understand the criticism, I think the "partisan sources" tag is absolutely inappropriate in this context. Nor do I think any special tag regarding bias is required. The problem isn't bias but lack of sources: Any article based on a single source is inherently inadequate, and this is no more or less true of the JE than of anything else. So I think two kinds of tags would be appropriate in this case: One type asking for expansion and sources, the other kind documenting that the original version of the article was taken from the JE (which we already have tagged anyway). Dovi (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for someone to rewrite the Judaism section of an article

One may determine, via careful inspection, that within the WP (Wikipedia) article Matrilineality, its section Judaism is just the Introduction of this section's "Main article" Matrilineality in Judaism, somewhat pruned. I assume that this was once appropriate in WP, but my question is now: What is the optimum approach to help both the WP readers and the Jewish community?

Who am I? (you ask). I have done much of the laboring on the Matrilineality article recently, while others have also contributed, I'm very happy to say. I've felt qualified and able to rewrite the sections on the various cultures (Lenape, newly-added Minangkabau, India, Akan, China or Mosuo, and Tuareg – by using the matrilineal content of that culture's WP article, or if needed, finding new matrilineal content from other sources as well. But the Judaism case is specialized much beyond my knowledge and capability.

Why rewrite this current Judaism section? (you ask). In my opinion, it is too complicated for most WP readers to easily read and understand. For example, it should not mention or name so many Jewish denominations; and the shortest paragraph, beginning with "The Mishnah", is too specialized or arcane for most readers of a general article such as Matrilineality (but just fine for the readers of Matrilineality in Judaism).

What should this section now accomplish? In my opinion, it should give the average reader the main part of the matrilineal information now given, but more easily understood and perhaps reduced to say half as long as now, certainly no longer that it is now. If there are not enough source references, one can conclude with something like "For further information and for more sources and documentation, see the above-mentioned main article." For someone to guide on: The section Who is a Jew? within the article Judaism is a good model, certainly well-written and very readable, not too specialized or arcane for most WP readers – and it does similarly list its own Main article.

Why can't I just write it myself? I cannot understand the information now given, well enough to even tell what its main part is, nor well enough to then present it to the average reader. Please put your eventual reply, if any, on my talk page, where I am now duplicating this entry. I'm very glad there is a Judaism section in the Matrilineality article, for the sake of completeness and curiosity and humankind. Thankfully, For7thGen (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

British Synagogue at AfD

Please see the following, relating to the proposed deletion of an article relating to a synagogue in Manchester, UK:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation (2nd nomination)

Thank you. Davshul (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Afghana built the first temple?

Evidently, according to a new article Afghana. First time I've heard of this. Some dubious sourcing here. Dougweller (talk) 11:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of permanent ban of user:Gilabrand

There is a request to amend Gilabrand's permanent ban here. As editors on this project know, Gilabrand was a frequent contributor to the project. Editors are invited to comment. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be a form of canvassing and not what the project page is for at all. If you want to drum up support for a banned friend please do so via email or on the talk pages of editors. I'm tempted to hat or even delete your post. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
This is a request for members of the project to comment on an administrator's decision regarding one of the editors of the project. It is not canvassing, and if you are opposed to the requested amendment, I urge you to make your opinion known in the discussion. It is certainly a discussion that is of interest to many members of the project.
Furthermore, Gilabrand is not, as you suggest, a friend, and, as you probably know from following the discussions in this topic area, she and I were usually on opposite sides of the POV divide.
Removal of this request from the talk page would be totally inappropriate and a form of censorship that would be intolerable. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Griswaldo—Gilabrand has participated in Judaism-related editing on Wikipedia. This is exactly the place to request wider input on the topic under discussion. You can object to the wording of "valued contributor" as perhaps tending to influence any potential participants but I do not think the general objection is warranted. Bus stop (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Griswaldo's suggestion that one should "drum up support for a banned friend" (or in most instances for anything) "via email or on the talk pages of editors" is, I would have thought totally in contravention to Wikipedia guidelines. As regards Gilabrand, I too, had often found myself opposing her edits and POV. However, I recognise the enormous contribution she has made over the years to Wikipedia on Judaism-related and Israel-related articles, and believe that the permanent ban should be lifted. Davshul (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Why was she banned? If she was using IP duirng a topic ban period, is that ever forgivable?Chesdovi (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I urge you all to make these comments on the amendment request page. --Ravpapa(talk) 16:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Griswaldo and Ravpapa. Imo, there is no problem putting a neutral notification to watchers of this Project Page that there is a relevant discussion going on elsewhere in Wikipedia. An attempt to solicit support for a particular position (i.e. for or against lifting of the ban) is inappropriate here. Please have that discussion on the requested amendment page. We should not fork the discussion away from the requested amendment page and have a separate discussion here. That either duplicates effort or deprives the readers of the requested amendment page of the value of the comments made here.--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no clue about the "topic area" in question, and I cannot productively add to the unbanning discussion. My reaction has to do with how this notification was worded and the fact that it was placed here. Your original post, which I responded to, said that Gilabrand was a "frequent and valued contributor" to the project. That is not a neutrally worded notification, and indeed if true it is not a neutral place to notify either, as it suggests that those who participate in this project would support the user, since he was "valued" as a contributor. And, IMO, there is nothing wrong with like-minded people who disagree with a ban to notify each other directly if an unban discussion is going on. Where on earth does that run afowl of policy of fundamental principles? Soliciting the support of people who might not have made up their mind with biased solicitations is what is against our principles. See WP:CANVASS. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your opposition. I have removed the words "and valued", for, as you correctly point out, that suggests a position and could be construed as canvassing. As for your opinion that "there is nothing wrong with like-minded people who disagree with a ban to notify each other directly": You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but you should be aware that it is the exact opposite of the position stated in WP:CANVASS.
The most important thing is for those who have expressed their opinions here repeat them at the appropriate discussion page. Otherwise, their opinions will be consigned to oblivion. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Point taken, but if you apply common sense you'll quickly realize that friends tell friends when other friends are being discussed and no one gets in trouble for canvassing. On the other hand when you say, notify a whole wiki-project with a majority of members who might be sympathetic to a particular person who is being discussed but are not necessarily obviously their Wikifriends you might get questioned about canvassing. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
There are also many other Wikiprojects associated with the content areas in which this particular editor seems to have been editing, but you chose only to post at Wikiprojects Judaism and Israel. As is obvious from looking into this matter for even a split second the editor appears to have been quite partisan on matters regarding Jews and Israel, particularly in the I-P area. So why only notify Wikiprojects on one side of the area only?Griswaldo (talk) 21:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Im not involved in this Wikiproject, so take this for what its worth, but I have to object to your characterization of Ravpapa's actions. This was initially brought up at the I/P collaboration talk page, not here and WT:ISRAEL (though I dont think WP:JEW qualifies as a "side". What would be the "other side", WP:ISLAM? WP:CHRISTIANITY?). Perhaps he should have also notified WT:PALESTINE. But your view that it would be better to have quietly canvassed via email is so wrong that it needs to be corrected. This is exactly what Ravpapa should have done. Instead of silently campaigning and attempting to influence a discussion through off-wiki channels, he openly, and on-wiki, notified people who may be interested. The only fault you can find with Ravpapa's notice is that the audience was limited. I agree with that one aspect of your complaint, Ravpapa should have notified the Palestine Wikiproject as well. But since probably all of us have WT:ISRAEL in our watchlists, that doesnt really matter. The back channel avenues that people use to "drum up support for a banned friend" is what canvassing is about. Not the public notices of a discussion. Read WP:CANVASS, it specifically says to notify wikiprojects instead of individual editors, precisely so that these accusations are not made (see the first bullet point under Appropriate notification). People on "both sides" have pages such as WT:ISRAEL and WT:PALESTINE watchlisted, so "both sides" will see these comments. nableezy - 21:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand my point. I don't think these Wikiproject pages benefit from any such postings at all. I have no idea what Ravpapa's intentions were or where Ravpapa's own POV lies in any of these issues, nor do I really care. Wikiprojects are for content discussions not notices about editor behavior, which is what an unban discussion is. Ravpapa's original post was also appealing to the fact that the editor in question should be seen in a positive light by members of this project. IMO the way to handle these types of things is simply not to post to Wikiprojects. You can disagree with my personal opinion about other types of posts, or other types of communications, but you see those points, HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH POSTING OR NOT POSTING HERE. That latter part is the only thing relevant to the discussion of how to use or not to use a Wikiproject page properly. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
If the behavior that provoked the ban is related to editing articles under the purview of this project, the notification is definitely appropriate. (because project members may or may not be of the opinion that the behavior rose to the level of being bannable). If the behavior was on an unrelated topic (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses), then the appropriateness of the canvassing is perhaps in a gray area. One might imagine that people who found X's edits to topic A valuable might propose modifying a full-spectrum ban to being a topic ban on topic B (say, for instance, Jehovah's Witnesses). I object more to the non-neutral wording of the original notice (now fixed) than to the notice itself. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Well I've gotten a bit carried away I suppose. Apologies. I do understand the point about open and nuetral posts being more kosher per WP:CANVASS, than non-neutral and private communications. Those points have been well taken I assure you. The language of the original notice was what made me respond to it in the first place. I don't like it when people use Wikiprojects in a way that seems to presupposes that certain groups are associated with certain Wikiprojects, or that the Wikiproject groups are perhaps biased in one way or another when it comes to certain issues based on group affiliation. I understand that this was not Ravpapa's intention. Fine. Sorry for the fuss. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

How to categorize fiction that depicts Jews and Jewish issues?

I've been sorting through various fiction categories, and I can't figure out how best to categorize works that are about Jewish characters and issues. I don't think Category:Race-related books is appropriate for Judaism, and I don't see anything equivalent to Category:Native Americans in popular culture, and I'm not sure Category:Jewish American culture is the best location. The closest I can find is Category:Images of Jews and Judaism in the United States. Is this the best category? Is there a better existing category? Or does a new category need to be created? Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

We have Category:Jews and Judaism in fiction and subcategories. The problem was that the category did not had a root is main jew categories, I will fix it Cambalachero (talk) 01:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! That's exactly the kind of category I was looking for!! Should it be linked in any way to Category:Jewish literature or related categories? I could see a case being made that Category:Jewish theatre and Category:Jewish American novels should be connected, since they also fall into the fiction category. Aristophanes68 (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Have a care. One thing is the fiction written by jews, and another completely different is a fictional character with a jewish background; neither one implies the other. A jewish author may write about just any topic he wants, without needing to involve judaism, and a jewish character may be created by any author, jewish or not, who thinks that would increase multiculturalism, add to the character background or motivations, or if he simply wants to.
Consider, for example, Stan Lee. He is a jewish author, who created many fictional characters, but there are no jewish elements in Spider-Man, the Fantastic Four, the X-Men, Hulk, Iron Man, the Avengers, etc; at least not while he wrote them. Even more, I suspect that an orthodox jew would be greatly troubled if reading about Thor or Dr. Strange... Cambalachero (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I understand that--just as plenty of non-Jewish authors have written interesting Jewish characters. But is the only other option to go through all the entries in the Jewish literature section and manually add relevant entries into the "Jews and Judaism in fiction" category? We could do that, but I was wondering if there's a quicker way to connect the relevant entries. Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Edits to Blood libel

A new editor is editing the Blood libel article from the point of view that there is an "important distinction between ritual murders using the blood of Christians (true blood libel), which he finds insufficient proof to fully endorse, and individual cases involving the murders of Christians, including Christian children, committed by Jews 'out of hatred of Christ'". Other eyes would be welcome. Jayjg (talk) 01:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Rabbis is Palestine

File:Carrigal was a palestinian.tif
Raphael Chayyim Isaac Carregal, as described by Cecil Roth z"l ---- Chesdovi (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I intend to create Category:16th-century rabbis in Palestine. Chesdovi (talk) 10:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Will you also accordingly rename Palestinian synagogues→Synagogues in Palestine or Synagogues in historic Israel?—Biosketch (talk) 10:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
This category is especially for Debresser, who after initially insisting there was never a place called Palestine, now agrees that there was, after my drawn out efforts to enlighten him of the fact. I need to populate the category. When Category:Palestinian rabbis gets the go ahead, as most certainly it will, I will rename it to that. Chesdovi (talk) 10:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Can you clarify please? Did you mean when Category:Rabbis in Palestine gets the go-ahead? Also, if I may make an observation without this deteriorating into what other discussion on the subject have, for 16th-century rabbis, the designation "Palestine" makes sense since that's what the land is referred to with respect to that time period. However, Palestinian synagogues is partly about synagogues that precede the designation "Palestine." Would it not therefore make more sense to rename that article Synagogues in historic Israel?
While we're at it, I'm thoroughly impressed with the wealth of sources you have access to and have referenced in the discussions. Some of them, like Ilan Pappe, were regrettable choices that undermined the validity of your argument; but those were minor exceptions and overall reading through your comments has been enlightening.—Biosketch (talk) 10:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I probably would have no problem with such a category. A minor question is whether it should be Category:16th-century rabbis in Palestine or Category:Rabbis in 16th-century Palestine? Debresser (talk) 11:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian rabbi

Chesdovi has posted the following message to a great number of talkpages:

I intend to add he was a Palestinian rabbi to the lead, as the category has been removed by Debresser.

To which I have replied:

See Category talk:16th-century Palestinian rabbis that such an edit is rejected by many editors. If Chesdovi will make such an edit, he will therefore be reverted forthwith. In addition, he is WP:FORUMSHOPPING here, so please leave your comments at the discussion I linked to.

I ask my colleagues here to revisit that discussion, because saying "rabbi in Palestine" is more or less neutral, while the wording "Palestinian rabbi" has been severely opposed in that discussion. Debresser (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Such an edit is also supported by "many editors." Why does rejection trump acceptance. Debresser can answer this queation. Chesdovi (talk) 11:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Further evidence submitted by myself shows that the term Palestine is used in Judaic sources. Tomorrow I will be adding more and hope that this will finally settle the matter once and for all. To call my medieval rabbis Palestinian is correct and accaptable by all mainstream reliable sources. Chesdovi (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Having submitted more evidence of the usage of "Palestine/Palestinian" in Jewish texts, something denied vehemently by IZAK and Debresser, I will now proceed to add the relevant categories to the relevant pages. Thanks for taking note. Chesdovi (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, I recently joined this project (it's one of two I'm part of) and I'm so excited to help out in anyway. I'm extremely glad that this project exists and please contact me if you ned anything done or advice for what I should be doing. Thanks. Magister Scienta (talk) 03:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a particular area of expertise? JFW | T@lk 00:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I particularly enjoy articles on Jewish History (I know it has its own WikiProject) and things of Talmudic nature, but again, I'll do everything that's thrown my way, including working on templates! Magister Scienta (talk) 01:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Welcome. Great to have more people. <shill> If you are into Jewish History, a section that could use work: the various Jewish music and Jewish music history articles. </shill> Best of luck and thank you for joining the conversation. Joe407 (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the warm welcome, I'd love to help out on that section. Magister Scienta (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

New Template

So everybody knows, I recently created a new template (shown below) based on the template on Jews and Judaism, feedback would be great.

Part of a series of articles on
Editions of the Babylonian Talmud
Talmud
Editions:
Needs to be narrowed and exclude the pages it links to. Chesdovi (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean when you say "exclude the pages it links to?" Magister Scienta (talk) 04:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

For the past 18 months, many editors have tried to reference or delete every unreferenced biography of living persons. There are two projects working on the WP:URBLPR, which aims to remove them month-by-month based on when they were tagged as unreferenced, and WP:URBLP which has set up topic based lists. Your project's list is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Unreferenced BLPs. It only has 5 people on it, including one currently at WP:Afd. As it is difficult for those not involved in Judaism to understand the notability of people and recognising that not every reliable source is available online via a google search, your help in finishing off this task and referencing the remaining articles would be greatly appreciated. There is no need to edit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Unreferenced BLPs list - a Bot automatically updates it each day, so it is also useful for detecting new unreferenced BLPs. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Debresser (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments on new template

WikiProject Judaism

An invitation to join us!
If you are already a member of WikiProject Judaism, disregard this message.

Hello WikiProject Judaism/Archive 27, you're invited to participate in WikiProject Judaism, a WikiProject dedicated to developing and improving articles about all aspects of Judaism and Jewish Life. You can check out the Judaism WikiProject page for more information about the project and what our goals are. You can join by adding your name here. We hope to see you join us! – Invited on {{subst:#time:j F Y}} by Username.


I recently developed a new template that is an invitation for people to join WikiProject Judaism, hundreds of other WikiProjects have a template that does this (see the list here). The template, with very important documentation, can be found here. Feedback would be great, thanks! Magister Scienta (talk) 01:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a good template, but a couple comments:
  1. You should remove the excess spacing
  2. Try to use a different logo from WP Israel. I suggest making the Magen David dark and removing the sphere.
Other that that, I'm glad that WikiProject Judaism is alive and kicking. However, you should really go over the member list and set aside inactive people. A project that has over 400 active members would probably be much more productive. I estimate that there are probably no more than 50 active member in WP Judaism, including those who also participate in WP Israel.
Good luck with the project! I will be keeping an eye out. —Ynhockey (Talk) 08:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Copied from User talk:Ynhockey
When giving me feedback on the WikiProject Judaism Invite template, you told me to "go over the member list and set aside inactive people." I'm a little confused what you meant by that, also, can I delete users on the list who are not properly linked (their usernames appear in red)? Magister Scienta talk 17:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Overall, if you are not experienced in this kind of thing, I suggest hanging around a while longer and just editing articles before taking on a task like this.
However, if you really want to work on the project itself (which is commendable and appreciated, because no one maintains this project), the task of cleaning up the user list is fairly straight-forward.
You need to go to each user's contributions (by clicking on their username and then on the left-hand side: User contributions), and seeing if they have been editing recently. If they haven't (say, for half a year), move them to a list of inactive members. If they have been editing, look at their edits and see if they have been editing WP:JUDAISM articles. If not, you can also move them to the inactive list.
Also, you should not remove users who did not create a user page. Many of them are active.
I hope that helped.
—Ynhockey (Talk) 10:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I understand, thanks for the speedy response. Magister Scienta talk 16:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a Apparent 4-year hoax

Any thoughts on Nachum Meir Sheikewitch ?

Article was created just under 4 years ago by a now-banned user. Google comes back with 400 hits, including a $50 book [3] available from all good online retailers -- all of which appear to stem solely from this two-line stub.

It looks like a hoax to me -- unless anyone can provide any indication this person actually existed?

(There's nothing that I can find in the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, which the article asserts itself to be sourced from). Jheald (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It's emes. [4]. Chesdovi (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Oops. Thanks; I don't know how I missed that. Jheald (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
With a surname sounding like that, anyone would be thrown off. Chesdovi (talk) 17:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm a disambiguator, and was in the process of cleaning up the disambiguation page Kollel (disambiguation). In investigating the two links that are on that page, I am not sure if they are actually necessary as links, and thus, am not sure if the disambiguation page is needed. However, I wanted to check with people here who are certainly more familiar with the subject matter. My logic is this: entries on a disambiguation page should be links to articles whose names (or whose portion of a topic have a name) could be confused with the phrase being disambiguated. As much as I tried, however, I was not able to find articles appropriate to link to for the two entries on the page.

  • The first entry: "In Yishuv haYashan it was the umbrella organization that cared for all the needs of its members, and was subdivided by country origin" is redundant with the information at the primary topic Kollel, and thus is not needed on the disambiguation page, unless there were a separate article about that topic. Since the information is currently in the primary topic article, however, there is no need to have it on the disambiguation page.
  • The second entry: "In modern sense it is a Yeshiva-like Beth midrash for Torah and religious studies. The name was definitely derived from the former, since such an institute was the most prominent part of the Yishuv haYashan Kollel." I was not as sure about. I was unable to find a specific article that discusses the term "Kollel" in this sense (Beth midrash seems to only discuss it in terms of the use of it at the primary topic Kollel again. It also seemed more like general information that should just be included, if it is accurate, at the original article, Kollel.

Am I missing something about why these entries are all right, or will it be just fine if I delete the disambiguation page, since neither entry seems to need to be disambiguated? I am leaning towards that, but did want to check with those more knowledgeable on the topic than I. Thanks for your thoughts, -- Natalya 00:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The second is the same as the primary article, yes. Debresser (talk) 00:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Great, thanks. That seems to remove the need for the disambiguation page, so I will just redirect it to Kollel. Thank you for the help. -- Natalya 16:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
If you put a hatnote to the other one, yes. Debresser (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The other one as in the first link? I thought that that information was redundant with what was at Kollel#Original_sense - but if I have misunderstood and there is a separate article to which a hatnote should exist, please do let me know. -- Natalya 16:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
You understood correctly, and I understood wrong. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad that it is all clarified. Thanks again. -- Natalya 17:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The holy Ari a Palestinian

Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis still hasn't been deleted, in disregard of the many protests and an Rfc on its talkpage. Now it is at Categories for discussion. Debresser (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Chesdovi (talk) 13:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem was never the lack of sources. That he was born in an area that was at some times called Palestine by some, is not the question. We could say he was a male, Jewish, Palestinian kabbalist. The question is what should be said, not what can be said. You disregard the real issues of the discussion, and continue to litter your sources on this page. Not to mention that you violate your topic ban. Debresser (talk) 14:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Lack of sources "never a problem" according to who? Not according to Supreme Deliciousness. Your problem is about "confusion." These sources put that problem to bed. I've got WP:RS and WP:COMMONNAME on my side. What do you have? Chesdovi (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The Cfd is still waiting for your comments. It seems as though editors here have been worn out. Please comment. Debresser (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Dates for Solomon

I just reverted a relatively new editor at Solomon who changed the dates of his life. His initial post at the talk page led me to believe that he was engaged in original research. Now, I'm not so sure. My guess (without sources) is that various sources have calculated his dates in various ways and others doubt that he's anything but a mythological character. More informed editors would be useful at the article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC) could you please tell me the correct date or near dates that soloman ruled. to my believe the son of david had a defect of tribes or tribe that took refuge else where? --|Davidmu16

Anyone know much about the politics of the North London eruv?

In a series of edits today an anon has added some material to Chanoch Ehrentreu about the controversy around the creation of the North London eruv. There are issues of WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:POV but is someone able to provide a fix that does not consist of simply undoing most of the addition?--Peter cohen (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I know far more about WP:BLP than I'll ever know about the politics of that eruv. The material has been removed, wholesale. --Dweller (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Economic antisemitism

I would appreciate it if interested editors would take a look at the Economic antisemitism article. If this looks familiar, it is because I started by taking the text of Noleander's Jews and money article (which was deleted via AFD) and hacking at it, throwing out a lot of irrelevant and even dubious material but keeping stuff that was relevant to the topic. (see the edit summaries to get a sense for what I mean). The more I work with Noleander's Jews and money text, the more I stumble over problematic passages.

The thing is... the Antisemitism article doesn't really take on the issues head-on and give them adequate treatment.

IMO, there was a lot of good information in Noleander's original Jews and money article but it was unfortunately mixed in with a lot of really dubious stuff. The decision to delete Jews and money was based on the conclusion that it was better to just start all over. I didn't agree completely at the time but, after working with the text for several weeks, I can see that there is validity in that view.

I think the first lesson I learned is that there is something encyclopedic to say about "Jews and money" and/or "Jews and banking" but it's really hard to do right and so I've put that effort on the backburner.

Instead, I've been peeling off little chunks of useful stuff, reading it several times and adding my own writing. Results of this effort have been the creation of History of investment banking in the United States, Jewish views of poverty, wealth and charity, Stereotypes of Jews in literature and Port Jew. In addition, I have expanded Stereotypes of Jews and Dearborn Independent.

I have also added/expanded the "Forms" section of this article to list various forms of antisemitism, including "Economic antisemitism". The new article Economic antisemitism is the {{main}} article for the "Economic antisemitism" section of Antisemitism. I have already received some comments at Talk:Economic antisemitism. Any additional help you can give me would be much appreciated.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The article on Old City (Jerusalem) is not part of WP:JUDAISM

Why is this exactly? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 09:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Often because someone hasn't placed a wikiproject tag on the article talk page. I am sure you could find quite a few other articles with a similar issue - e.g. Białystok could be another possible one. The tags are just guides anyway really.. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
That makes sense. It seemed like a huge oversight imo, you know? :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I put the banner on it. Per official guidelines it is this wikiproject's discretion whether or not to have the banner on, so if anyone questions it or reverts my addition of it please let me know in case I miss it. Only consensus on this talk page among the wikiproject members can decide whether or not to have the wikiproject banner on and it does not matter what the editors of the page itself wish. (Just in case some there find it offensive to have the Judaism banner). I say this only because it seems every single minor edit there ends up being a drama filled fight.Camelbinky (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

GA for Tefillin

Another Good Article for WikiProject Judaism!
Tefillin has been awarded GA status after the last attempt in November 2007! Thanks are due to Pyrotec to for reviewing. Great work everyone!
Chesdovi (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

New article: Palestinian Patriarchate

Another interesting article for WikiProject Judaism!
The Palestinian Patriarchate was the governing legalistic body of Palestinian Jewry after the destruction of the Second Temple until about 425CE....
Read more at WikiProject Judaism's newest addition: Palestinian Patriarchate. Keep up the good work everyone!
Chesdovi (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Zamir Cohen

This chap's biog is now one of our oldest BLPs not to have any references.

I couldn't work out if he was notable or not (and there's no link to any he: article, which makes me more suspicious), so was hoping you guys could help one way or the other - ie either prod, list at AfD or add a reference or two to get it out of the unreferenced BLPs pot.

Thanks --Dweller (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hard to find a biography on Google (google:Zamir Cohen). Most of the links for his name point to videoed lectures and books. JFW | T@lk 16:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
He published a few books, which many people find interesting, as I have been able to witness a few times. I'd ask for patience before considering steps like Afd. Debresser (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Of course, patience is a virtue and we usually live by WP:NODEADLINE, but the unreferenced BLP project is motoring along and one of the other volunteers will get to it soon enough. --Dweller (talk) 09:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Just shows how crappy sitting on one's proverbial in front of google can be. As an example, most Featured Articles I work on require me to get material not accessible on the web. Many smaller more esoteric articles fall into this category too. Just saying....Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The he: link that was added after I began this was the key. My Hebrew was good enough to be able to cite he exists, but I didn't really have the time/patience for much more... but at least (with one reference) the biog is now out of the way of the BLP juggernaut. --Dweller (talk) 11:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Can someone check this IP out for me?

Hi,

This character has gone around changing a couple of numbers. It looks suspicious to me and I've provisionally reverted but I think this is something a project member with knowledge of the material ought to look at.

Cheers,

Egg Centric 09:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC at Yeshu

We could really use some thoughtful and well-informed comments here. Thanks. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

what counts as a current significant view about Yeshu?

The question is whether Yeshu refers to Jesus (either the Jesus who lived two thousand years ago and was crucified, or the figure in books held sacred by Christians). Most Christian scholars, and most Conservative Talmud scholars, believe that the word at least refers to the Christian concept of Jesus (if not the historical figure). But I am not sure whether Orthodox Jews share this view. I know that rabbis in disputations with Christian authorities (e.g. Nahmanides) argued that Yeshu and related characters *ben Pandera") do not refer to Jesus. I believe that Orthodox Jews today, or at least many orthodox Jews today, continue to hold this view.

But for me, this is the key point: Orthodox Jews can accept as authoritative interpretations of the Talmud from the Middle Ages. The fact that a commentary or some other text was written in the Middle Ages does not necessarily mean that it does not represent the views of people today. I think this is an important issue for Jewish editors at Wikipedia.

At the Yeshu article, I raised this issue on the talk page and I have been challenged by another editor [here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yeshu&diff=439878294&oldid=439878026] who insists that I provide modern sources to support the view, that Rabbinic including medieval sources cannot be used to represent the views of Orthodox Jews today. This line of reasoning is being used to justify designating what I think are "significant" views as "fringe" or obsolete views.

Note: this same editor is using Ben Yehuda's dictionary as an authority on Hebrew in Rabbinic texts (from the Mishna to the Toledoth Yeshu) [5] (I believe that Ben Yehuda was just creating a new Hebrew word to correspond to "Jesus" and other modern European languages names for the person identified, in Latin, as "Jesu") - and not making an argument about how to interpret the Talmud.

I hope you will consider addressing this, and perhaps you know of other editors who have the expertise that they can address this in an intelligent and well-informed way. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I have always understood that Yeshu'a Hanotzri (mentioned e.g. in the Rambam, Laws of kings, ch. 11) is Jesus of Nazareth. See also Yeshu#Yehoshua_Ha-Notzri. As to Yeshu, I don't know. Debresser (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I too understand Yeshua HaNotzri to refer to Jesus; certainly Rambam is referring to the Christian deity. But this is not what I am asking about. I am asking about Yeshu, and only Yeshu. I am referring to the Toledoth Yeshu and also to some passages in the Talmud Bavli: Chullin 2:22-24, Avodah Zarah 16b-17a; Sanhedrin 43a; Sanhedrin 103a, Berakhot 17b; Sanhedrin 107b; Gittin 56b, 57a. At the Disputation of Tortosa in 1413-1414 important rabbis argued with leaders of the Church over whether or not these passages refer to Jesus. In 1264 Nachmanides participated in the Disputation of Barcelona during which his opponent claimed that the Talmud spoke of the Messaiah and Nachmanides argued that these were misrepresentations and misinterpretations of the Talmud. The question is whether Jews believe that these specific texts in the Bavli refer to Jesus. I have argued that Nachmanides and other Rishonim and other rabbis demonstrated that these passages of the Bavli are not about Jesus Christ. Another editor has said that this only means the Medieval Jews did not believe that these passages refer to Jesus Christ. I think that many Jews today accept the writings of Nachmanides and other rabbis from the 14th-15th centuries as authoritative. The question is whether we can cite Rishonim as reliable sources for what Jews believe. What Jews believe, stam. What Jews believed then, and now. Another editor says that these cannot be used as reliable sources for what Jews believe (today). Have I made myself clear, now, Debresser? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
It was clear from the beginning. Isn't there an opinion that Jewish medieval sages only said that Yeshu isn't Jesus so as not to get into trouble with the Roman-Catholic Church, but that in effect even they knew that it was about him? Debresser (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
What is your source? I came here to look for people who know more than I do, not less. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
First, may I say I agree strongly regarding sources from the Middle Ages. In the Halachic articles, it's normal to use such sources, as their acceptance by later authorities is close to guaranteed, while later sources are just individual opionions, not peer-reviewed as much as the earlier ones are. Regarding not using religious sources, the RS FAQ specifically allows traditional views.
I do not think it is difficult to find opinions in both directions, because the Sefer Toldot Yeshu has too much in common with the Christian story, and the long story in Sanhedrin is clearly a different period of history. Pappus (Joseph) ben Yehuda is definitely not the same time period as the other story, and may even be too late for the Christian story. (Traditional scholars such as the Tosafot did tend to discuss issues of time periods.)

I know you are aware of all this, so I will just mention that J.D. Eisentein, at the end of Otzar HaVikuchim, states that it is unclear to whom the Talmud is referring - although he does not believe the Christian Jesus to have existed at all, as per the scholarship of circa 1900.Mzk1 (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Also wanted to mention that even Christians in Israel use Yeshu (plain OR, just for background; best to check a popular Israeli dictionary). J.D. Eisenstein (1928) also uses it. BTW, I don't know who put it in the article, but isn't "holds" a Yiddishism?Mzk1 (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Aish tamid

Every once in a while I find an article that elicits a "WTF is that?" response. Today's WTF award goes to Aish tamid. Joe407 (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest a merge to Korban tamid, only that's a surprising redlink. And I noticed the Korban article is pretty poor as well. --Dweller (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows

I am going to resume my work on the membership list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magister Scienta (talk • contribs) 01:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Should we be worried? :) Debresser (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I have a certificate from the chief rabbi. I'm not worried. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
What does your work entail? Chesdovi (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
All I'll be doing is following the advice of Ynhockey and removing people who have been inactive on the project for a considerable time. Do I have the thumbs up? Magister Scienta talk 01:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think this is a bad idea. It means kicking out all the lurkers. Lurkers do no harm, and are often good people to have around, because suddenly they chirp up when their help is most needed. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

But lurkers don't need to be on the membership list to watch talk pages etc, do they? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC) (a lurker)

Hey Magister Scientia, if you like housekeeping, one thing that is all wonky is Wikipedia:Judaism Collaboration of the Week - I was about to trumpet how folks here should reactivate it like the one at Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTM which has this little nifty subpage at Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTM/History to show what/how/when editors improved what, and also Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTW nominations to show what some folks thought'd be a good idea to nominate but not enough others did. I mainly work on biology articles but am intrigued at having just reactivated Wikipedia:China-related topics notice board/ZHCOTM after a seven year hiatus (!) and am planning on working on Shanghai. If someone can make some sense of Wikipedia:Judaism Collaboration of the Week and make a history subpage, and maybe folks here might reactivate it. There are some editors here who have a few Good and Featured Articles under their belts. The US one has lurched along, but at least George Washington has achieved GA, which I think is a pretty good result. I can give some help along the way, hey Dweller, Jayjg, JFW (chuckle) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Well that was a conversation killer, wasn't it? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I responded on Casliber's talk page. Magister Scientatalk (31 July 2011)


Yimakh Shemo

is up for deletion here. The article was created by conservative Catholic POV-pusher editor [[In icto oculi] as a POV-fork from Yeshu. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

World peace

Could someone take a look at the Judaism section at World peace? There's an obtrusive Template:Unreferenced-section there and prose issues that require attention.—Biosketch (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a mess. Worse, an unsourced mess. Debresser (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
A reference was added so I deleted the template, to be technical a refimprove or onesource template should be added though, Magister Scientatalk (4 August 2011)


Wikimania

The international Wikipeida conference is in Haifa, this week. Would it be out of place to mention that since I live there, I will be attending on Friday (the local week-end), and if anyone wants to say hello to put a note on my user-page?

I'm not violation the not-my-blog rule, am I?Mzk1 (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Kabbalah

Hi, I was checking out the sister projects page and I realized that WikiProject Kabbalah is not there, I know the Project is largely inactive but it is has 240+ articles and is still somewhat maintained, I think it should be added to the sister projects page, comments? Magister Scientatalk (2 August 2011)

See Talk:Isaac_Luria#Split_needed that the article about the Arizal is actually most about Lurianic Kabbalah, and that it is too detailed. I have proposed a split and a re-write. I'd like to invest some time into that. Perhaps one of these days. Debresser (talk) 11:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

edit window for Hebrew transliteration?

I recently added Latin transliteration options for Arabic in the edit window. Would something like that be useful for Hebrew? Let me know on my talk page if yes. — kwami (talk) 03:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Rosh Hashanah

Per the rules at WP:OTD, Rosh Hashanah is going to be excluded from Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/September 28 this year because it has serious maintenance issues. There are 8 weeks to go before this date, so please be sure to have those resolved by then. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 18:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Like what? Debresser (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
User talk:Howcheng#Rosh HaShanah -- Avi (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I have simply thrown out these two sections. From their style it seems they have been added by the same editor. They contained information that was already available in better form in other paragraphs of the article. Debresser (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, the blocked User:Gilabrand. See e.g. this edit. Debresser (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Cool, that was easy. :) howcheng {chat} 04:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I am sure we will welcome his constructive contributions. Debresser (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Can we translate from Hebrew Wikipedia without checking the references?

There are many extremely good Jewish-topic articles in the Hebrew Wikipedia. I asked a long time ago in one of the general pages (do not remember which at this point) whether a Hebrew article could be translated without rechecking sources, and was told that it could not, because the RS rules might be different.

I suspect the people here might have a better idea of the congruency of the two Wikipedias. Anyone? Are they congruent enough for direct transfer?Mzk1 (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You might not want to spend a lot of time directly verifying the sources, but I'm sure that while the translation is being done, the suitability of each source could be judged. JFW | T@lk 22:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I saw no WP:RS in Hebrew. Wonder why that is. :) In any case, I tend to agree with Jfdwolff, that it should be easy to asses a source even without opening it, most of the time. E.g., if you see the Jerusalem Post as a source, you'll know that it is a respected newspaper, and accept the source, and need spend no time on verification of the source's reliability. Debresser (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
O.K., we will assume that the JP is a respected newspaper for the moment. :-) But you are saying that I would not have to actually check each source to see that it is what it porports to be (that the source actually says that), within English guidelines of interpreation of sources (i.e., don't!), as I would if I were copying from one English WP article to another? (Having seen plenty of distortions of the JE, there is good reason for the latter.)Mzk1 (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I want to be clear that I am only speaking of new articles. I would not be really happy with copying from there into existing articles without checking. (I just looked at the beginning of "Chareidi". Not even an attempt to include the Chareidi POV.) This would be more like starting an article from a JE article.Mzk1 (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Another tendentious step from Chesdovi

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian rabbis. Perhaps it is time to open a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct against Chesdovi (talk · contribs)? Debresser (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

New article: Palestinian rabbis

Another interesting article for WikiProject Judaism!
Palestinian rabbis documents the history of the illustrious rabbis of the Land of Israel from antiquity up to the modern period. An enthralling and recommended read.
Keep up the good work everyone!
Chesdovi (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Alternate to using crosses to reflect death for Jewish list

Perhaps someone can help out here ... I can't easily find the alternative to using a cross for this purpose, but recall that one exists. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

done --Ravpapa (talk) 04:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

New article: Abiathar ben Elijah ha-Cohen

Palestinian Gaon 1083 - 1109!
Abiathar ben Elijah ha-Cohen is the latest addition to our historical series on the Palestinian Gaonate. Keep up the good work everyone!
Chesdovi (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Israel ben Moses Najara

Debresser removed “Palestine” from Israel ben Moses Najara claiming that “Gaza was then under Ottoman rule”: [6]. Damascus was also under Ottoman rule in 1555, but Debresser has not removed Syria? Why? Further, Debresser removed Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis: [7] but left Category:Syrian rabbis. Can someone please explain what is going on with this experience editor. Thanks! Chesdovi (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Please explain why you were not as zealous in regard to the Syrian appearing in the category? Would the typical user not have been utterly confused that there could be such thing as a Syrian rabbi. I mean how can a rabbi be an ethnic Syrian, or live in "Jew-free" Syria? Chesdovi (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I am quite offended at your demand I explain myself. I simply wasn't aware the Ottoman Empire was that large. I know more about Israeli history than I do about Syrian history. Seems logical to me. I hope you weren't thinking of any less flattery explanations? Debresser (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I was hoping you would be willing to explain your position to me, instead of reporting me each time I use the “P” word. Alas, you are offended I ask. Back to the POD: If you simply did not know the geographical extent of the Ottoman Empire, I truly wonder whether your views on this historically centred debate are of any worth here. How can we trust your knowledge of Palestinian rabbis when you do not possess even the most basic understanding about the era in which we are discussing, viz. the Ottoman period in the Middle East? You claim to know so much about rabbis of Palestine during the Ottoman period, but not 50 miles away in Damascus. It is truly unbelievable. But that does not matter, as you did not explain why it would not be confusing to categorise Najara as a Syrian rabbi. Was he a Syrian Arab? According to you he was just Jewish. Chesdovi (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The "P" word. That sounds very funny if you know Russian. Actually, you raise a good point. Let's exchange opinions about this. Intuitively I'd say that he wasn't Syrian, but he was Syrian-Jewish, meaning a Jew of the so-called Syrian community. You understand the distinction I make here between just Syrian and Syrian-Jewish, where the word Syrian is geographically referring to the region of origin, not to the country? What would you say to this point of view? Debresser (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarification requested

I have embarked on removing the word Syria from Syrian people who lived under the Ottoman Empire as directed by Debresser, when I relised that although Debresser removed Palestine from Najara, he added "Ottoman Palestine" to Issachar ben Mordecai ibn Susan. So I am not sure how to proceed. Do we remove Syria and Palestine from all articles of that era or not? Please clarify asap. Chesdovi (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Isaac Luria is called "Palestinian" in numerous RS. Why should this classification NOT be used?

Debresser removed “Palestinian rabbi” from Isaac Luria: [8] claiming it is a “POV edit. He was Jewish, he was a kabbalist. He spent only a minority of his years in the Land of Israel”. Please can someone explain why a person who cannot be classified as a Palestinian Jewish kabbalist? The sources do:

Why should “Palestinian” not be mentioned? Chesdovi (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
For the reason I mentioned in the editsummary. That he lived for a few years in this area is not what makes him notable. That he was a famous rabbi and kabbalist does. In addition to the fact that there is no such thing as a Palestinian rabbi, no more than there is an English rabbi. All this is things we have been over many times. Debresser (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Are you really saying there is no such thing as an English rabbi? Chesdovi (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Not in any sense more distinguishing than an English engineer is from a French engineer. Which is why we shouldn't have either article. Chesdovi, you are confused with English rabbi as in [[England|English]] [[rabbi]]. Debresser (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
If sources and meat are found, there is no good reason why French engineers cannot be written. It is a totally accepatable subject matter AFAIC. You also dismiss the reliance on RS, one of the the foundations of Wikipedia articles. Chesdovi (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Israel Dov Frumkin

Jusmine removed Category:Palestinian journalists from Israel Dov Frumkin: [9]. I suggest re-adding this category. Chesdovi (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Good to know I'm not the only one. Category:Palestinian journalists is for something else than journalists who live in turn of the 20th century Ottoman Palestine. Does the Palestinian ethnicity and Palestinian Authority ring a bell with you? Debresser (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
You have agreed to have the same level of understanding as a 14 year old. Palestinian journalists include all journalists who ever lived in a place known nowadays as Palestine, be that people of Palestinian ethnicity or residency. Don't deny it. This is based on RS. Good grief. Chesdovi (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Category:Palestinian journalists is a subcategory of Category:Arab journalists. How did you plan to fit Israel Dov Frumkin into an Arab category? :) Debresser (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Ignore that Arab parent cat. It is erroneous and should be removed. Is Ibrahima Moctar Sarr Arab? No. Black African. The Arab world may not be known for its multiculturism, but other ethnicites do exist in Arab countires. Chesdovi (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Cfd for Category:Jews by country

In response to the action taken by an experienced editor resulting from this post, I suggest removing all counrty specific categories from all Jewish people. Chesdovi (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. Debresser (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. I don't undersatnd. Chesdovi (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I would be best if some other editor explained this to you. Please be patient. Debresser (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I hope so, because I’m frankly quite frustrated of having to put up with you wriggling yourself out of providing clear cut answers to my queries, with excuses like “stop repeating yourself, “this has been discussed before” or simply by linking essays. Chesdovi (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
This is an interesting essay, and it is linked on Wikipedia guidelines and policies for a reason. Try and read it yourself, and perhaps you'll understand what I mean. Debresser (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Ashkenazi intelligence for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ashkenazi intelligence is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi intelligence (5th nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article..

Speedily closed as a keep. Debresser (talk) 23:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
The AfD headers on that article's Talk page are a mess. Someone who knows how to fix them should attend to it.—Biosketch (talk) 09:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
When I came there just now, I found only one superfluous tag there, and removed it. Debresser (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Issachar ben Mordecai ibn Susan

I have reverted an IP which removed “Palestinian” from Issachar ben Mordecai ibn Susan. I am awaiting response from another editor as to why she removed the Palestinian category. Chesdovi (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Another editor who seems to agree with me. The answer is in the editsummary, which I will cite here for you: "Subject was not a Palestinian mathematician, but rather a Jewish mathematician living in the area then known as Palestine." Debresser (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
And was Meyer Löw Schomberg just a "Jewish" scientist from Germany? Chesdovi (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
1. Why do you ask? 2. Le's not turn this WikiProject page into your forum for propaganda of the term "Palestinian". Open a discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion if you want to. Please drop me a note if you do. Debresser (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The article about him says specifically "German-Jewish physician", so yes. Just a Jewish scientist from Germany. Debresser (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Great. So we can specifically call Issachar ben Mordecai ibn Susan, who was just a Jewish mathamatician from Palestine, a "Palestinian-Jewish mathamatician". I will add it. PS. Please don't report me. Chesdovi (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Please do not tire us. Why don't you take a break? Debresser (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Jews from Thessaloniki

I have left a message at the creator of Category:Jews from Thessaloniki & Category:Thessalonian Jews, but since she has not been active since 2009. I ask for views about the need for both these cats. Are they not one and the same. I would merge into Category:Thessalonian Jews. Support? Chesdovi (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Support. Debresser (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Btw, did you notice that Category:Thessalonian Jews is in Category:Ottoman Jews. Now that may be true for all of the articles in there, but theoretically it could be that there is somebody in there from an earlier or later era. Suggestions?Debresser (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I nominated this merger at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_August_22#Category:Thessalonian_Jews, but see there that there is a catch. Debresser (talk) 22:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Question on the usage of "Palestinian rabbi"

Do you think use of the term "Palestinian rabbi" is valid in articles of rabbis from Palestine, from antiquity till modern times? ([10]) Chesdovi (talk) 12:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This question is in reference to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian rabbis. Debresser (talk) 12:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Is it? It can still be used if the Afd ends in deletion. Chesdovi (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Please note that contrary to Debresser's claims, such rabbis were years ago categorised as Palestinian by Shilonite: Chaim_Hezekiah_Medini, Jacob_Berab, Hayyim_ben_Jacob_Abulafia, Joseph ben Ephraim Karo, Yom_Tov_Tzahalon, Chaim_Hirschensohn, Malkiel_Ashkenazi, Zundel_Salant, Abraham_Isaac_Kook, Menachem_Mendel_of_Vitebsk, etc, etc. It was also used in such pages as Moses Mescheloff, Elisha ben Abuyah, Midrash Tehillim, Hildesheim, High place. Chesdovi (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, it seems no one has a problem or is interested in this, so I guess I've got my answer: It is valid. Now if anyone should revert my edits, they will be the one who will have to gain "consensus" to jusitfy their actions. Chesdovi (talk) 13:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
To the contrary. This only shows that there is noone in favor of using this term. Debresser (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Gentlemen, don't you think it's time for an RFC on this issue? It had dragged on quite a bit, and members of other WikiProjects may have particular perspective. I think it is not disputed that for large parts of its history, the current Israel was not known as such. It has been Canaan, Israel, Palestine, etc. Please either start with an RFC or find some other way out of the impasse. JFW | T@lk 15:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Not at all! The closing comment of the Afd said "keep. discussion of potential rename can continue on article talk page", summarising the many sentiments there that something is wrong with this name.
Also, as I have mentioned several times already to Chesdovi, of late on WP:ANI, the existence of an article does not mean you can start linking it to all kinds of people. I gave the simple example of the fact that we have an article homosexual, which does not mean that we can go around and call whomever we please "homosexual". The term has to be factually correct, and its use has to conform to all relevant policies and guidelines.
And then there is the Rfc on the now deleted Category talk:16th-century Palestinian rabbis which showed great resistance to this term. And the category was in fact deleted, as were all similar categories, per a Cfd at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_2#Category:16th-century_Palestinian_rabbis with a very sharp concluding commentary "I could not find one editor that took up the position that User:Chesdovi embraces". Debresser (talk) 07:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
This is your red herring, and you seem to be the only one hawking it. Good luck in the future. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
A majority of editors have stated that if there is a RS to call a rabbi Palestinian, the term can be used. As I told Debresser, if we had an article on Polish popes, there would be no reason why each and every Polish Pope could not be linked to that page. Chesdovi (talk) 14:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
This is not true, as I have quoted from the Rfc and Cfd and the Afd, and as can be seen by reviewing the majority of editors who have found this wording and the POV of the only editor pushing it problematic. Debresser (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The majority of editors who have commented on this issue have in truth sided with me. The recent Afd only reinforces the notion that the term is neutral and acceptable by the majority and that the elusive "consensus" has finally been gained. Only a handful of POV editors who unfortunately loath to link the word “Palestinian” with anything Jewish are causing a fuss. People who care about authentic English language classifications have no doubt found solace in the most recent positive Afd result. That was due to the fact that instead of speedy deleting, (as you had initially proposed), a proper discussion ensued. This is contrary to the debacle you instigated with the categories you nominated for deletion without a community wide debate. Those manipulative moves ended in a stalemate Rfc and a unbalanced Cfd conclusion, which I respectfully consider to have been closed in an unsatisfactory manner. This is only the beginning. Chesdovi (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
As there seems to be only one or two editors, among many who oppose their views, this subject is pretty much closed. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Precisely. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Resolved
 – I knew Debresser would eventually come around. Fantastic. So I have the green light, or tick in this case. Chesdovi (talk) 11:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Unresolved
 – Not at all. You are still almost the only editor in favor of this term. Which is why iI said "precisely".
Debresser (talk) 09:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

(jumps up and waves arms wildly) I can see this causing a headache for some time - the issue being the press often using the word "Palestinian" which implies "(Arab) Palestinian" in many situations. Chesdovi, what would you call the enclave of settlers living in the centre of Hebron? I think a broad discussion is needed and could take place somewhere at Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, which was where Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank) was worked out a couple of years ago. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The first Israeli separation barrier?

Can someone check whether this edit is valid: [11]. I think the original category is correct in this case. Chesdovi (talk) 10:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, User:Ravpapa seems to have dealt with it. Chesdovi (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Good news!

"Palestinian rabbis" passes Afd!
Palestinian rabbis was kept with an overwhelming majority of 13 votes to 2. A victory for common sense and adherence to WP:RS and WP:NCCN. Keep up the good work everyone!
Chesdovi (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
This attitude is uncalled for.Mzk1 (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Orthodox rabbis

While Medieval rabbis may fall within the sphere of Orthodoxy, some claim the term should not be applied to them as the term is generally used to distinguish between what became a necessity after the rise of reform "rabbis" in the 19th cent. Should we be placing classical rabbis such as Rashi in Category:Orthodox rabbis? Chesdovi (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

This question has bothered me as well upon occasion. Perhaps we should have "orthodox" only for the modern Orthodox Judaism movement, and use simply "rabbis" for all other time periods and the present chareidi rabbis? Debresser (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely not. The concept of "orthodoxy" dates from the 19th century. I would have great problems applying the label to anyone before that time. JFW | T@lk 18:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Second the motion on not retroactively applying modern labels to rabbi. It is the wiki-equivalent of the kids books with Moshe in a black hat. The question is a valid one: how do we label a rabbi who's philosophy or religious practice or halachic rulings are the basis of a given community in a way that shows the connection to that community. Maybe this is not the place for Wiki-Categories? Joe407 (talk) 05:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I noticed various discussions at the relevant talk page, but don't think this was covered. AFAIC, no medieval or earlier rabbis should be categorised as "Orthodox", a term which should be applied to rabbis from the mid 19th- cent onwards. Chesdovi (talk) 11:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
We seem to agree that the term is unclear and unfit for categorisation, but where do we take it from here? What do we do with Category:Orthodox rabbis? Do we remove most of the subcategories (like Category:Early Acharonim and Category:Haredi rabbis) from it? Do we delete it afterwards, or merge it with Category:Modern Orthodox rabbis? What do we do with Category:Orthodox Jews and its subcategories? Debresser (talk) 08:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The concepts "Haredi" and "Modern Orthodox" are even more recent, but they can adequately be a subcategory of "Orthodox rabbis".
With regards to Early Acharonim, I would disconnect the concept from Orthodoxy completely.
The same applies, mutatis mutandis, with members of Category:Orthodox Jews. Nobody before the mid-19th century should be placed in that category, for reasons stated. JFW | T@lk 19:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
This would seem to be the correct course of action. Editors, is there consensus for this? Debresser (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
No! We must wait for the valued opinion of IZAK on the matter. He usually has the veto round here. If he is against, we just cannot proceed. The 100% agreement here will be compromised and that will be that. Chesdovi (talk) 10:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm on board with not applying the label orthodox (or sub cats thereof) to people who lived before it was an existent term.Joe407 (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess there is a similar situation in christianity when using the word "catholic" before the various protestant splits in northern europe..? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, not because I think it is incorrect, but because it destroys consensus, which is to take no position on how far back Orthodoxy goes. The same would apply to Rabbinic, Pharisaic Judaism, etc. c.f. Jewish religious movements).Mzk1 (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

New stub: Tachlifa the Palestinian

Tachlifa the Palestinian - 3rd generation amora!
Tachlifa the Palestinian is the latest addition to our collection of Palestinian amoraim. Help expanding this stub will be greatly appreciated! Keep up the good work everyone!
Chesdovi (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Word "Palestinian" has been removed from this article, per reason I mentioned in the editsummary. Article has been moved to Tachlifa of the West, which as the creator wrote himself, is the correct name for this amora. Debresser (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Both names are "correct". I decided to go with "the Palestinian". If you want to change it, you should know the procedure by now. Chesdovi (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Just type "Tachlifa" in Google, and see for yourself. Editors, please let's put a stop to this POV pushing. Will nobody warn this editor, so we can open a Rfc-user comment? Debresser (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Chesdovi, why don't you stick with "Jewish Amora sage of the Land of Israel" like in the article Rabbi Aha? Which has been the consensus formula for a year and a half! That is consensus. Debresser (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
More like stick with Tanhuma bar Abba - "a Palestinian amora of the 5th generation" - which has been the "consensus" for 4 ½ years. Don't fob me off with these type of answers. Give me consensus. Chesdovi (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

New stub: Avdimi of Haifa

Avdimi of Haifa - 3rd generation amora!
Avdimi of Haifa is the latest addition to our collection of Palestinian amoraim. Help expanding this stub will be greatly appreciated! Keep up the good work everyone!
Chesdovi (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Word "Palestinian" has been removed from this article, per reason I mentioned in the editsummary. Debresser (talk) 12:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Reason now redundant. Chesdovi (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
The sheer audaciousness (chutzpah) of fixing a BAD edit with another BAD edit. Undid both. Debresser (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

New stub: Abba of Jaffa

Take a deep breath - it's Abba of Jaffa!
Abba of Jaffa is the latest addition to our collection of Palestinian amoraim. Help expanding this stub will be greatly appreciated! Keep up the good work everyone!
Chesdovi (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Selichot

Sorry for the late notice, but this is scheduled for OTD appearance on August 30 but is going to be omitted for lack of references. Hopefully y'all can get this into shape in two days. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 20:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I have started with some minor rewrites. And the removal of something that was not in the source given and actually quite wrong, regrettably removing the only reference this article had. So now all we have to do is find some sources. Debresser (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I've added some 4 references, which I hope will do the trick. But frankly, there is still too much unreferenced content. Debresser (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

New stub: Hanan the Egyptian

All the way from Alexandria - Hanan the Egyptian!
Hanan the Egyptian is the latest addition to our collection of Egyptian tannaim. Help expanding this stub will be greatly appreciated! Keep up the good work everyone!
Chesdovi (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Judaism

Discussions as to what the article should and should not contain have restarted on Talk:Criticism of Judaism, and outside comments would be helpful. Please see the archives and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Discretionary sanctions for history and active sanctions. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 05:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Aharon Kotler

Aharon Kotler has been put up for deletion. Needs help with Sources please help if you can.Nerguy (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Closed as speedy keep. Thanks also to Alansohn for his many sourced additions to the article. Debresser (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

New article: Nahum the Mede

Foreign Medea in Palestine - it's Nahum the Mede!
Nahum the Mede is the latest addition to our collection of Medean tannaim. Help expanding this article will be greatly appreciated! Keep up the good work everyone!
Chesdovi (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
What are Medean tannaim? Debresser (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

New article: Simeon the Yemenite

Simeon the Yemenite - 2nd-century Yemenite tanna!
Simeon the Yemenite is the latest addition to our series on tannaim who originated in the diaspora. Help expanding this article will be greatly appreciated! Keep up the good work everyone!
Chesdovi (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
You again tried to push your "Palestine" propaganda twice in that article. Removed, of course.
In addition, it is unclear whether you named the article correctly. The article shows, even though you downplayed it and I had to sharpen this point a little, that he was most likely not HaTeimani but HaTimni, in which case this title is wrong. Don't know what to do with that. Any suggestions? Debresser (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Quesion. See your additions to Template:Tannaim that you have been creating articles about one Babylonian, one Egyptian, one Medean and one Yemenite scholar. And then there was amongst the amoraim Tachlifa of the West whom you tried to call "Tachlifa the Palestinian". Is there some point you are trying to make here? Debresser (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure but I think the point Chesdovi is making is that Palestine & Palestinian are terms with historical meaning other than referring to the area of the 20th century British Mandate or the Arabs who did/are inhabiting land areas that are subject to dispute vis-a-vi the Arab-Israeli conflict et al. Joe407 (talk) 13:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
In addition to Palestinian Amoroaim, I have recently been involved in expanding the projects series on on tannaim/amoraim who originated in the diaspora, a very interesting subject matter. Chesdovi (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
And I think you are doing a wonderful job! Your habitual pushing of the word "Palestinian" notwithstanding. And I say this without bad feelings. Perhaps we have some award for the creation of these interesting articles and stubs? Debresser (talk) 15:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Why do I feel like throwing up? Chesdovi (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps because you find it harder to apply Leviticus 19:18 in your personal life than I do. Debresser (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)