Removing mention of World War Two railroading of followers of Judaism
A present-day Chief of Communications of a "former state railway, demerged into a present-day corporation" has referred to the
epynomous state railway's deportation of Jews. One editor has started removing all the mention of World War Two, in the "epynomous corporation article" [1]. Is that all right? (The state railway was split into an epynomous corporation and two agencies during 1996-20002.) --Creambreek (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
It's always preferable to supply diffs rather than old revisions. It also looks like this person only removed some stuff once. If this article is about a new railroad company that only came about in 1996, then the story of the old agency is somewhat irrelevant if it's covered in an article about the old agency. If the old agency didn't have an article then I would say leave it in. The whole article needs work thing as the English could be better. No offence intended if you're the main contributor. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 15 Adar 5775 14:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The present-day Chief of Public Relations has called the [the company's contribution to] the deportation of Jews [and the use of the slave labor of a different ethnicity] as "a dark chapter of the company", while elaborating. He has not tried to say that the epynomous former company is a different company, only because it chopped off two of its branches, with the remaining epynomous company registering as a somewhat different kind of company for legal purposes. --Creambreek (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: No one has yet removed any material that can be linked to judaism. But the reasoning from yesterday—unchallenged—is a subjective justification for also removing the Judaism related material that has been added since yesterday. --Creambreek (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm having a hard time figuring out what you're talking about. Can you use proper nouns instead of hinting at what you mean? Don't make me dig to figure out what a "former state railway, demerged into a present-day corporation" is, or what "[and the use of the slave labor of a different ethnicity]" means - just come out and use real words. There's no censorship here, and we're not afraid of saying "Voldemort" either. --Bachrach44 (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I suspect it might be because the OP is using English as a second language/trying to be careful with their wording. The latter is admirable, but not necessary here. What they're trying to say is that there was a government railroad agency for Norway from 1883 to 1996. During WWII they used Jewish slave labour and other unsavoury things. In '96, the agency was privatised and spun off into three different companies including one that actually ran the railroads and had the same basic name. The dispute is in the article for the agency successor dealing with the actual railroad operation. And the content dispute is over whether the the WWII info should also be covered in the successor company's article or if the successor company article should only deal with the history of the successor company from its foundation on with the WWII info covered only in the article about the predecessor government agency. I think. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 15 Adar 5775 17:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The slave laborers counted around 150 000 Russians, Poles and Yugoslavs. Any Jews among them, would have had to hide their faith/ethnicity to avoid being sent to extermination camps in Germany. To my knowledge, the State Railways did not use Jewish slave laborers. --Creambreek (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
It seems like someone is trying to silence me or put me in some sort of wiki-lager. Anyway, if you do find any mistakes in the articles, please let us know. --Creambreek (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Input requested on child abuse section on Chabad article
User:VanEman recently added a Legal issues section to the article about Chabad. His reason was mainly that he wanted to write about a child abuse scandal in Australia. I, among others, have argued on the talkpage, that this material is perhaps not fit for this article, or should be moved to Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies. The discussion is stuck in disagreement, and your input would help. Debresser (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Debresser, you have mischaracterized my inclusion in the Chabad article issues such as financial malfeasance and mishandling of child sexual abuse cases in both Australia and France. My concern is that the Chabad article is basically a puff piece about Chabad and that anyone writing anything critical about Chabad is being censored. The mishandling of sexual abuse cases has made continued news not only in Australia, but in the US, Israel and Europe, and is of great concern to the Jewish community world-wide and to anyone who care about the protection of children and the abuse of power by religious leaders. It is not simply a "local" issue as Chabadniks have proclaimed. The issue is really whether timely, public, well-documented problems of public interest can make it into an article being "protected" by Chabad fans.VanEman (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I noticed a nifty template that can display the current date of the Muslim calendar (as seen on Islamic Calendar and I think it would be a good idea if we had one for the Hebrew calendar as well. Anybody have the experience/patience to design one? Anyone think this is a good/bad idea? Here is the link to the original (template:today/AD/SH/AH) and I display it in action on the right.
I hadn't seen this discussion at all while it was ongoing, but am seeing the fallout of it now. The category deletion of Jewish Australian sportspeople. Judging by the results here and here and here, for starters, I think the discussion was started with (and based on) an inaccurate assessment. --Epeefleche (talk) 08:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Is this person notable enough to have a Wikipedia article?
During his lifetime, Ovadyah Abraham Hiroshi Okamoto was the only ethnically Japanese rabbi
(I believe there's been at least one other since he died). I've written a draft article in my sandbox,
which is admittedly very sparse because I've only been able to find a couple of newspaper articles about him.
What is the opinion of the members of this project? Does Rabbi Okamoto meet the notability test?
ThinkingGuy (talk) 04:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Boy, that's a tough one. I think I would go ahead and publish this as a stub, and solicit help in expanding the article.
I doubt anyone can WP:SD you; the only possible category would be A7, and the fact that he was the only ethnically Japanese rabbi during his lifetime (= first ethnically Japanese rabbi ever?) should protect you from a prima facie SD for A7.
If then someone tries to WP:PROD, you can object and remove the tag. This leaves you with the possibility of a future WP:AfD, but there you can ask for time and help to expand a bit on the article. I suspect there are a lot of people listed in this encyclopedia far less notable than Rabbi Okamoto.
Once you create an article, also list him at List of Asian Jews#Japan. In that context, he would be a fairly noteworthy example. And that would help your case to retain the article, even if you can't expand much on it.
If all else fails, you could try to find an article somewhere showing that Judaism fundamentally functions under religious, rather than geographic-ethnic definitions, and that people from any geographic-ethnic background—Japanese included—can become rabbis if they have the proper education and training. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Can you spell his name in Japanese? In situations like this, I've often found that searching for non-English sources is useful. --Bachrach44 (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I have the Japanese for the family name "Okamoto" (岡本), but not "Hiroshi," which can be written about 50 different ways. I've done searches in Japanese using "Okamoto" in combination with "rabbi" and "Judaism" but haven't come up with anything, probably because most of his work was done in English after he left Japan.ThinkingGuy (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I think I've come across his name before; if it is he whom I remember, his conversion to Judaism had substantial coverage in newspapers of the time—enough, perhaps, to pass the GNG. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 21:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
We're up to four references in two languages over a period of 29 years. The notability may be from novelty rather than true objective "importance" (whatever that means). But I think we've reached enough of a threshold of notability for you to defend a decision to publish in article space. (Suggestion: check publications of the Reform movement in general or Hebrew Union College in particular. I'd be pretty amazed if they never covered this.) StevenJ81 (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, I've submitted the article for review. Unfortunately, I read Japanese but not Hebrew, so someone else will have to incorporate the information from the Maariv article. Thanks to everyone for your information and advice! ThinkingGuy (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Mass changes to Jewish educational Categories tonight
Glovacki, mass changes in categories are not a place where being Bold is usually helpful. they take so much work to undo, that they really ought to be discussed first, even when you're certain that you;re right. (Personally, I feel that way abut mass changes or edits or nominations in anything unless we're dealing with vandalism). DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, my, shades of the debates over the "of Asian descent" and "of Middle Eastern descent" categories that led to several editors eventually leaving the project. The problem with categories is that you can it is very hard to undo damage when it occurs as the category itself doesn't list when articles have been removed from it. LizRead!Talk!02:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Glovacki You are actually correct. But the thing is that a yeshiva is also a seminary. Perhaps not in the Jewish vernacular, but definitely according to the English convention of how a "seminary" is defined. So please, undo the redirect and move all yeshivas back. Debresser (talk) 08:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Glovacki hasn't restrained themselves to Seminaries. Category:Jewish schools (which I've just reverted to how it previously was) is now completely empty. --Dweller (talk) 08:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm now going to revert all of Glovacki's mass of edits. --Dweller (talk) 09:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Three years ago I asked if this institution was for real. I was told that it would start courses in the fall of 2012. A visit to their website suggests to me that that never happened, and that this institution is nonexistent. The University of Toronto website suggests that the Yeshiva is still in the proposal stage. Does anyone know more about this than I? --Ravpapa (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I've been trying to improve the Portuguese in the United Kingdom article, which has long been severely lacking in sources. I've rewritten the history and settlement section of the article, which starts out by focusing on Portuguese Jewish migration to Britain, and which was plagiarised from an internet source. I don't know much about the early history of the Jewish community in Britain though, and I've just based the material on the source that was previously plagiarised, so it's possible I've missed some important details. Could someone with a bit more expertise give the section a quick look to see if there are any errors or omissions? Thanks. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi. There's a problem at Articles about Arab communities (see examples), which regard Jews and Judaism. I'v been trying removing them as Jews are a separate ethnic group with distinctive history, culture and identity. The problem is that i am being reverted all the time with no valid explanation and most of all, not even one source was given to support differently. Editors are not even trying to deal with it factually, just keep mentioning "Arab Jews" (without even understanding the meaning). I am the only editor to handle this and if i keep doing this it might turn into an edit war the would turn against me eventually. Is there anything that can be done? Thanks. Infantom (talk) 02:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Could someone please help fix the ISBN numbers to this article. I don't know how the style works. I would also like to have some opinions to better improve this article. Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Jewish composers at IMSLP (non-wikipedia)
For editors interested, I have compiled a list of Jewish composers on IMSLP. Please feel free to add or correct the list. IMSLP, like Wikipedia, is a wiki and anyone can edit it.
Over at Talk:Torah I pointed out that there is a lot on inconsistency in how pages of the Talmud are cited/quoted (at least three different ways just on the Torah entry). Someone suggested I bring it up here to see if there is a consensus on how this should be done, so it can be standardized. MosheEmes (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I might be misunderstanding you, but the Bavli is usually cited by daf in the Vilna edition, so for example: "lorem ipsum... (shabbat 32a)". The Yerushalmi is usually done by chapter:halacha, so for example: "lorem ipsum... (Yerushalmi Shabbat 2:3)". Is that what you're asking? --Bachrach44 (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
No. Here are various Talmud quotes from WP entry Torah: 1. (Gittin 60a). 2. (tractate Sabb. 115b) 3. (Talmud Bavli, Meg. 31b.)
In example 1, the name of the masechta (tractate) is wikilinked. In example 2, the word "tractate" is used to specify what it is, and there is no wikilink. Also "Sabb." is an abbreviation for the English word "Sabbath". Do we use Sabbath, Shabbat, or what? In example 3, "Talmud Bavli" is wikilinked, "Megillah" is abbreviated and not wikilinked, and there is a specification that it is referring to the Bavli (as opposed to the Yerushalmi), and no word "tractate". See what I mean? Shouldn't there be just one standard way to cite the Talmud? MosheEmes (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
If so, the best way to ensure this happens is to create a template to make it so, and then to see that it is used.
As a related issue, would we have an abbreviated version for subsequent citations in the same article?
I don't mind trying to put my hand to creating a template once consensus is reached here. But it will take a ton of work to start replacing current citations with it. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
There is already a working template for Tanach. It's {{bibleref}} and its variants. The longstanding approach for Jewish articles at Wikipedia is to use |3=HE to point to the public-domain Hebrew-English Tanach (at Mechon Mamre), which uses JPS 1917, rather than a Christian translation. Example: {{bibleref|Genesis|1:1|HE}} generates Genesis 1:1, which if you click through will take you to Mechon Mamre's website. So we don't need to revisit a template for Tanach.
(Side note: According to the documentation for the template, there should also be a way to link to the Judaica Press 1964 Hebrew-English at chabad.org. That doesn't seem to be working, though, and I'll ask at the template talk page if anyone knows how to fix it. But for any purpose I can imagine here, the Mechon Mamre version is quite sufficient.)
That all having been said, this brings up a good point. Ideally, a working template for Mishnah, Bavli and Yerushalmi ought to point to actual text, preferably Hebrew-English or English, if such is available in the public domain or through other legitimate, permissible use. I can start writing a template, but there will need to be a script behind the template to get the right page off the target website, and that's beyond my skills. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I speak several languages but I do not speak Hebrew. Over at WP:RFD#Chawah we have a discussion, since this is currently a redirect and I don't know where to put it. I think it is "blocking" in the sense all the search engines, all roads lead back to Wikipedia, so I can't find a definition. I think it means Eve, the wife of Adam, from the Book of Genesis, but am not entirely sure and I hope you can help out. Si Trew (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, "Chawah" is one way you could transliterate the Hebrew word חוה which is Eve, the wife of Biblical Adam. The more common transliteration would be Chavah, and in fact I've never actually seen "Chawah" used. The ambiguity stems from the fact that the Hebrew letter "vav" is thought to have been pronounced "waw" in ancient times and is still pronounced that way by a small minority of oriental Jewish communities. MosheEmes (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Agree with MosheEmes. The spelling Chawah derives I think from the German school of biblical critics about 100-150 years ago. Epicentre (talk) 07:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
The above CFD may illustrate a wider difficulty in setting the category hierarchy. Should the category for a festival be the parent of articles & categories about the period when it originated, or a sub-category of that topic, or neither?
Perhaps this may best be answered differently in each case.
When I looked at Yom Kippur, I thought I might find a hierarchical connection with Book of Leviticus, but found no links between Category:Yom Kippur and Category:Book of Leviticus. After looking at the contents of each, I added the article Yom Kippur, rather than its namesake category, into Category:Book of Leviticus. This may be sufficient.
As for Hanukkah, I found that the current hierarchy for Maccabees and Hanukkah is circular:
▼ Maccabees
▼ Cultural depictions of the Maccabees
▼ Hanukkah
▼ History of Hanukkah
► Ancient Jewish Greek history
► Maccabees
► Maccabees
Ah, but History of Hanukkah currently contains not only ancient history from the time when it originated, but also recent history in the form of recent works and cultural items related to Hanukkah. I would have no objection to recategorising those in Category:Hanukkah and making the change you suggest, if others in this WikiProject agree. However, comments at the CFD about Category:History of Purim suggests that these "History of..." categories were intended to contain a whole range of periods, starting from before the festivals and continuing up to now. That looks jumbled to me, and not useful for navigation, because it does not even contain sub-categories like the Hanukkah one; but at least one member of this project wants it kept as it is. – FayenaticLondon22:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Please comment at Talk:Shabbat. Note: please read what's there so far. We're not looking for the right Hebrew or Yiddish pronunciations, nor for the fact that many people pronounce it like Yiddish or Yiddish-influenced Ashkenazi Hebrew (Sha'bes). We're wondering, for those who use Sha-bat', do you pronounce the unstressed syllable as ɑː or ə? (Or, alternatively, do you have a reliable source to use for that?) But please comment there, not here. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Our responsibility at Wikipedia is to supply the reader with material relevant to the topic of an article. Adherence to the terminology used by sources is generally a good idea. Infoboxes weren't invented by Wikipedia. Unless Wikipedia is in the business of reinventing the wheel, we should be following the precedent as set by reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 04:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
If you wish to propose a change to WP:CAT/R, do so. Until then, we follow the guideline. And that is all I have to say here - I'm not the slightest bit interested in yet another of your facile obsessive-compulsive arguing-round-in-circles-until-everyone-gives-up exercises in Wikilawyering bullshit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Just because multiple media outlets say "Jewish" as his religion when the term is an adjective does not mean we should. We know better, and should use proper grammar i.e. "Judaism". Dustin(talk)06:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dustin V. S.—you say "We know better". No, we don't. It is virtually axiomatic that sources "know better". Even if you feel there is a grammatical error, sources are showing us common parlance. We are writing for communication. This is by far the most widely used language. Do you have other sources that you would like us to consider? Bus stop (talk) 09:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Sol Scharfstein
I'm curious if people think Sol Scharfstein is notable enough for a wiki article. He is the former co-owner of KTAV Publishing House,[4], wrote a Torah translation [5], authored a few other books in English [6] and Hebrew [7], and got an honorary doctorate from YU. [8]. Is that notable enough? --Bachrach44 (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest (if such a copyvio is present). --Lucas559 (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
After a recent CFD which was seen as confusing and insensitive, I have WP:BOLDly restructured these categories somewhat, and trust that members of this WIkiProject and other editors will now find them more useful for navigation. I left notes on the category talk pages about my actions. – FayenaticLondon10:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I think that the category Category:History of Purim is being used incorrectly. Instead of gathering articles about the "history of Purim", it is about "Purim throughout history". I think this should be fixed, or the category tagged for speedy deletion as recreation of a deleted category. Debresser (talk) 09:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
@IZAK: I think the clarification being suggested is between articles related to the origin of a holy day, and articles touching on the subsequent celebration or references to the holy day throughout history. No-one is saying that history does not exist, but that the category name "history of" is ambiguous. – FayenaticLondon15:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Marcheshvan or cheshvan
Whether the Hebrew calendar article should use Cheshvan or Marcheshvan? There is some tentative consensus on the talkpage, but there are only 3 editors on the talkpage, and we want clearer consensus. Please comment. Debresser (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to disagree with @Bachrach44. Yiddish Book Centre is repository of Yiddish texts, and links to it are not spam, but a useful source of reference. I intend to restore the links. (I have no connection whatsoever with YBC, but I do read and write Yiddish.) --Redaktor (talk) 04:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Redaktor. I agree with you about the importance of the YBC and my own view is that the usefulness of external links is usually a question for the regular editors of each article to consider.
On the other hand, it's absolutely inappropriate for the YBC to have its employees or interns edit our article about the book center to the point that it seems promotional, or to add hundreds of external links to Wikipedia articles that link to their website. That violates our conflict of interest guidelines and may be grounds for being blocked or even banned. — MShabazzTalk/Stalk05:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Malik here. These editor add many links, and there is a real suspicion that they are adding or will add more links to this one website than our external links guidelines condone. Debresser (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
It's a fine line, to be sure. It seems to me that if the YBC has particular collections related to a certain topic, the link is appropriate. If not, not. And editing the page on the YBC itself is quite problematic.
This same collection of users has been active in the last two weeks at yiwiki, too, and I notified an administrator there. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Please note that the links to the main yiddishbookcenter.org website that the editors have been adding as part of their contributions are simple linkspam and inappropriate (eg "at the Yiddish Book Center's"), other than as an official website link for Yiddish Book Center.
As far as the links go, if they are not about the subject of the article, they probably don't belong. I've been looking for a good example of such an article, but have yet to find one. Links to interviews are generally not appropriate in a well-referenced biography, but helpful in a stub or very brief article. --Ronz (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Even if they are about the subject, wikipedia is still not a directory of links. The article on Hanukkah does not need a link to every webpage about Hanukkah on the internet. Just because YBC has a page on a given subject does not mean we have to link to it. Yes, they're a wonderful repository of information, but so are hundreds of other websites. There is nothing about the YBC that makes me think we should include a link to their page on Hanukkah and not Chabad, Aish, JDC, jewfaq, history.com, and the other 11 million sites that comes up when I google Hanukkah. The same could be said for many pages they've added links to. --Bachrach44 (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
There is at least one general case where such links should be included: Notable Yiddish novels like Wandering Stars (novel) (per WP:ELYES and WP:NONENGEL. It would be helpful if people can identify other cases where the links should definitely be kept, or at least be considered for retention (beyond stub articles). --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I just came across this category. Most of the entries are Hasidic dynasty pages. What is going on here? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
These were recently added by J R Gainey (talk·contribs). I removed a few of them with the explanation "This category is for people, not denominations".
Hi. I recently got Keturah promoted to "Good Article" status — and since newly promoted Good Articles are eligible for the "Did You Know" corner of Wikipedia's main page, I nominated it, and it will most likely get accepted for DYK soon.
I would like to request some feedback regarding the "hook" for this article (the "hook" is the pithy one-liner, answering the question "Did you know that...?" in the DYK section). The hook I initially proposed was Did you know ... that Keturah, the woman Abraham married after the death of Sarah, has been called "the most ignored significant person in the Torah"? This is a quote by a contemporary biblical scholar, Richard Elliott Friedman.
The possible problem I see here is that I fear many non-Jews are not familiar with the term "Torah", and for this reason they may be confused by the above hook. So I proposed the following alternate hook: Did you know ... that Keturah, the woman Abraham married after the death of Sarah, has been called "the most ignored significant person in the Hebrew scriptures"?
Although I am not a Jew, I do understand that "Hebrew scriptures" includes, but is not the same as, the Torah. So, although I do think the alternate hook may be more accessible to a general readership, I'm still concerned that it might not be acceptable because it simply isn't what the cited scholar said.
What do people here think about this? And if you do have a strong opinion, one way or the other, could you please go to the DYK nomination page at Template:Did you know nominations/Keturah and express your view on which of the two hooks ought to be used? Thanks. — Richwales(no relation to Jimbo)17:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I think the word Torah is rather well known in English. Still, I think that Hebrew Scriptures is perfectly acceptable. Debresser (talk) 12:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. The Keturah article was featured in the "Did you know?" section of Wikipedia's main page on 22 July 2015. The hook chosen by the editors running "Did you know?" was: Did you know ... that Keturah, the woman Abraham married after the death of Sarah, has been called "the most ignored significant person" in the Hebrew Bible? Approximately 8,100 people viewed the Keturah article on the day it was listed in the "Did you know?" section. — Richwales(no relation to Jimbo)21:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Is there an experienced editor fluent in English and Hebrew, who knows how to properly add the critically important supporting document and picture citation links presented on the talk page, to the article page?
By the way, I think a side benefit of this template is the subtemplate that I built that returns the date of Rosh Hashanah for each year in the current 19-year cycle. Using that subtemplate, we can probably convert a lot of language in various articles about the Hebrew calendar year to templates that will automatically increment every Rosh Hashanah.
We have a few related articles: Land of Israel, Holy Land, Holiness of Palestine (should obviously be "of the Land of Israel", but this was concocted by Chesdovi, who used to actively promote the name "Palestine" for the Land of Israel, as witnessed by several articles), Promised Land. There are already several merge notices on some of these articles, like Promised Land -> Land of Israel and Holiness of Palestine -> Palestine (region) (which I think should go to Land of Israel, if anything). Note that Holy Land is mainly a Christian article. Do we want to decide on possible merges? Feel free to add any more articles to the discussion, if needed. Debresser (talk) 09:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
There is no obvious reason why the historic term Palestine should be replaced by the religious term Land of Israel in every case. We should use what is appropriate. In many cases it is appropriate to use both to reflect NPOV.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
That is bullocks. Don't post things you made up as though they are agreed upon by Wikipedia custom.
In virtually all cases only one of them should be used, as per the (logical) custom to link terms and not explain linked terms. Debresser (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I like the idea of merging - the I/P articles have far too much overlapping content.
I fear though that we will not agree on the right name for a top level article. Debresser, your analysis of the name "Land of Israel" is wrong. As is explained at Land_of_Israel#Modern_history, the use of this term in modern secular speech has its roots in ideological nationalism. Many people have only known usage of this phrase, but they are not being intellectually honest if they cannot strip away the influence of nationalism on their knowledge base. Sometime it's appropriate to try to see the forest for the trees. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Oncenawhile, could you please explain in more detail, where I analyzed the name "Land of Israel", and in what regards? I don't really understand what you are referring to, and what your point is.
In any case, there is also the non-religious Zionist usage, but that doesn't detract from the traditional religious usage, which was in use for over the larger part of two thousand years and is used in most sources, including up to this day, with the exception only of non-religious Zionism. Debresser (talk) 11:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
mhsc is an acronym of messiah-healing-sabbath-church, a registered and approved sabbath-church, in 18th March 1986, founded and manage by great lord Jesmion i speak about sabbath-church as the first of its kind ever live and originated from the exodus of the Jews, the Hebrews, i discuss the condition of the sabbath-church and sabbath-day, God as the right owner of the sabbath-church and the sabbath-day, God the creator of sabbath-day and the sabbath-church, the first sabbath-church house of prayer were tents, there the Jews gather to worship God on every sabbath-day = 7th day, presently saturday according to present day calendar, iam Jesmion no other area has a church than the Jews, that was a reason Yashua said to Samaritan woman that salvation is from the Jews, the word of God from Jerusalem although i am Jesmion, i am discussing about God and Its sabbath-church and sabbath-day, the word of God is Jerusalem and salvation from the Jews, is truthful: 41.206.11.219 (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Dear editors: This draft will soon be deleted because no one is working on it and it has no references. If this is a notable translator, perhaps someone from this project would like to take it on.—Anne Delong (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I happen to have met him a few times. He is an interesting person and a translator, who has made some interesting translations from Hebrew to English. If he is notable, according to Wikipedia, I am not sure. Debresser (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
It also checks the edit count. I don't think it is WP:BEANS, since it isn't particularly obscure. It basically says: If the edit_count for the user is less than 3, and the article_namespace is 4 (which according to WP:NS says is Wikipedia (which includes the reference desks)), and it includes any of the "JEW", "HEBREW", "H010CAU5T MYTH", "Z10N15T" or "WE1RD ED1T1NG BY E10CK1D" and it isn't removing lines that match those then the abuse filter fires. Note this won't fire for this edit since my edit_count is several orders of magnitude > 3 :)Naraht (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
This edit was meant to catch the reference desk troller, who keeps posting antisemitic questions to the ref desks. I can try to modify it so that it is not catching Wikiproject edits. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
My edit count is over 3, and it still fires. If this is for the reference desk, then the edit filter should be tailored so that it only fires on reference desk pages. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
NawlinWiki Thanks for this, and for the efforts to combat racist trolling. Does the filter prevent any user from posting a question with the word "Jew" in it, if they have fewer than 3 edits? We do get a lot of one-off questions at the Ref Desks. I have a similar concern over the term "Hebrew", especially for RD/L. --Dweller (talk) 09:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but only on RD/H and RD/Misc right now. This filter could also be discontinued if the troll goes away after a while, which often happens. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
This draft has an unusual history. One Abbas Nurrollahi Diba, PhD has for months been operating under the impression that the way to use Wikipedia is to create a new account for each subject and write an essay about it on the user page. Rinse and repeat, with titles like User:Neuropseudology and User:Mindless Political Neuroethics. As he creates a new account each time, he is not easy to contact, but I have left messages on his most recent account.
All of his contributions were essays failing WP:NOR and WP:NEO and have been deleted, except this biography of a probably-notable rabbi, former Chief Rabbi of Mexico, which I have moved to draft in case anyone is interested in progressing it. JohnCD (talk) 15:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Rabbi Avraham Mordechai Hershberg is frequently mentioned in the rabbinical literature of his time, and, as you write, was probably notable, but this attempt at an article will not amount to anything. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 16:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea to merge Tanakh and Hebrew Bible? The first starts with "The Tanakh is the canon of the Hebrew Bible", and the latter with "Hebrew Bible is the term used by biblical scholars to refer to the Tanakh". A previous proposal was raised at Talk:Hebrew_Bible#Proposed_merge_with_Tanakh and closed as no consensus, with a note that the discussion can be revisited. My feeling is that there might well have been a consensus to merge on that discussion, if not that somebody came along with another proposal to which there was much opposition. I would like to hear your opinions on this project, before I decide if it is a good idea to make an actual merge proposal. Debresser (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose because this has been an old topic of discussion. Tanakh leads/connects to the traditional Jewish and Judaic perspective and allows for the classical Hebraic perspective to have its place on WP, while having "Hebrew Bible" leads to the non-Jewish perspective as well. Besides Jews do not use thew word "Hebrew Bible" but the label "Hebrew Bible" has been accepted on WP for a long time as a way to avoid using the name "Old Testament". Thus to make it only "Hebrew Bible" is only one step removed from imposing a totally Christian name and make it into a merge with Old Testament that then in turn validates the term New Testament. So this is all-around a very tricky business and the current labeling has worked well for over a decade and makes it possible to allow for all points of view without downgrading or denigrating the classical Jewish and Torah, view. Using this type of misguided and misinformed "merge" "logic" one may as well ask to have "Torah" merged with "Bible" or the other way around which is a no-go at this rate. So please leave well-enough alone and focus on other issues. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 14:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
NYT is a good WP:RS and there should be no issue with that. There is a lot worse nonsense that gets put into pro-Chabad articles from worse sources that Debresser has no problems with. Best wishes, IZAK (talk) 14:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not reliable source?
I am having a bit of a problem on Muslim history in Palestine with a team of anti-Israel editors who think that the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not reliable source about the history of Israel. Your help would be appreciated, because these editors rely on their numbers to push their incorrect and unreasonable point of view. Debresser (talk) 11:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Given rulings by both modern orthodoxy and agudat Israel, the so-called "open orthodoxy" cannot be considered part of orthodox judaism, nor its rabbis and "rabahs" orthodox. Our pages should reflect this reality. Council2 (talk) 09:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks User:Debresser, that's a very accurate summary of the situation. Currently the articles mostly represent only their point of view, rather than that of orthodox Judaism. In fact some of my recent edits were reverted precisely on the basis of the claim that the "open orthodox" consider themselves orthodox which would justify saying so in the article. This attitude has to change. Council2 (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
The IP is beginning to join discussion on some of the talkpages in question, which is a positive development. I would encourage other editors to join in so as to determine the direction in which the coverage of this topic should go. My view is that the pages should reflect the orthodox view in addition to O.O.'s own view. Council2 (talk) 12:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Regarding Noah (2014 film), it is included at List of films featuring whitewashed roles due to sources reporting that it had been whitewashed (meaning that white actors are cast into nonwhite roles). There is an argument that because a couple of actors have Jewish backgrounds, this should be mentioned in its entry as a counterpoint to the whitewashing claim. This has been counter-argued as well. Other editors are invited to comment about the relevance of their backgrounds and sourcing for it. The discussion is at Talk:List of films featuring whitewashed roles#Noah, and the discussion is being revived in the "Follow-up" subsection at the end. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)12:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
What is the ethnicity of the characters in the film Noah, and which ethnic group would be best suited to play them, if not Jews? Jennifer Connelly's mother was Jewish and Logan Lerman's parents are both Jewish. I'm not saying this absolves the film of all the whitewashing accusations, but these facts should at least be stated in the article (for example, in the way that I wrote it). No, the Noah characters are not, strictly speaking, Jewish, but the story stems from Jewish culture. It's just one sentence and it's definitely relevant. It's how we would mention that actors in a film about Vikings are of Norwegian or Swedish descent, even though the Vikings were not strictly speaking Norwegian or Swedish nationals. Obtrisgo (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
The above argument is original research put forth as a counterpoint to the sourced claims of whitewashing, which even the screenwriter acknowledged and had put forth a justification. (The screenwriter's comments are included as part of the film's entry.) There are no reliable sources that publish the editor's above argument to qualify for inclusion. It is simply the POV of the editor who wants to change the content to suit their POV or to otherwise mark it as problematic without being able to source their counterpoint. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)01:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Gerri Miller: "Fittingly for a Biblical story, Noah, opening March 28, has some Jewish roots: Director Darren Aronofsky (Black Swan) and Logan Lerman (the Percy Jackson movies) are both Jewish, and Jennifer Connelly, who plays Noah’s wife opposite Russell Crowe is from an interfaith family. Of Polish-Russian descent, her mother was Yeshiva-educated, and her Roman Catholic father is of Irish and Norwegian heritage". Obtrisgo (talk) 04:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
This is a bit of an odd argument as Jews don't believe that Noah was Jewish. Jews believe that the first Jew was Abraham. --Dweller (talk) 09:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I know, although Noah's son Shem is considered the direct ancestor of Jews (and others), making Noah an ancestor as well. And the Noah story comes from the Jewish religion and culture. Anyway, I think me and Erik have settled this. Obtrisgo (talk) 10:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Anyone who believes that Noah is the father of Shem also believes that Noah is the ancestor of every human alive, whether Semitic (decendant of Shem) or not. --Dweller (talk) 11:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Jewish Calendar Category
If you go to any of the holidays, someone is changing the category from hebrew calendar to observances set by the hebrew calendar. It just doesn't seem right. I don't think we need yet another category out there to duplicate what is not needed. Sir Joseph(talk)18:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
It's being done on tons of Jewish articles, and as for Yom Yerushalayim, I reverted back, to the way it was. Just because Chabad may not consider it a holy day, doesn't mean other Jews don't. There are other Jews and other Jewish observances other than Chabad. Sir Joseph(talk)16:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
And your revert was undone. For the same two reasons I gave in my original revert. Mentioning Chabad, as a personal attack on me, was stupid and does not negate the reasons I gave. Debresser (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't know why you're talking here and not on the talkpage there, especially since your claims are ludicrous. Your claims of no sources makes no sense. You can't undue a consensus without discussing it on the talkpage. Sir Joseph(talk)00:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Host: Women in Red (WiR): Did you know that only 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you!
Event details: This is a virtual edit-a-thon hosted by WiR. It will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in reigion to participate. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome.
How many of notable people are female? Then look again at how many articles are written about notable men and notable women. I am sure the percentage will be higher than 15%. Debresser (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I rewrote some things there, removed one superfluous detail, and added a source for most of the section. One statement still needs a source, though. Is that also a problem? Debresser (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
@Howcheng: I'm having a hard time finding a source for that one statement that isn't circular (that is, a copy of this article on some other website). Debresser is now off-line for Sabbath. I am still online for another 4-5 hours, and will try once more. Please respond here in the next few hours as to whether the one remaining {{Citation needed}} means that the article cannot appear on the Main Page. If that is the case, I will either find a source or comment out the statement in order to make sure you can include the article on Sunday. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
We are good to go. It's only the yellow-level and higher maintenance tags that prevent the article from appearing. Thank you for your prompt response. —howcheng {chat}17:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Quite a large piece of information was removed as a copyright infringement, and I am afraid rightly so, even though I am sure the authors wouldn't mind. Still, we now need to add this back in with other words. Debresser (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I'll get on some of it. (The first sentence can be kept with its citation; there's nothing really creative in it per se.)StevenJ81 (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Menachem Mendel Schneerson
An RFC was opened (a bit premature, IMO) on whether or not the Department of Education (not just Education Day) was due to the Rebbe. As of now, the sources linked in the article, IMO, do not assert the claim that because of the Rebbe the US has a cabinet level position in charge of education. If you wish to participate in the discussion or the research, please do so at: Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson. Thanks, Sir Joseph(talk)19:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Hanukah and Chabad POV
Can someone please keep a lookout at the article and on Hanukkah and on Tzvimichelson, he seems to be pushing a Chabad POV wherever he edits and doesn't seem to grasp that it needs to be verifiable and notable. He is now edit warring and putting stuff into the lead which doesn't belong. Sir Joseph(talk)16:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Nah, I can't smell the p'tcha from this far, or is it gala, I get confused. I think he is just too excited though. There comes a point when founding a cabinet level position of the United States has to be even for some a bit too far. Sir Joseph(talk)19:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay. I had a look. What is going on there is that somebody is replacing perfectly good Chabad sources with Aish sources. We, by which I mean Wikipedia as a community, will not condone the replacement of sources based only on personal preference. As one of the few editors still active daily on Wikipedia since the ARBCOM case you referred to recently, let me make it clear that it contained a clear warning to all. Regarding the well sourced statement about the public menorah lightings, there is no reason to doubt the statement. At most I agree it can be moved from the lead to a section of the article proper. Debresser (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I switched the places of the paragraph with the details in the lead and the short sentence in one of the sections.
The reason I am posting here, is to reach the widest possible public, to avoid the assumption that I might be editing out of personal sympathy for Chabad. I hope all will agree, that the edits I made are simply good editing and enforcement of the relevant policies, guidelines, and the conclusions of the ARBCOM case. Debresser (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Don't make it seem like you're such a tzaddik. Tzvimichelson has been pushing a chabad POV in every article he touches. Chanukah has looked like it's now a Chabad yom tov. Someone else decided to add some Aish articles and suddenly it's bad? Sir Joseph(talk)20:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to request you to scrap the personal comment.
Don't lie, please. Nobody added a source. Somebody systematically tried to replace Chabad sources with non-Chabad ones. Such behavior is indeed unacceptable. Debresser (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
In addition to what Debresser (talk) just pointed out, Sir Joseph seems to have an issue with well sourced, well documented, material, from a variety of newspapers, books and academic journals, regarding Rabbi Schneerson's role in bringing Chanukkah to the public. You can not remove it just because you don't like it. TM (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Redirecting Niqqud versions of every Hebrew letter to the article about the letter
Hi, I did this as an example; redirecting heth with niqqud to the article heth. I request all the Hebrew letters with niqqud versions to redirect to the article about that specific letter. The reason for this request is this, let's say somebody visited the article Uzziah and saw the original version of the name in Hebrew with niqqud. He wanted to learn the letters which makes the word Uzziah by copying and pasting those letters in the search box, so he pasted Ayin with kubutz. And the result is nothing.-- İskenderBalas💬18:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
In principle, nothing wrong with this idea. But it will take a lot of time, and I think for very rare need. (Many, if not most, articles containing Hebrew don't even include a menuqad version to worry about.) StevenJ81 (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, running the numbers here. throwing out the cantellation(which multiplies everything theoretically by 30), I *think* we are in a situation where *most* of the letters (for example resh will have about 10 redirects, with the shin/sin and the letters that take dagesh being about 20 (and vav being in a category of its own). So I think this would be about 300 redirects.Naraht (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with StevenJ81 that it's not terribly important, but it can't hurt, so if someone wants to, go ahead. -- Ypnypn (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I picked three words that a non-Jew might look up that have hebrew and all three had a menuqad version (Hannukah, Ezekiel and Adam).Naraht (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
If you'd like to make it a priority, please feel free. I don't object if someone else wants to do it. It's not going to be a high-priority item for me in most cases. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Not a priority for me, I was the one who suggested bringing it here since people here would know what a kubutz is. If I could figure out a way to autogenerate all the combinations, from the list of letters and list of niqqud, I might, but short of that...Naraht (talk) 01:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
As another point of information, the Hebrew Language Wikipedia doesn't have any of these type of redirects. If you look for a letter with niqqud, it doesn't seem to find anything at all.Naraht (talk) 13:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
There have been arguments presented to exclude Jews from the European diaspora article. My position is that it is a non-argument, and that we've gone down this route before. Discussions were started here. As it is a pivotal article referenced in multiple ethnic group templates, and I don't consider it to be an issue for local consensus on the given article most particularly as it doesn't appear to be on more than a couple of editor's watchlists. Input from interested editors would be much appreciated. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
From the page Mizrahi Jews "This includes descendants of Babylonian Jews and Mountain Jews from modern Iraq, Syria, Bahrain, Kuwait, Dagestan, Azerbaijan, Iran, Lebanon, Uzbekistan, Caucasus, Kurdistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Also, Yemenite, Turkish and Persian Jews are usually included within the Mizrahi Jewish group. The term Mizrahim often consists of Maghrebi Jews, including Sephardic who lived in North Africa (Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco)." Guilebeatyu (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
For example, do we have the same thing for Ashkenazi, Sephardi or Yemenite Jews? If not, then I think we should not have the Mizrahi categories either. Debresser (talk) 09:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I added the AFD's for WP:judaism to the navbar. I think we might be able to get rid of some old nav bar items that are not in use, specifically the new article one, if you want to make room. Sir Joseph(talk)05:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Do something about article: Masoretic Text because I'm thinking about blanking the whole page and I did attempt to blank it BTW. The article has been mostly of it unsourced since who really knows, and this project was to focus on the religious foundation of Judaism such as articles: Torah, Book of Haggai, Hebrew Bible etc. What happened? Anyways, I just wanted to let everyone here know, have a happy new year — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
The study of the Masoric texts, and the so-called Masorah Ktana and Masorah Gdolah, is not much practiced in this time and age among religious Jews. Unfortunately. I am a bit of a fan myself, but I doubt that the article is much about the Masorah Ktana and Masorah Gdolah, probably more about the academics of it. Debresser (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
@JudeccaXIII: Most of the most longstanding material is substantially taken from the out-of-copyright 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia article on Masorah by Crawford Howell Toy and Caspar Levias (fr), originally imported by User:RK in two edits in September and November 2003. diff1, diff2
Certainly, as indeed User:RK specifically remarked in the edit summary of the first of those diffs, this should all be checked against much more current sources -- especially any content that is interpretative or evaluative. But to the extent that the material is limited to a factual summary of what the Masorah contains, or history of how it had been studied up to the turn of the 20th century, that part probably still holds up pretty well. Jheald (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I think the best thing to do is scrap any material not important to the overall subject of the article. Mostly focus on unreferenced content which I say is about 75% of the article. Basically what I'm saying if anyone doesn't understand...the article needs an overhaul...mostly. It be nice if any Jewish editors who is informal on the subject can at least give a start on the basics such as use of worship, composition dating, place, other religions views etc. stuff like that. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I might be a bit late to this game, and pretty uneducated about it, as I know little about Open Orthodoxy, but am I right in thinking that tranches of Modern Orthodoxy (let alone Chareidim) regard it as Conservative, while Open Orthodoxy itself defines itself as Orthodox?
I'm not trying to open a fight here, merely ascertain if that's the case (yes/no).
If so, we have a bit of an issue with biogs like this one: Shmuly Yanklowitz, as he'd say he's Modern Orthodox (as the bio currently has it) while others would see that as POV. Yanklowitz has made public statements about his Open Orthodox stance ([9]).
Would the simplest way to handle this to be to define Open Orthodox people as Open Orthodox, with a footnote explaining the divergent views?
Now that we have an Open Orthodoxy article, what are participants' views on creating a Category/ies to match and relabelling people like Weiss and Yanklowitz from Modern Orthodox to Open Orthodox? --Dweller (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
OO Rabbis never claimed to be Modern Orthodox, they claim to be Orthodox. Open Orthodoxy is claimed to be Orthodox, not a subpart of Modern Orthodoxy. I am in favor of 1) putting OO rabbi by the lead, not MO rabbi, since they are not MO rabbis, and 2) creating a OO Rabbi category. Sir Joseph(talk)16:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I would only caution that before labeling a rabbi Open Orthodox, you should be sure they either self-identify as such or are described as such by reliable sources. Over the years, I've seen many Wikipedia articles refer to rabbis who were not Orthodox—but not Reform either—as Reform. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk03:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
In that case, I would just leave out the denomination, as we did with Shmuly Yanklowitz until I found a RS that identified him as a OO rabbi. Sir Joseph(talk)04:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Someone has just added the Open Orthodoxy article to the Orthodox Judaism category, which, once again, is uncomfortable. I think we need to start by creating Category:Open Orthodox Judaism, so all relevant articles can fall out of that, and we can host that within Category:Jewish_religious_movements, thereby avoiding the is it/isn't it argument over whether it truly is "Orthodox". --Dweller (talk) 13:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I just noticed a poorly cited (and I think inaccurate) remark about Sephardim in New York in an article about a Sephardic congregation in Seattle. There are multiple issues: definition of Sephardim (e.g. I would not consider Bukharan Jews to be Sephardim, but perhaps others think otherwise), and an apparent claim that Sephardim are now a higher percentage of New York Jews than of Seattle Jews, which I find absolutely implausible. I've been able to address some that were merely about grammar, but not the issues of substance, and would appreciate if someone with more expertise would take a look. See Talk:Sephardic_Bikur_Holim_Congregation#New_York. - Jmabel | Talk00:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Please let us know if you open a discussion at Talk:Bernie Sanders, with a precise link. The subject sounds very interesting. Debresser (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The discussion is at Talk:Bernie Sanders#Is Sanders a religious Jew?. The subject is very interesting. There is an ongoing debate as to whether Sanders is a religious Jew, with some claiming that there is no possible other meaning to the word "Jewish". I personally strongly agree with our article at Jews#Who is a Jew?, which says:
"Judaism shares some of the characteristics of a nation, an ethnicity, a religion, and a culture, making the definition of who is a Jew vary slightly depending on whether a religious or national approach to identity is used. Generally, in modern secular usage Jews include three groups: people who were born to a Jewish family regardless of whether or not they follow the religion, those who have some Jewish ancestral background or lineage (sometimes including those who do not have strictly matrilineal descent), and people without any Jewish ancestral background or lineage who have formally converted to Judaism and therefore are followers of the religion"
You claim to follow WP:NOR, and yet you feel perfectly comfortable engaging in original research and making your own determination what type of Jew Sanders is -- nonsense that noreliable sources would bother with. All the while, Donald Trump's infobox describes him as a Christian. Fucking troll. — MShabazzTalk/Stalk23:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I added the Leo Frank article to this WikiProject since it was on Jewish History but not here. I got this article to GA last year and might eventually go for FA. If anyone is interested in assessing the article importance or offering any comments, I'd appreciate it. Tonystewart14 (talk) 07:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
3 Tammuz falls on July 9, 2016, which is Shabbat. Is the observance moved a day? And if so, is it moved to 2 Tammuz or 4 Tammuz? I'm not sure because this is a Chabad sect holiday and thus it isn't found on most online Jewish calendars.
10 Kislev - Again, same problem as before. It is a Chabad observance falls on December 10, 2016, which is Shabbat. Is it moved, and if so, to what day? 9 Kislev or 11 Kislev?
Counting the Omer has no bearing on Yom Kippur Katan. There is no YKK in Nisan, but not because of Sefirat haOmer—only because there is no fasting during Nisan (except firstborn on Erev Pesach or a bride and groom on their wedding day). There is YKK in Iyar. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the info on Yom Kippur Katan. I know that the Chabad days are not considered under halakha, given that they are a splinter sect, but I'm sure the Chabad have their own rules about it. Is anyone able to direct me to a resource that might be able to answer my query in regards to Chabad observances? Asarelah (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thank you for clearing that up. And I admit, I didn't actually read the Chabad article, only the parts about the observances, so my bad. Also, the article on Mother's Day in Israel has it falling on Shevat 30, which is Yom Kippur Katan. Is this just an odd instance of bad scheduling on the part of the Israeli government, or have I mixed up Yom Kippur Katan? Asarelah (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I *did* read it, I just thought it was odd that they'd schedule it on a Yom Kippur Katan and I wasn't sure if 30 Shevat was observed as a Yom Kippur Katan, as the Yom Kippur Katan article lists several exceptions and I thought 30 Shevat might be one that wasn't listed. I presume by your response that it isn't an exception. Thank you. Asarelah (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I doubt anyone even gave it a second thought, to be honest with you. I suspect that Yom Kippur Katan is just about unknown in the secular Jewish world; it is not observed universally even in the Orthodox world. And flipping the problem the other way, I suspect that within the YKK-observant world, Mother's Day is just not an issue. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
That's what I think. But Hasidic Judaism is in the next level up of the Cat tree, along with Conservative Judaism and the Essenes. --Dweller (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Hasidic should be under Haredi, and Haredi under Orthodox. Or Haredi on the same level as Orthodox, both in Jewish religious movements. Presently Hasidic is in both Haredi and Orthodox and Jewish religious movements, and I think the Orthodox should be removed from both latter. Debresser (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think Hasidic should be under Haredi, I think they are distinct movements. It should be on the same level as Haredi under Orthodox. Sir Joseph(talk)18:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I think Haredim would be the Israeli Litvish, the Bnei Brakers,etc. the Chasidim are all over the spectrum in terms of observance, Hasidisism is a movement under Orthodoxy, but it's not under Haredism, it's a spiritual movement similar perhaps to Haredism, but they're not always the same thing, especially if we want to make it easier for people to search. Sir Joseph(talk)20:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
So you say, but I think not, and I think it would be better to have Hasidic and Haredim both under Orthodox. Hasidic spans many areas and it's best to just keep it under Orthdox, or I would even begin to think to keep it under Jewish, not even under Orthodox. Sir Joseph(talk)15:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
To answer Dweller's questions, misunderstood by SirJoseph, I do know why this is so. Somebody, perhaps it even was I, decided these are non-diffusing subcategories. If we decide so, then that decision should be implemented for all denominations. Debresser (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
We ought to tidy it up. It'd be very confusing for anyone unfamiliar with the concepts. It looks like Hasidim are not Orthodox. --Dweller (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Then the Haredi article makes no sense, which I agree with. Look at the Haredim in Brooklyn living in Midwood and Marine Park going to Brooklyn College!?!? I think they're not Haredim, but I lost that battle ages ago. That whole article is messed up. As for hassidim and haredi, the hassidim are wide areas, and should not be synonymous with haredim so they should not be under the category of haredim. Sir Joseph(talk)17:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Sir Joseph, Hassidim are not synonymous with haredim, not at all. Debresser, weigh in on this:
Overall, I would consider there to be two major subcategories of haredim:
Hassidim
"Mitnagdim/Yeshivish/Litvish" (or whatever label you want to put)
The above two groups are substantially distinct from each other. (I say "substantially" because I don't want to be on record as saying that it's impossible for someone to exist in the intersection of those groups.)
Beyond that, there may be some additional people that don't fall neatly into either of the two camps above ("Oilamish," in Debresser's lexicon above).
I would define Haredim, in turn, as a subgroup of Orthodox. The main other subgroup of Orthodox would be something around "Modern Orthodox/Religious Zionist", and it's a separate issue whether or not there shouldn't really be more than one such subgroup identified (possibly with substantial overlap). Haredim and this other group also have a non-empty intersection, and I'm sure there are people who don't fall neatly into any of those groups, either. And this leaves out the question of Open Orthodoxy, which I'm not even going to touch at the moment.
Finally, I'm not sure what your problem with Haredim going to Brooklyn College is. In the US, it's pretty common for haredim (male and female, as far as it goes) to attend college. Most of the time, that study is pretty vocational in nature; it's a lot less common for haredim to focus on liberal arts, for example. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, MO and RZ are not the same, at least in Israel. What I mean by Haredim going to college is that the lead basically says Haredim don't go to college. Brooklyn Jews aren't haredim, they're yeshivish. Haredim is a modern term brought over by Israelis. An American may think they're charedi but when they land and call themselves a charedi, they'll be in for a rude awakening when they do so. That's all I meant. Go to Israel and see any charedi going to college, it doesn't really happen, even high school with secular subjects doesn't really happen, even Maarava has to be outside of the J'Lem and only now is some sort of programs beginning to start for classes for charedim in Israel. As for chassidim, there's more of an overlap as for spiritual and cultural and identity, that I think it should stop at the Orthodox level, and not go under charedi. Sir Joseph(talk)18:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
The lead doesn't say that at all. צא ולמד.
I'll be the first to admit that there are differences between communities, and differences between Israel and other places. But what you are trying to say, I think, is that "Haredi" is uniquely an Israeli institution, and that to the extent there is a commonality between yeshivish and chassidish Jews in hutz la'aretz, you'd use a different term (like the unpleasant term "Ultra-Orthodox"). I think, though, that the term "haredi" here is being used broadly to include all these communities. Therefore, I think my category hierarchy is substantially correct. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
It is unfortunate that none of these discussions were notified here.
I don't have a problem with the merging of the parent categories, as it's not unreasonable to see a single global movement here -- UK Masorti shuls frequently have rabbis who trained at JTS (if they weren't trained at Leo Baeck in London), host visits and talks by U.S. Conservative rabbis, use the Etz Hayim Chumash, etc.
But it does seem to me that Category:British Masorti rabbis should be preserved as the name the name for the rabbis of this movement in the UK, as how the national movements in the UK (and also Israel) self-identify is as Masorti, not Conservative, as for example overwhelmingly used on the website http://www.masorti.org.uk/, albeit they may be affiliated in turn with the World Council of Conservative Judaism. (Now renamed Masorti Olami ?).
If you have a good reason to think that the Cfd decision doesn't pertain to British rabbis, then just ignore the discussion, which was perhaps too general, and undo the changes to articles about British rabbis. I do agree it is a shame this Cfd wasn't reported here. For most Afd's there is always some editor who is so kind to inform us. Debresser (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Mikveh article
Notorious edit warrior and POV editor VanEman has made some edits to the Mikveh article, which I successfully stopped by adding a source. Now he has removed a lot of information, and because he is edit warring, the page was protected after his removals. Fairness compels me to add that VanEman has also made some good additions to the article, and that sources can easily be found for the statements he removed. Please comment on the talkpage sections. Debresser (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Western Wall
Can you please join me at Talk:Western Wall and try to salvage the article? I'm especially trying to save the article's Jewish section. Chesdovi, who I think is a member here, has been inserting Satmar NK POV and as the section now reads is heavily slanted towards the Kotel being a source of disunity, not a place of prayer, etc. It's a messy section. Any help would be appreciated. He has been inserting POV/Fringe elements such as boycott of the western wall. Sir Joseph(talk)17:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Can someone please look at the article, he is trying to de-judaize the wall. I have no idea what his problem is, I know he's anti-Zionist, but I feel he is going too far this time. Sir Joseph(talk)02:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I somewhat shortened the introductory paragraphs, up to the actual rules. I agree it is somewhat wordy, but I could not in good conscience shorten more without losing significant information.Debresser (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I added inline references so you can tell what's copied from the Jewish Encyclopedia and what was added later. ------02:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
The problem is, we have terms that imply a distinction, and a huge scholarly literature that to-and-fro on the merits and demerits of making precisely a distinction. Secondly, personal religious commitments have historically inflected these discussions (though one will find Christian scholars conflating them, and Jewish scholars marking the putative differences).
While I think your comment,'Most sources do not make any differentiation between antijudaism and antisemitism. It is a minority, perhaps WP:FRINGE,' widely off the mark, I also think Kendrick's view, while historically correct in noting that the distinction is widespread, too rigid.
In modern Christian apologetics ( (Fr.)E. H. Flannery,"Anti-Judaism and Anti-Semitism: A Necessary Distinction," JES 10 (1973): 581-88 anti-Judaism is taken to be 'a purely theological reality …which rejected Judaism as a way of Salvation but not Jews as a people.') all sorts of fine distinctions are made, which even hair(Hare)-split anti-Judaism (accepted as distinct from anti-Semitism) down into ‘prophetic anti-Judaism’, ‘Jewish-Christian anti-Judaism’ and ‘Gentilizing anti-Judaism’!!)
You'll find the real or apologetic distinctions merits weighed in virtually every scholarly exegesis of the Gospels of Matthew and St.John, particularly regarding the latter.
The historical problem is that for the first several decades, probably the majority of 'Christians' were, like the founders of the 'heresy', Jews, and after the Destruction of Jerusalem, the rift between the developing rabbinical form of Judaism, and its Christocentric messianic sect was increasingly suffused with polemical vehemence (Birkat haMinim) vs. St.John and particularly the letters of Paul, who, if somewhat anachronistically, looks very much like what is loosely called today a 'self-hating Jew'. All this took place in the larger discursive context of pagan attitudes, from Hellenic philosemitism to classical and Egyptian Judeophobia. Teasing all of these strains apart, making careful hermeneutic distinctions that, suspending our post-Holocaust worldview's retrospective rereading tendencies, that take into account the ethnic, creedal, regional distinctions of what were distinct cultural/anthropological/historical realities, is no easy matter. All you have, in short, is academic controversy over these distinctions.
Langmuir himself, who can see the problem with the defensive ecclesiastical distinction, nonetheless himself, marks off the two, preferring anti-Judaism to refer to polemics down to 1150, based on real competitive rifts between Judaism and Christianity, and the kind of fantasy-fed 'chimerical' discourse against Jews raising the hysterical myths of hatred of Jews based on ritual killing world-money managers, racial odium. I'm not persuaded: as Norman Cohn showed (Europe's Inner Demons etc.) this fanrtasy is rooted in ancient traditions, but certainly what scholars call anti-Judaic in early times fed into the classical anti-Semitism of more modern times in a profound way. Hope this is of some help.Nishidani (talk) 10:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
This is really good info; thanks @Nishidani:. I shall endeavour to incorporate the sources you mentioned into the article. Wikipedia is blessed to have someone of your knowledge and intellect working on the project. -- Kendrick7talk04:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, but I should clarify that I think it is mainly useful as a historical term for origins. I was reading about the life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer last night: he was strongly opposed to anti-Semitism, but was, at least theologically what might be called 'anti-Judaic' in the Augustinian sense, that the Jews must be preserved as witnesses to what Christianity came from and superceded. To Jews at that time, though he is not a good example, such equivocation might rightly have been interpreted as echoing anti-Semitism, while wearing a bespoke suit. As one can see in looking at the orations and polemics in France in both pre-a and Carolingian times for example, what was often read as anti-Semitic in priestly screeds has, in recent times, been analysed as an anti-Judaic fervor lambasting 'Jews' (a 'negligible minority') for internal political ends. But those intemperant tropes laid, at the same time, the grounds for a generic hatred of Jews centuries later certainly, and we are dealing with textual traces that do not have the kind of human details that might, were they known, actually lead one to think of sociopathic enmity. I can well understand why this seems like conceptual thumb-twiddling to anyone who happens to be outside that fold. I once observed an English scholar, a radical enlightenment humanist, suddenly jump out of his impeccably bred manners, and assume the crouching wheedling manner of Fagin, all to make a caricature of a colleague, who happened to be Jewish. The transmogrification lasted just 10 seconds, to underline a point he wished to make. That is something many Jews have occasion to see or hear, in quips, faux pas's, in their diaspora upbringing, and is uncanny in its nervous testimony to how deeply laid, beneath even the best of gentiles, this kind of tradition can persist. It is perhaps the strongest argument for Israel: to have a land where one can be oneself, Jewish, in any manner, without having to put up with this chronic baiting, or underhand sneering, as one goes about one's daily life. To be Jewish in short, without having, to think about what actually 'Jewishness' entails, much as French, English etc. never find their daily lives worried by outside comments on who they are or are not. Nishidani (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Women and Talis, Women and the Wall, Women and Tefillin
Can you please keep a look out at user VanEman, he appears to be pushing POV at every article related to Taalis, Tefillin and the Western Wall. While a mention at the Western Wall about women and prayer might be OK, a picture and whole section of women and prayer at the Western Wall is not necessary at the Tefillin section or at the Tallis article. Sir Joseph(talk)01:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Proposal to ban VanEman from Judaism-related articles
I sincerely doubt that the definition given in the Zera Yisrael article is based on halakha, but perhaps I am wrong. If I am not wrong, then that stub should be deleted. Please have a look. Debresser (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
It needs a proper expert to take a look. The problem is wikipedia has become the staging ground for certain missions to grow politically motivated ideas on the edges of Judaism slowly, slowly and step by step sometimes over years -as with the case I am working on [10]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.71.129.210 (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I removed the last sentence, it is incorrect. What can be added is that many ZI can be converted much more readily and can also move to Israel using right of return more easily. But they are not Jewish, and in Judaism there is no such thing as half-Jewish. I also added some refs to the first part and got rid of some tags. Sir Joseph(talk)00:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Chesdovi, I think Debresser was saying that he didn't think the definition in the article, which claims to be based on halakha, was actually based on halakha, not that Wikipedia articles in general have to be based on halakha. I disagree with Debresser about many things related to Judaism, but I agree with him about this: If a Wikipedia article says something is according to halakha, it should in fact be based on mainstream halakha, not on a WP:FRINGE interpretation. (We may argue about the appropriate weight to give Orthodox and Conservative and Hasidic halakha, but I think we agree that they're not WP:FRINGE interpretations.) — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk01:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Then just remove the bit that says it is based on Halakha or add the dubious tag, don't need to delete it. Page may not warrant inclusion for other reasons though. Chesdovi (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The Weekly Torah portion portal/box isn't updating automatically
I'm not finding any sources for "Shemen Afarsimon" that are convincing, could this be because the article was created to publicise a dubious finding by Vendyl Jones? I'm considering taking this to AfD. Doug Wellertalk14:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Shemen afarsemon was used for the anointing of kings in ancient Israel, a relevant fact that for unclear reasons is not in the article. I would definitely not Afd this. Debresser (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi everyone! As some of you may know, the "Did You Know?" section of the main page often creates a set of themed DYK hooks for holidays and other celebrations. For example, on Frank Sinatra's 100th birthday, DYK ran a set of Sinatra-themes hooks. I recently suggested running a set of Passover-themed hooks on April 22 (the first night of Passover) -- see this discussion at the DYK talk page. At the moment, we only have one Passover-themed article for the occasion, and we can certainly use help creating and nominating more Passover-themed articles. I included a list of potential articles at the DYK talk page, which includes Matzah pizza and White House Passover Seder. Thanks in advance for your help! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
where's the right place to publicize an article needing work
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
Hello, Please note that Delicatessen, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBottalk00:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team
Would anyone be able to take a look at some of the recent edits on Anti-Judaism? I couldn't verify the source used for a bunch of recent edits. I've made some comments on the talkpage that give more of an explanation. PermStrump(talk)03:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Here are the links to the article and to the book:
Yahweh. I personally didn't make edits but I'm not sure the rating is accurate (I'd probably rate lower class, want another opinion - honestly the article as it is right now barely related to Judaism) -KaJunl (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I'd welcome yet an additional pair of eyes. In the meanwhile, I'm ok leaving it at B, although it is probably only borderline B-C. I think the point of the article as it currently stands is that this relates to a pre-monotheistic understanding of G-d, as some academics see it. I don't think it's worth potentially launching a fight over a rating; I'd rather focus on improving the article. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Nathan/Solomon
The article on Nathan (son of David) states Nathan was the third of four sons born to Bathsheba, and Solomon's older brother, making Solomon fourth. Chronicles 3 and 14 would appear to support this. However, the Solomon article says he was "the second born child to David and his wife Bathsheba", after their first son died shortly after birth. Both the Jewish Encyclopedia and the Catholic Encyclopedia agree. There appears to be some confusion between the article on Solomon and that of his (older/younger?) brother Nathan. Is this just one of those areas where the various sources simply don't agree? Thank you. Mannanan51 (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Ugandism
I saw this term in a story and there seems to be some use of the term online. As far as I can tell, it boils down to "Zionism without Zion". Does anyone think there is enough for an article?Naraht (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but more as an insulting term for *any* effort to have a place for Jews that isn't Israel (including, for example, the Autonomous Oblast)Naraht (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
The common term is not "Ugandism", it is Territorialism. The current Wikipedia article is about the JTO organization, but the name is often used to refer to the general concept.--Pharos (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
