Talk:Congregation Baith Israel Anshei Emes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Congregation Baith Israel Anshei Emes is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 13, 2008.
WikiProject Judaism (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject New York City (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Talk page history[edit]

Is there a way for ordinary folk to see the substantive history of this talk page? It seems to have gone into the twilight zone after the article was renamed some time ago. Thincat (talk) 11:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

What "substantive history of this talk page" do you mean? You're looking at the entire history of the Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 01:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I've had another look. The article was created in May 2006 (by yourself), proposed for deletion in September 2006 (and kept), and then recently promoted to Featured Article. It had seemed odd to me that there had been no substantive discussion until very recently. However, now I see that it was very much a one man effort by yourself and discussion was at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Congregation Baith Israel Anshei Emes and not on the talk page. So, apologies if any are needed and congratulations on the smooth progress of the article! Thincat (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Why so many Jewish-related featured articles?[edit]

There's a glut of them. Seriously, any Palestinian reading Wikipedia over a period of a few months would probably be offended.--Plastic Lament (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia attempts to avoid bias within any article but there is little mechanism for ensuring an overall balance across articles. In particular, recent events get vastly more coverage than events in previous times. You, and anyone else, are very welcome to contribute new articles of relevance and interest to Palestinians. See, for example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine. Thincat (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Are you claiming that Palestinians are offended by Jewish topics? Jayjg (talk) 02:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Something tells me one would have a hard time getting an article about, say, a major Brooklyn mosque on the Wikipedia mainpage. BYT (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, that's nonsense. Jayjg (talk) 01:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I expect you are right although I have found Islam. Maybe this proves your point. I wonder whether more effort is put into Judaism-related articles or whether they suffer from rather less opposition? A bit of both I suppose. Thincat (talk) 13:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with it. Wikipedia's featured articles aren't always balanced, and no one's saying "Judaism's great! Fie upon Palestine!" If Palestinians have a problem with the religion itself, well, they need to get a grip. Brutannica (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Offensive is not the article but the first comment. If you see a glut of Jewish-related featured articles on the main page, then it is probably you has a problem, because there is no glut (if you would you check the history of TFA you would see). Not to mention those Palestinians, who according to you, would be offended by a well-written article on a Jewish synagogue in Brooklyn. Oh, and btw Mosque has also been on the main page - and there are not many other Islam-related [articles], actually none I could find with a quick glance. But what this dicussion proves is that there is opposition whenever there is Judaism-related article on the main page. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


Did I say anyone would be offended by anything? Don't think so. BYT (talk) 21:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Plastic Lament did, should be clear from the discussion that I am referring to the complaint of this user. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with BlueSalo - anyone who's bothered by anything Jewish, just because it is Jewish obviously has some sort of issue. I hardly think Palestinians would care much about a synagouge or a mosque being featured on the main page. But I truly wish that more Palestinians would spend more time on Wikipedia! That would surely help their efforts more than their armed response ever will because "The pen is mightier than the sword". --David Igra (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up, BlueSalo. I thought perhaps you were talking to me, by virtue of the fact that you pointed out the Mosque has been on the main page, a fact that didn't appear to have anything to do with Plastic Lament's lament. David Igra, thanks for your response above. Are either of you interested in discussing my contention above, namely that a comparable article about an individual mosque in the US seems highly unlikely to make it to the mainpage? Do you think I'm wrong about this, or do you think I'm right about this? Are there issues of systemic bias to consider here?

Perhaps I should rephrase the question, and I'm sorry if I've been unclear.

Would BlueSalo, or anyone else, be willing to work with me on creating, and bringing to featured article status, an article about this mosque? It is the oldest in the United States, founded in 1934, and it is located in, of all places, Iowa. Clearly intriguing, carries historical import, and offers a decent parallel with the Congregation Baith Israel Anshei Emes article. Do I have any takers? If you do not want to work on the article with me, and share with me the task of advocating that it be featured on the mainpage, would you be willing to discuss why? BYT (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The notion that there is a bias is in my mind false. I check in on the Wikipedia site almost on a daily basis and I feel that there is a wide range of articles being featured and I believe that I would have reacted on any bias by now. If you feel that this before mentioned mosque and its article is worth a main page feature than you should absolutely make every effort to make that happen. --David Igra (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
BYT, the reason there is a Featured Article about a Jewish/congregation synagogue is that I spent over 2 years writing it. It's the only article about a synagogue to ever reach FA status. There is no "systemic bias" on Wikipedia's part here, just the result of a lot of hard work. As for it being on the main page, I have no idea how it got there, and was completely surprised when people told me it was. The only reason that an article on an individual mosque has never made it to the front page is because no-one has ever written a Featured Article on one. And quite frankly, if people spent less time in this highly distasteful whining about this article making the front page, and more time actually writing Featured Articles about mosques, then you'd soon enough have a mosque article on the front page too. Jayjg (talk) 01:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Choosing an article for FA has nothing to do with the subject of the article, and everything to do with the article itself. If a Brooklyn Mosque (or any mosque) had an article that was this good, with this many citations, references, and information, it would be an WP:FA too. I would like to point out that Xenu, ATheism, Pope Pius XII, and Islam are all WP:FA as well. --Bachrach44 (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. Both on some comments being highly distasteful with questionable motives and that hard honest work lies behind any featured article. I'd like to thank Jayjg and everyone else who dedicates so much time to better Wikipedia, for their efforts. I often read the featured article and this one in particular was as others already have stated, both well written and interesting.--David Igra (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


Jayjg, thanks for your comments above, and of course for all the great work on this article. Are you willing to team up with me in writing an article about the mosque in Iowa? I think it would be a great project. Please let me know. BYT (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow[edit]

Jakie Chan was a much better featured article IMO —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barakeh (talkcontribs) 20:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

He certainly is more famous, at any rate. Probably earns more money too. Jayjg (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi'd[edit]

I've semi'd it but for a undetermined period (because not to remove the prevent Grawp-move protection) until Grawp will leave the site. I would say give a few hours before unprotecting it.JForget 00:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Priestly Blessing[edit]

Around 1869 the shul removed Birchas Kohanim from the prayers (not so surprising considering the general attitude at the time of Reform Judaism towards anything connected with the Temple in Jerusalem). But in 1982 they allowed women to say it as part of a general move to egalitarianism. At some point in between it must have been added back in for men, right? Manassehkatz (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point, but the sources don't address that. By the way, until the early 1900s Baith Israel considered itself to be an Orthodox congregation, and was for many decades after its founding the most traditional synagogue in Brooklyn. Jayjg (talk) 01:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)