Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:JEW)
Jump to: navigation, search
  Main   Discussion Board   Members   Article Assessment   Templates   Categories   Resources   Manual of Style   To do   New Articles   Sister Projects   Watchlist  

Discussion Board

Discussions relating to Jews and Judaism. (edit) (back to top)

WikiProject Judaism (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

History of the Jews in X articles[edit]

Considering the Nepal case above and general issues with this type of title, do we want to consider a new standard for naming this kind of culture-by-country article?

Some options that occur to me, that might be broader, or just less awkward:

  • Jews in X
  • Judaism in X
  • Jews and Judaism in X
  • Jewish history in X--Pharos (talk) 06:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I think "Jews and Judaism in X" is most general and therefore best. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Would you support moving American Jews to Jews and Judaism in the United States, for example?--Pharos (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I would prefer "History of Jews and Judaism in X". Otherwise it sounds like the articles are only about the present, while they are mostly about the history. Debresser (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
For a number of countries we have both, e.g. American Jews and History of the Jews in the United States, and that probably makes sense for those countries that both have a major Jewish presence and where we happen to have enough material written for separate articles. In cases where the Jewish presence is minor, or where we just don't have enough material to justify two articles, which one should be the more inclusive "default"? Should that depend on the chronology of Jewish presence in that particular country? In the Nepal case, it has been argued that a History of title was obscuring the fact that the most notable events and activities are quite recent. While in the other cases, e.g., Saudi Arabia, one can make a strong case for History of as almost all of the Jewish presence is in the past.--Pharos (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I support "Jews and Judaism in X", even for the United States. This accords with Category:Jews and Judaism in X. Yoninah (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── NOTE: @Yoninah:, @Debresser:, @Pharos:, @Malik Shabazz:: Please see Template {{Jews and Judaism category tree}} to understand the hierarchy of the naming system for CATEGORIES in place on WP for basically a decade! Do not try to "fix" ten years of hard work that is built on good foundations. You need to understand the nature of the parent category, and the sub-categories and the sub-sub-categories that proceed from that!!! The category names do not match with actual articles all the time for many reasons, but the system has worked perfectly and there is no need to change it now for any reason. Any attempt to change the names will cause mass confusion and havoc and few will be able to untangle or even understand the ensuing mess that would follow or to fix all the loose ends it will unleash like opening a huge can of worms! There are reasons why "Jews and Judaism" cannot be the best category for "Jews history" simply because Jewish history includes events, personalities, including gentiles and secular events and factors that go beyond just Jews and Judaism, but they do fit perfectly in the Jewish history of [[History of the Jews in ____" (continent/region/country/city). See my fuller additional explanation below. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I think "History of (the) Jews [and Judaism] in X" is better in almost all cases, since for most places the modern community is negligible compared to the past. -- Ypnypn (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose name change: All of the articles about "History of Jews in x" are really about that. What's more, many of them make great reading. Did you know about the Jewish community in Kaifeng, China? That the tiny Jewish community of Bahrain is mentioned in the Talmud? Fascinating.
All of the articles, that is, except one. History of the Jews in Nepal is not about the history of Jews in Nepal, because - how many times has this been said? - there is no Jewish community in Nepal and never was. The article started out as a coatrack to discuss Chabad House in Kathmandu, and has turned into a wart that is threatening here to disfigure the face of articles on Judaism throughout Wikipedia.
Let us not allow this article to do that. Do not rename good articles, whose names reflect their content, because of one egregiously bad article which is made up out of the whole cloth. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep the current naming system because Jewish history and Jews and Judaism ARE NOT the same thing!!! and the parent category of Category:Jewish history, with Category:Jewish history by country covers everything including Jews, Judaism, and any related topics that impact Jewish history. There are a few cases where some articles and topics overlap but 90% of the time "History of the Jews in ____" is specific to and covers the Jewish history in that country/city/location PERFECTLY FINE! To change the current naming system would also create massive confusion with the categories because there are distinct and clear categories for Category:Judaism that deals with religious topics such as Category:Synagogues, and Category:Jews that deals with lists and names of Jews, many not even connected to Judaism or to Jewish history. With the current name of "History of the Jews in ___" it connects to and includes things like Category:The Holocaust and other topics, such as relations with Israel and other countries and topics that are historical topics and not related to the religion of Judaism, or to Jews as such, sometimes it is more indirect, and from the point of view of those GENTILES (not Jews and not connected to Judaism either!) who caused it, so it is not about Jews either but its about the Nazis and their antisemitism for example. Indeed Category:Antisemitism does NOT fit neatly into "Judaism" (unless when discussed as part of theology) or only "Jews" (nothing to do with various categories of Jews by ancestry) either but is a perfect topic when in Jewish history. The current system is NOT broken, so please do not try to "fix" it. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

For the sake of understanding the differences between the topics of Jews, Judaism, and Jewish history (not to mention Israel) and to avoid confusing them or "combining" them, and in order to keep the articles and categories relating to them separate and clear, it is important to know and understand the following navigational template {{Jews and Judaism category tree}} produced in full below. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC):

Category:Jews and Judaism category tree:
Main parent category: Category:Jews and Judaism (by country, place, region, topic.) [Main container category.]
Main sub-category: Category:Jews (by country, place, biographies, lists, categories of individuals.) [Main container sub-category.]
Main sub-category: Category:Judaism (by country, place, denominations, religious topics, religious texts, synagogues, yeshivas, schools, rabbis.) [Main container sub-category.]
Main sub-category: Category:Jewish history (by country, region, era, all secular topics.) [Main container sub-category.]

IZAK, despite your usual style of posting (nobody but you really understands how to improve Wikipedia, and everything you disagree with will cause havoc), I still think that the articles should be called "History of Jews and Judaism in X". Category structure has no influence on naming decisions, and if necessary will have to be adapted. Debresser (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
@Debresser: 1 It is incorrect English to say "History of Jews and XYZ" the correct way to say and write it is "...the Jews" as part of a full sentence in English. 2 While it is correct to say "History of Israel" or "History of [any country/religion]", but the same cannot be said of a people or nationality, the little word "the" must precede "Jews" in this case. While for the category it is correct to say "Jews and Judaism" as a stand-alone title. 3 In fact your suggestion creates confusion, because while it is correct to say "History of Judaism" it is NOT correct (in English) to say "History of Jews" but rather, the correct form in English is "History of the Jews" as any native-speaker of English would recognize and know right away. 4 Another objection is that why drag "Judaism" into a title that has to do with history? especially with the field of Jewish history, and note that it is NOT called "Judaism history" nor is it called "The history of Judaism" -- something entirely different since Jewish history is much more it is NOT just the "history of Judaism". 5 History is all-inclusive, and "Jews" is very specific, we do not need to add a superfluous "qualifier" of Jews "and" Judaism. 6 "Judaism" narrows the focus to a religion, while Jewish history is about not just religious topics, but also includes things and events like secular Jews, secular Jewish topics, and even opposition to and rejection of Judaism. 7 By all mean write articles about "Judaism in country XYZ" focusing only the religious aspect, such as synagogues, rabbis, yeshivas, and other things important to Judaism as a faith in that locale, but 8 that does not preclude having "History of the Jews in ____" that covers everything, including anti-Judaism, secular Jews, antisemitism and anything that effects the Jews that has nothing to do directly or even indirectly with Judaism. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
"History of Jews and Judaism" may miss the word "the", but 1. it can be added 2. titles are often in telegram style 3. the meaning is clear. All the other points you make I don't really see as issues. Debresser (talk) 07:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Synagogues face mass AfDs[edit]

This discussion contains a number of disappointingly ill-tempered and un-collegial remarks. The speculation about IZAK (talk · contribs)'s conduct and motives in raising this RfC is unnecessary and received no weight in the close. More politely-phrased, but just as unpleasant and insidious, remarks insinuating that Namiba (talk · contribs) is an anti-semite are also unnecessary and received no weight in the close. Whether or not you agree with his methods, you can take it to the bank that Namiba's motives are about improving our coverage of synagogues.

The discussion is quite wide-ranging, and goes some way outside the original question. I'll deal with the subjects discussed in what I think is a logical order, which is not quite the same order as they appear in the debate below.

Q: The RfC question assumes and implies that Namiba's AfD nominations are "arbitrary" and headed for "mass deletions". It goes on to suggest that Namiba should discuss and request improvements to articles before beginning AfDs. Is this an appropriately neutral summary of the events under discussion?
A: No. The consensus is that the RfC phrasing does not summarise the dispute in an accurate and neutral way.

Q: Should Namiba be asked to slow down his activities?
A: Although there is no consensus on this point, a number of editors express the legitimate concern that too many nominations in the same area will overwhelm our processes and this WikiProject will not be able to answer them all effectively, to the detriment of the encyclopaedia. I suggest that it would be appropriate for Namiba to focus on what he feels are the worst articles, and tries not to have too many at AfD all at the same time.

Q: Should Namiba discuss and request improvements to articles before beginning AfDs?
A: No. Anyone can begin an AfD on any subject with or without prior discussion. This is not disruptive.

I hope this helps.—S Marshall T/C 10:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Namiba (talk · contribs) aka "TM", seems to have started an arbitrary process of eliminating articles about Orthodox Judaism synagogues from Category:Orthodox synagogues in the United States, he was requested to stop this process of mass nominations for deletions without further discussions and requests for improvement of the articles. So far he has nominated for deletion these articles: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beth HaMedrosh Hagodol-Beth Joseph & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregation Tiferes Yisroel (2nd nomination) & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anshei Sfard (Louisville, Kentucky) & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregation Arugas Habosem that looks like its heading for mass deletions in this area. The nominator was requested to consider WP:DONOTDEMOLISH and WP:CHANCE and to please start a discussion or a WP:RFC if he feels such articles are not up to snuff at a venue of his choosing, or at WP:TALKJUDAISM that would make the most sense. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 03:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should there be mass AfDs of articles about Orthodox synagogues?[edit]

User Namiba (talk · contribs) (aka "TM") has nominated for deletion a number of articles from Category:Orthodox synagogues in the United States. It would be best to ask for help from the articles' creators and other editors to improve the articles first or seek input from WP:EXPERT editors here at WP:TALKJUDAISM before resorting to such drastic measures as mass deletions of years worth of work on WP. IZAK (talk) 04:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Support (need for input from wider community first)
  • Support for above reasons. IZAK (talk) 07:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per IZAK --Yoavd (talk) 10:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per IZAK --Bus stop (talk) 11:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per IZAK -- Yoninah (talk) 11:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose (need for input from wider community first)
  • Oppose(The phrasing in this RFC is vague, and it is unclear what "Oppose" means vs "Support") 'If there are various articles in some category (Religious institutions, schools, locomotives, bus routes, or books to name a few) which do not appear to satisfy the applicable notability guidelines, there is no requirement to go to a project or to ask "experts" to help, or to contact the articles' creators rather than just taking them to AFD. No limitations on AFD nominations should come from this RFC. Certainly I prefer that a nominator check to see if sources exist before nominating, and it is good to tag articles as needing better sourcing so that those interested in them can themselves add sources. If someone creates a mass of ill-referenced articles, than they should not be surprised when they get nominated for deletion. If they have their creations watch-listed, then they will see when they are tagged for notability or for reference improvement. It is standard to notify an article's creator when it it tagged for AFD. Edison (talk) 01:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I've been participating in AfD discussions for a decade now, and this isn't remotely the first time that IZAK has raised the specter of anti-Semitic bias, animus or IDONTLIKEIT at someone filing AfDs on Judaism-related subjects; it happens often enough to be a stock in trade. Whether this stems from a persecution complex or it's a delaying tactic, his frequent assumptions of bad faith are uncivil and injurious to the encyclopedia. For someone with as much experience at AfD as IZAK, I am surprised he hasn't realized before now that group or clustered AfDs are common, and there's nothing sinister about it. I've made them myself, and no doubt from the same motives as the nominator on these: that I've found a category of related articles where, upon some poking, many of the subjects fail of notability.

    IZAK’s exhortations notwithstanding, no one filing PRODs or AfDs are required to obtain any WikiProject’s permission before so doing, they’re not asked to jump through hoops not required of them by WP:Deletion policy, they’re not required to wait for a response from the article creators, they're not required to be a frequent contributor to the pertinent WikiProject, there doesn’t need to be a critical mass of active editors from an associated WikiProject, and the only one who seems to be seeking a “war” is IZAK himself ... not for the first time.

    That being said, it’s peculiar that IZAK is using up so much time and energy sounding the trumpets – never mind his outrageous suggestion that we shouldn’t be deleting articles about synagogues because of Israel’s political situation – instead of doing a very simple thing that would guarantee the retention of these articles: source them. Sorry, but sourcing articles is not some vast chore: five minutes is usually all it takes to come up with a couple reliable sources which satisfy the GNG in all but the most obstinate of articles. What’s stopping him from doing so? Why is he using all this time and effort to raise the battle flags instead of bothering? Ravenswing 07:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

    • @Ravenswing: Your response is absurd. The problem is that the original editors of most of the synagogue articles are long gone. I do not usually write on the topics of synagogues but I noticed them listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism. In my case I have thousands of articles on my watch-list and it is impossible to track all of it. There is no way to track PROds, they weren't listed by Namiba on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism either AFAIK. By the time you pick up on it the articles are often gone. The only way I came across the PRODs is by taking a look at Namiba's recent edit history and saw that he had not just nominated the AfDs but also foisted his list of PRODs. If Namiba would slow down or let some active Judaic editors know then they could spend time improving the articles. No one can "jump" to another editor's whims especially if it takes time, and it takes way more than "5 minutes" (good joke, there is so much cyber junk on Google it takes a long time to hit the right sources). Otherwise it is ridiculous to say, "oh I have just nominated 15 articles for deletion or prodding, go work on them". We are not Namiba's or anyone's slaves, we are all volunteers here and we have enough work cut out for us without being flooded by capricious mass deletions. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
            • Well, for one thing, it is not the purpose of deletion policy to make it impossible to delete articles; it is, by contrast, an easy thing to recreate articles when proper sourcing is available: which the original creators were required to provide and should have provided in the first place. Beyond that, no one asked you -- or any other editor -- to put thousands of articles on your watchlist so you could personally "defend" them, or requires you to be a "slave" to properly source them. If neither you nor any other editor wants to spend that time sourcing articles, then so be it; I just don't think it necessarily follows that the provisions of WP:V and WP:GNG concerning the requirement that articles be properly sourced should be suspended because of that. (This quite aside that you've averaged over two dozen edits on Wikipedia per day since you've joined, so suggestions that you lack the time to source articles falls just a little flat.) In any event, if you find five minutes an impossible amount of time to find sources for an article, you're doing it wrong -- it takes me a minute flat, usually.

              That being said, no, my response is NOT absurd: you quite frequently resort to claiming bias, anti-Semitism or other sinister motive to those seeking to delete Judaism-related articles ... unless you're seeking to delete them yourself. Ravenswing 08:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Ravenswing: see my responses below. I reject all your allegations, so far you have not made one constructive suggestion, just bossing around and "issuing commands" and not so veiled threats leaving people no options achieves nothing. No need to duplicate every last word. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose—The process is working. The AfD nominations have focused attention on a set of marginal articles, several of which have now been improved. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I agree the targeting is peculiar (why not a long list of Catholic/Christian churches too?) but as I say below, let's just let the process work. As long as the AfDs are constructive and based on Wikipedia guidelines, we have to WP:AGF. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 13:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Comments (additional views)
  • Comment, four AfDs is hardly a mass deletion. For me, I think that WP:PAPER is a good guiding principle in these situations, there is no harm to wikipedia as an encyclopedia in having articles on local places of worship (although they don't necessarily pass WP:GNG). However, I think that the reaction to these AfDs underline a systematic bias, we constantly get AfDs, Prods and even speedy deletions on local temples and mosques in India and Pakistan. A more consistent policy should be in place, either limiting articles to major structures (say cathedrals, or its equivalent in other religions) and to places of greater historical importance (which would exclude all synagogues in the US, considering that no synagogue in the US would be of archeological interest), or we opt for inclusion of all places of worship. --Soman (talk) 08:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
There are already a lot more than 4, so I agree with IZAK this looks like a targeted mass deletion effort now. Debresser (talk) 08:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
@Soman: thanks for the feedback. Firstly, not four but ten articles were effected (7 have landed up as AfDs, while 8 more --see above-- were PRODed but were deproded after they were either improved or directed to this RfC, and who knows how many more would have faced the music had this RfC not been requested at this time). Secondly, WP articles are deemed WP:N based on WP:V & WP:RS and adhere to WP:NPOV, and to violate WP:NOTMADEUP by suggesting that a new "architectural" standard is somehow a new "criterion" is absurd. Thirdly, the USA is a young country in the New World, officially it starts in 1776 and by your standards there should be no articles about it since nothing is really that old historically compared to the Old World. It is beyond ridiculous to state that WP "would exclude all synagogues in the US"?! on that account. Fourthly, please note that WP:NOTPAPER and it welcomes articles about everything from all times and all places, synagogues, mosques, churches, ashrams, temples, from all ages and any times and what have you included. Nothing is beyond or below or above or unreachable by WP, as long as there is WP:AGF effort being made to improve articles along the lines of more and better WP:V & WP:RS as it strives to grow as the world's largest online encyclopedia about everything. Finally, when setting about to do mass deletions it is always good policy to seek out knowledgeable editors and ask for input and arrive at a sort of WP:CONSENSUS before undertaking radical actions (something that was not done in these instances that may amount to WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior) that then results in courting controversy and a potential for WP:WAR and creation of more headaches than they solve. Thank, IZAK (talk) 10:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I never spoke about architecture, in referring to cathedrals, I was implying the function of the cathedral as a point of major importance, as opposed to a local parish church. I haven't votes neither in favour or against deletion, but a case like Anshei Sfard (Louisville, Kentucky) is hardly unequivocally notable, a local synagogue serving (as of 1971) 300 families. The Dhenupureeswarar Temple (Madambakkam), currently up for AfD, probably has a wider far audience that the Anshei Sfard synagogue and has a way longer history. The underlying tendency, which I wanted to reflect upon, is that Western editors routinely assume that features in the global south would be non-notable, whereas a feature of solely local importance in the US is assumed notable. --Soman (talk) 11:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I've hardly targeted "all synagogues". I've noticed while editing that there are a large number of articles of seemingly only local interest which do not pass the WP:GNG guideline, so I started came upon Congregation Arugas Habosem, which is completely devoid of outstanding claims to notability or outside sources and added the prod tag. Looking further in the same category, I kept digging and came upon others which also seemingly did not pass the guideline. I subsequently nominated them for deletion as well. Lastly, this is a clear overreaction by IZAK. There are no mass deletions planned. All categories deserve oversight. That I've been looking at article quality among synagogues and trying to improve or remove low quality articles is truly the job of WP:JUDAISM members. I encourage you to participate in this effort and not blindly claim that all synangogues are notable based on what some would consider your own WP:BIAS.--TM 11:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Soman: Discounting a synagogue as "local interest" completely ignores the historical notability of these synagogues which made a significant mark on the American Jewish landscape. TM, you obviously didn't spend much time "digging" or you would have found clear notability for synagogues such as Anshei Sfard and Congregation Tiferes Yisroel, which I spent a few hours on last night, adding refs to verify the already clearly-stated facts. Your latest AfD for Congregation Shomrei Emunah is a clear case of not bothering to look into the refs already waiting for you at the bottom of the page to build up the article rather than delete it. Many of your deletion rationales seem very flimsy and contradict Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built, which says in a nutshell: An article too short to provide more than rudimentary information about a subject should be marked as a stub and edited, and expanded, rather than simply deleted. Yoninah (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not sure what "support" or "oppose" mean in relation to the question. IANAWL*, but I think that we should go ahead and consider the AfDs on their own merits and not accuse anyone of targeting because in the final analysis it doesn't much matter what an individual's motivation is as long as they're making a case in a constructive way. Also, as far as this list is concerned, we could also come up with a very long list of American Catholic/Christian churches to put through the same process. On the other hand, I would like to use this opportunity to say that I think that when it comes to cultural/infrastructural organizations of local note all over the world, Wikipedia should act more like an almanac/guide, although even with that there should be guidelines for inclusion. *I am not a wikilawyer. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 13:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. While this is a valuable conversation to have, I don't think it makes much sense to structure it as an RfC.--Pharos (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Namiba:(aka "TM"); @Soman:; @Stevietheman:; @Pharos:; @Yoninah:: quite frankly this is not the best time to start a move to delete any synagogue articles given that the current Israel-Gaza conflict is now so hot that it is spilling over into attacks on synagogues in France, see Protesters scuffle with police at Paris synagogues (AP, July 13, 2014), and the problem is growing, so it behooves any editor undertaking such deletions to proceed with great care in order to avoid any semblance of impropriety until the temperature surrounding the role and place of synagogues as current flashpoints of conflict stops. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

  • And yet another AfD from User Namiba (talk · contribs), see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregation Beth Israel (Malden, Massachusetts). IZAK (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    • IZAK, please stop. The assumption of bad faith here is reaching the heights of absurdity. The RFC was already disproportionate; what do synagogues in France or war in Gaza have to do with all this? P.S. Not all of the synagogues proposed for deletion by TM are Orthodox, so the RFC heading is wrong.
      I see no reason not to believe User:Namiba/TM's explanation for the multiple PROD's and AfD's, though in the future I recommend that he/she discuss multiple nominations for deletion (of articles that are not blatantly non-notable, that is) with the relevant WikiProject in advance, as it does put a certain amount of excessive strain on the members of that project, as Yoninah indicated above.
      (TM: Of course you are right that synagogues are not inherently notable, but please realize that there was once a much greater Jewish religious presence in the American South and Mid-West, so it is fairly reasonable to assume that older synagogues, however unremarkable now, were once notable, and notability is not temporary.) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 23:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @הסרפד: (aka "Hasirpad"), please see above "NOTE: It appears that ALL synagogues are now being targeted by the same user", --- when Namiba started his mass deletion campaign he started with Orthodox synagogues, then he went on to all synagogues in the USA, then he will move on to all synagogues everywhere given this trend. One of the big problems is that we have a great shortage of active Judaic editors in this field, and many of the original editors and creators of the synagogue articles are no longer active on WP, so while Namiba contacts them it is useless because they are not home, that is why his radical moves to delete all these synagogue articles needs to be brought to the attention of any current editors who can contribute and stop this destruction of good beginnings. That's why we are having the RfC. Sorry, no use being an ostrich with one's head in the sand, but what is going on in France effects everyone everywhere because the news carries it everywhere and we are all effected, so it is a controversial no matter which way you slice it and makes it even more worrisome that Namiba has chosen just this time to undertake the deletion of synagogues. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment: So let me get this straight: because this editor has filed on a few synagogues, you claim he's going to target all of them? You think that he's doing so just because of what's going on in France? Bullshit. Just plain bullshit. You're completely going off the deep end here -- never mind that you could safely, by the same token, claim that since Israel is perpetually embattled, no one ought ever to be able to delete a Judaism-related article. You want to save the articles? Then get off your backside and source them. You can use the time you're burning up filibustering this issue in a dozen different venues to do so. Ravenswing 07:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
      • @Ravenswing: Sorry, I do not follow your orders! I am following the procedures and channels open to any WP user, please WP:AGF. Gosh this may come as a shock to you I know but we are all volunteers around here and we try to enjoy our editing and not be painted into corners we do not wish to be in just because someone decides in the middle of the night that hey WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT and gives a couple of flimsy excuses to delete, anyone with half a brain can do that. No I am not globalizing, feel free to write about anything, but don't be surprised that people bleed when you stick controversial hot pins into them. I am saying that right now synagogues are being attacked in real life and that is part of the current news cycle 1,830 Ghits for synagogue attacked (I assume you follow the news, right?) and WP even has special templates to warn about controversial topics e.g. {{Controversial groups}} & {{Controversial}} & {{Controversial-issues}} or for topics that are in the news {{Current related}} & {{Current}} (take a look at them if they are new to you) as you well know. And vulgarity is not a substitute for logic and reason. No one is obliged to "jump to attention" and fix articles that a nominator decides to hammer from out of nowhere. There is no way to respond to PRODs if they are not placed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism (in this case they were not) the only way I know something is happening. Sorry, there is the law and then there is the spirit of law and Namiba's mass nominations of synagogues for deletion, notifying old editors who are long gone and cannot defend themselves, and then just ignoring pleas to slow down is not acceptable. It is not in the spirit of WP:CONSENSUS and it is not WP:CIVIL to PROD articles and no one who is around in a position to do something can respond in time to save the articles in questions. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
        • You have been on Wikipedia far too long not to be aware of a certain rule called WP:GNG. Not having proper sourcing is not only a perfectly SOLID excuse to delete, it's damn near the most solid excuse there is, and your continued personal attacks on the nom's motives is reprehensible ... what right have you to demand AGF of anyone else when your own bad faith is not only manifest, but that mudslinging is a recurring tactic of yours going back to your ArbCom sanction years back? Now no, you're right: you don't have to follow my orders. If you don't feel like attempting to source these articles, don't. It's no skin off of my nose whether they get deleted or not. Ravenswing 08:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Ravenswing: it is really fascinating to hear your lectures about how to use WP, and feel free to dredge up the "Original sin" whilst your at it, if that is what makes you happy, but this is what's going on here in spite of your attempts to derail this discussion: 1 The only thing I DO look at is Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism and on that NONE of the PRODS were there AFAIK. 2 You also know full-well that articles have been coming in from the time of WP's inception when policies were not well-formulated and now even editors who are not experts in WP policy also contribute articles. 3 Many editors are new and we must just WP:AGF and follow WP:DONOTBITE even long after they have moved on their early work remains, and it is the job of more experienced editors to be more careful and welcoming and not act destructively, otherwise this encyclopedia will never be built up. 4 How anyone uses their time on WP is their own private business! In any case a lot of my edits are corrections of minor spelling and typos that I try to fix. I devote various chunks of time to various aspects, and it is not anyone's business to tell others how to allocate their VOLUNTEER and FREE OF CHARGE time on WP, to do so would be a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and the mark of an ingrate. 5 In this instance I see an egregious misuse of AfDs and PRODs that are counter-productive and harmful to developing the subject of synagogues on WP. That someone is WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT is their problem and no one else's. 6 Thus, the problem here is that the PRODs came up so quickly within a day or two 8 articles put up as PRODs in addition to the 7 AfDs to contend with (we do not have supermen and superwomen to edit at such a speedy rate -- your "calculations" to contrary) and the notifications went to long-dormant and inactive users that it was impossible to know about them, let alone try to improve them. 7 On top of that there are few willing and able good Judaic editors on standby in this area who can do the job. 8 That is why my complaint is against the improper brutal and blunt process being deployed here by User Namiba (talk · contribs) by not creating the right venue to start a discussion about improving the articles. It's like having a gun pointed at one's head and then have no choices, that is not called a conducive environment to collegial editing, it's more like slave-driving and walking the plank, terrible manipulation and gaming of the system, the very opposite of seeking WP:CONSENSUS and acting WP:CIVIL. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. These articles on synagogues in general should be kept. They probably should not be deleted, and that applies to most of them. A cursory look at them shows that they are sourced. Are they perfectly sourced? I don’t know. We have guidelines to keep truly marginal works out of the encyclopedia. But these are institutions. In most cases there are a lot of reliable sources speaking about them. As institutions, they reflect the will of many people. These are not the crackpot ideas of one individual. These are virtually pillars of communities, or at least counterparts of important expressions of certain ideas associated with groups of people. Wikipedia can easily host articles on institutions, if they are reliably sourced. The deleting of these articles, or the attempt to do so, is the misapplication of policy, in my humble opinion, and with I think the support of a policy called IgnoreAllRules. Many people do not stay on as long-term Wikipedians. This is the case for many Orthodox Jews. Being a Wikipedian can be a tedious task involving bureaucratically defending your work. Yes, this is a collaborative project. But we can look with a clear eye at what IZAK is referring to here. There is no practical way that the creators of the content on synagogues are going to have input to the sweeping deletions suggested here. Some of the creators of that content have moved on. They are no longer participants in the project. I’m not going to try to substantiate my argument that Orthodox Jews, if they participate in Wikipedia, do so over distinctly finite periods of time. I find that to be the case, but that is just my anecdotal observation. The number of synagogues nominated for deletion is overwhelmingly large. The nominator should consider selecting one, allow a dialogue to transpire, wait for results, and then move on to nominating another synagogue, if need be. I think the present methodology is destructive. Wikipedia is not paper, and synagogues, like museums, schools, and other institutions, are expressions of large groups of people. This is a factor that should be taken into consideration. As concerns well-established institutions, we should err on the side of keeping them. Institutions of all sorts (educational, arts, religious) only exist because a large number of people support them and wish for their continued existence virtually into perpetuity. Institutions are relatively speaking long-lived entities. No matter the sort of institution under consideration we are often talking about entities that span generations. Bus stop (talk) 11:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment with regard to the idea that the size of a congregation's temple is relevant to its notability. While I agree that a large, ornate, or old (even early 20th century) temple may add weight to notability, the converse is not true. Many believe that it's wrong to spend money on an elaborate building instead of using the money for charitable works.
    Additionally, size is relevant. Without looking at the details, on the face of it, Anshei Sfard serving "only" 300 families in Louisville, Kentucky, does not make it non-notable. That could be a significant percentage of the orthodox Jewish families in Louisville. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 15:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, AlanM1, that is all the Orthodox Jewish families in Louisville, because Anshei Sfard is the only Orthodox synagogue in Louisville (fact sourced in article). Yoninah (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Community input has been requested[edit]

Serious community input has been requested, see Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Trying to avoid WP:WAR over spate of AfDs and PRODs. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


So far, as of 21 July 2014, the following AfDs have resulted in Keeps or "No consensus":

This shows that with AGF discussions the articles can and are being improved and that it is always best to seek WP:CONSENSUS and input from editors who are willing and able to work on the improvements. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sara Zyskind[edit]

Dear editors: This article was created last year, but never submitted for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Is this a notable writer, and should the article be kept and improved instead of being deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Anne Delong: As far as I can tell after brief searches in Hebrew and in English, she was notable by far; however, the article as it stands is problematic: her main claim to notability, her writing, is mentioned rather inadequately, in list form only. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, it seems that Bus stop has made an edit to the page, which delays its deletion for six months. Hopefully members of this project will take an interest in it and before then it will be in shape to move to mainspace - it doesn't have to be perfect; just notable and with any controversial facts cited. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
It's in mainspace now. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Victor Herman[edit]

I could use help adding this Jewish-American World Record parachutist who was known as the "Lindbergh of Russia" for which he spent 18 years in Gulag, to appropriate Jewish Categories, Projects and back-links. Thanks. -- GreenC 02:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

AfD salvage[edit]

Hello there! Would anyone be interested in adding referenced to this nomination? Seems like a valuable article to keep. King's Highway (ancient). Regards, CesareAngelotti (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Book of Isaiah era consensus[edit]

Hello, A discussion is taking place for era-style consensus for article Book of Isaiah so see the article's talk page. Era-style is inconsistent, and ignore the recent era changes done in the article because there was no consensus approved yet. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Ezra–Nehemiah era consensus[edit]

Hello, A discussion is taking place for era-style consensus for article Ezra–Nehemiah so see the article's talk page. The era-style is inconsistent. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Is "Yahweh is a linguistically retarded estimation"[edit]

An editor is changing all instances of Yahweh in an artcile to YHWH on that basis. Dougweller (talk) 05:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

"Retarded"? Definitely not. Incorrect, perhaps, but that question is discussed in various articles on Wikipedia. Need help there? Which article is it? Debresser (talk) 09:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I just saw that on the Book of Judges page -- and I notice that YHWH and Yahweh link to different articles, which might be something we can use as an explanation for why to revert. Aristophanes68 (talk) 13:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Debresser, after I saw him doing this on maybe 50 articles, changing quotations, changing "Canaanite god Yahweh" to YHWH, between that and other problems, WP:ANI#New editor with multiple problems, restoring copyvio, changing Yahweh to YHWH in perhaps 50 articles, etc. Dougweller (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Isn't this Lucas Newman, or something like that, who was banned from Wikipedia for his deviating interpretations? Debresser (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Probably not, but this editor has been topic banned. Dougweller (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

antisemitism hyphenation[edit]

There is a discussion here concerning renaming articles pertaining to antisemitism. Should the word "antisemitism" be hyphenated or not? Bus stop (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)