User talk:Newman Luke

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Newman Luke, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Kashrut. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 13:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Newman Luke (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Helpme

{{helpme}}Why's your name in blue and mine in red?

Because you haven't yet created your userpage. Your signature links to User:Newman Luke, which is where you can write a little about yourself. Once you've created that page, the redlink will turn blue. You can further customize your signature according to the Wikipedia:Signatures guideline. Happy editing!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 13:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. 17:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC) {{helpme}}Is there an easy way to make bible references, like links to Book Chapter:verse, etc.?

I think what you may be looking for is {{bibleverse}}.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Newman Luke (talk)

NPOV

When rewriting articles such as kashrut, please be mindful of WP:NPOV when choosing your language. For instance, the term "religious fundamentalist" is heavily loaded and should be used with great care, preferably only when citing a secondary source, when labeling someone with this epithet. I'll still not completely sure whether your extensive editing has brought major improvements to the article or whether you've just shuffled stuff around. JFW | T@lk 20:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If something (lets call it "X" for the sake of this answer) been rejected by christian scholars, jewish scholars, AND biblical scholars, but continued to be adhered to by a group of people (lets call them "Y" for the sake of this answer) who follow the strictest version of their religion, and argue for a very scientifically discredited theory that's also rejected by the majority of their religion, what are they, if not fundamentalists?

(also, why use a cryptic phrase like WP:NPOV?) Newman Luke (talk)

I deliberately added a link to NPOV so you can read the related policy page. It is probably the most important policy on Wikipedia; get used to it. I warned you about the use of the term "religious fundamentalists" because while it might be technically correct, it is associated with scary bearded men brandishing AK-47s. I'm a bit surprised that you've missed my point. JFW | T@lk 21:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Its not associated with scary bearded men brandishing AK-47s any more than it is with people who protest outside funerals against the deceased; I don't know where you get the idea that religious fundamentalists must be bearded or gun-toting?

For the record I find "get used to it" to be unnecessarily aggressive - maybe you should go outside and chill out for a while Newman Luke (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Your roughshod editing of kashrut continues to be a cause for concern. You simply cannot slice off the most important content of an article into a subarticle without some form of discussion on the talkpage.

Concerning my previous message, I think you've managed to misunderstand me completely. I tried to explain that the term "religious fundamentalists" nowadays has a meaning that extends well beyond its actual academic meaning, and should be used sparingly. I also wrote "get used to it" without any aggressive intent, but rather as a form of encouragement to familiarise yourself with basic Wikipedia policy. It would be good if you didn't perceive it as a form of a personal attack. JFW | T@lk 00:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say that you can't do that? And who is to decide which bit is most important? And why aggressively characterise it as 'roughshod'? All I can find is something that says Be bold. You say "cause for concern" as if you think yourself to be some sort of authority, but the guidelines seem to say that all editors are equal. Newman Luke (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia editing happens by consensus. You might make some BOLD edits, and someone else will boldly undo them because they feel these edits are not constructive. That happens on a basis of equality (perhaps a look at WP:BRD would be helpful). I don't claim expertise in kashrut,[1] but I do think that your edits removed some content that definitely should have stayed there. In general, an important article like that will have a number of editors who would prefer that large edits are prefaced by some discussion on the talkpage.

WP:BRD (why do you seem to always use acronyms?) says BRD is best used by experienced wiki-editors. By contrast, I'm new.

I think it would be very helpful if you could, on Talk:Kashrut and/or Talk:Kosher foods, clarify what your ideas are about these articles, and how you would spread the content between these articles. For instance, I think the philosophical underpinnings belong on kashrut, as well as a summary of the main laws. Kashrut is determined by more than whether the food is kosher; for instance, we need to discuss what to do with the laws of mixtures (basar be-chalav, kilayim), technical concepts (bittul, berya, status of stam yeinam versus yein nesech) and where best to discuss the somewhat controversial status of shechita in some countries. JFW | T@lk 09:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, this is the English wikipedia, in your comments to me please use the English names for concepts/objects/rules, not the Hebrew names.

Secondly please complete the phrase philosophical underpinnings of [blank] such as [blank] - I can't see any philosophical underpinnings discussed in the articles, so please could you clarify your reference? There's some theology, and some history, and in particular some aetiological concerns - ie. questions of where does it come from and why - perhaps you mean that? But the such things I can see on this matter are specific to kosher food, rather than to working conditions, animal welfare, or impact on advertising - ie. they are specific to kosher food; it therefore strikes me that the thing specific to kosher food rather than kashrut in general should be discussed in the specific kosher food article specifically discussing kosher food.

On the particular question of opposites (kilayim), by which you presumably mean the ban on mixtures in reference to grains, this seems to me to be part of discussion about grains, ie. vegetable matter; this of course is specific to food, rather than being a more general subject to discuss alongside working conditions and advertising

On the particular questions of negation (bittul), by which you presumably mean: either (a) disowning leavened bread in one's home prior to passover, this is clearly discussion of special passover rules, concerning grains [ie. vegetable matter], which is itself specific to food, rather than a more general topic that could rub shoulders with discussion of advertising rules and working conditions; OR (b) additional ingredients added to kosher products which make the result non-kosher, which again is specific to food [specifically processed food], and not a general topic.

On the particular questions of wholeness (berya), by which you presumably mean the rule about ignoring the food regulations when the ingredient in question is less than the size of an olive, and can't be tasted or smelled (Yoma 73/80), this seems to me to be a topic about adherence to the food rules - and therefore belongs in the specific discussion of food (since its not about adherence to advertising standards, or adherence to rules about working conditions, or to animal welfare ethics). In particular it strikes me that it would be particularly suitable to precede the note about copepods in New York.

On the particular questions of meat and milk (basar be-chalav), this obviously concerns food in particular (specifically meat and milk), rather than advertising or working conditions; ie. it should be part of the specific discussion of food, rather than the general discussion. On the subject of titles, its clearly discussion of the consequence of a particular rule in the Torah, but the Torah doesn't say meat and milk, instead referring to a specific kind of meat in a specific origin of milk; the Talmud clearly interprets this in a more general way, but that doesn't mean everyone does (eg. certain academics, the Karaites, etc.), so it should have a more general and neutral title, the simplest being just to quote the Torah.

On the particular question of no-purpose wine (stam yeinam) vs. pouring wine (yein nesech), this obviously belongs with the discussion of food created with the involvement of non-jews, which clearly isn't limited just to wine (although wine is a prominent aspect of it); specifically it relates to the issue of food-consecrated-to-idols, and though some Orthodox Jews treat this as meaning all-wine by non-Jews, others do not, explicitly allowing Christian wine, for example, so it should have a more neutral title, like 'food involving non-jews'. Again, this relates to food [including drink] in particular, rather than more general discussion that includes topics like working conditions and advertising, so belongs in the aticle about kosher food specifically.

On the particular questions of the controversy between animal rights issues (enshrined in law) and the method of slaughter (shechita), this obviously belongs in a discussion of the method of slaughter; slaughter itself pertains to food, it is only impacted by working conditions and advertising in general terms, ie. it belongs with the rest of the discussion of food in particular

Going back to your opinion about the main laws; who is to say which version of the laws are the main laws - Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, or perhaps we should just stick with what the Torah says for itself? Surely its more neutral (in your words, NPOV) to try to avoid making a decision on which interpretation should be treated as the main laws, and keep to as neutral and brief a summary of the sub article kosher food as possible; anything more substantial is duplicating the purpose of the sub article - if people want to see the rules in detail, they can open the sub article and see for themself. Please remind yourself of Wikipedia:Summary style and particularly the section of it that refers to Wikipedia:Content forking.

Newman Luke (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Historia Animalium

A tag has been placed on Historia Animalium requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 19:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Jacob ben Meir

A tag has been placed on Jacob ben Meir requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. LGF1992UK (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

On Honorifics

This page gives the rundown on whether to use a title or not regarding different clergy. Typically, we don't use "Rev." and such, unless it has become a part of their name. I've run into it before on academic titles. We don't use "Dr." or "Prof." there. But for clergy, it's a bit more complex. So hopefully that page will answer your questions. Cheers, Auntie E. 15:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look, thanks. Newman Luke (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sex in the Talmud

Apart from sex in the Bible, another topic that is arguably controversial is sex in the Talmud. There are all sorts of allegations that the Talmud promotes sexual immorality such as pedophilia and it would be good thing if we could clear up those charges. [2] [3] ADM (talk) 11:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You mentioned having an article about sex in the Talmud. See Arayot; this is the Hebrew term for anyone it is forbidden, by Jewish religious law (including the Talmud), to see the nakedness of (ie. have sex with). It hence includes discussion of people it is not forbidden to have sex with.

This article is currently a stub - please help expand it.

In relation to accusations of paedophilia, I'm afraid they don't stand up to scrutiny. The Talmud forbids sexual relations with anyone under the age of 12 (13 for girls), the age which it regards as the 'average' age for puberty. In mediaeval Europe, 12 was regarded as the age at which sex was permitted; in modern Portugal, the age of consent is still 14. Please refer to respected academic sources, rather than self-published websites. Newman Luke (talk) 13:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but please note that I don't necessarly support these strange allegations, I was just looking for reliable documentation about the subject. ADM (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The Talmud is a pretty good source for finding out what the Talmud says. Newman Luke (talk) 13:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The Koran says a lot of things too, and some people have made similar allegations about Aisha, but that's not the point though, because people have to read between the lines and come to their own conclusions. It certainly helps when you have interpretative help from historians, philologists and sociologists. ADM (talk) 13:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

DO NOT READ BETWEEN THE LINES. See Wikipedia:No original research.Newman Luke (talk) 13:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I was just requesting some reliable non-original research, so that non-original information could be added within a relevant article, preferably in a non-controversial way. ADM (talk) 13:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I've added something about it to Arayot.Newman Luke (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

How would you respond to this comment, made by someone who answered me back in Talk:LGBT topics and Judaism ? ADM (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Traditional Judaism has never, to my knowledge, considered pedophilia to be morally wrong per se. (Nor did most cultures specifically condemn before the last century or so, AFAIK.) However, this isn't relevant to an article about homosexuality. The Talmud's stance on homosexuality is unequivocally against. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 15:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I would caution you to avoid confusing "has never condemned" with "has supported". Slavery was never condemned in the UK prior to the 16th century, but in the 17th century it was legally ruled that nor had it ever been made legal in England, and was therefore illegal there, and always had been. Newman Luke (talk) 14:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Spadone?

What's your source for moving this to spadone from eunuch? "Spadone" doesn't appear to generate any relevant google results, nor appear in most dictionaries. Whereas "eunuch" is a common word, and used in the sources for that article. --Mairi (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You'll find it in most historic academic writings. Remember, google isn't a reliable source for notability. But if you really want to read google results, see [4]. Highlights from that google search include:

• "The free dictionary" says "SPADONES, civil law. Those who, on account of their temperament, or some accident they have suffered, are unable to procreate. Inst. 1, 11, 9; Dig. 1, 7, 2, 1; and vide Impotence.".
  • [5] websters dictionary appears to have the same definition
• [6] this academic work (social science) about male impotence and canon law
• [7] another book, about Papal decisions
• [8] a Middle English dictionary, bizarrely, under 'spado' (middle english - giving 'spadone' as the etymology)
• [9] a commentary about Isaiah
• [10] a digitised out-of-copyright book about medicine
• [11] this Jewish Encyclopedia article

Its a bit like the word "cherub". Technically it is the singular of Cherubim, and refers to a creature rather like a Shedu. But in recent times people have bizarrely confused it with "putti", which is basically a baby with wings.

You have

• (a) people holding a specific official position, and
• (b) people who cannot or will not procreate

and therefore

1. just (a)
2. (a) and (b)
3. just (b)

(a) are Eunuchs (literally translating as 'bed-chamber attendants'), (b) are Spadones

people who are castrated in modern times are not usually castrated for the purpose of an official position; in other words, they are not (a)

similarly there were bed-chamber attendants who were not castrated - who were not (b)

laws tend to apply to (b) not (a)

(a) and (b) overlap heavily, but they are not the same thing

Newman Luke (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I'm still skeptical about it being a better name for the article, given that half of those are historical texts (and some use "eunuchs and spadones"). Also, almost all the sources in the article use "eunuch", not "spadone", and they're not about the court officials. -Mairi (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately its the same with most people talking about pictures like these - [12] - as cherubs, when in fact the whole of the first page there are actually putti. These - [13] [14] [15] [16] - are cherubs.

Popular perception is not the same as accurate. Most people think you have to risk a lot to gain a lot, but professional financial traders on foreign exchange risk no more than just 1%, and they rake in millions.

But the point is not that its a "better name for the article" but that there should be two articles - Spadone about the category of non-procreative men, and Eunuch about the court official. Newman Luke (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Moving the article Eunuch to Eunuch (court official) and making Eunuch a disambiguation page was in my opinion not a good idea. Eunuch is the primary meaning and hundreds of articles now link unnecessarily to the disambiguation page. I suggest to revert that page move; the article makes sufficient references to Spadone to make the distinction clear. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Spadone

Much of the material that would have been expected to be under the headword eunuch is now in an article called spadone. I had not previously heard of this term. Nor, apparently, have the New Oxford Dictionary of English, dictionary.com, the Cambridge Dictionary of American English, or (except as a back-reference to the Wikipedia article in question) in OneLook. The word does not, as far as I can tell, occur in the current mainstream medical literature, based on a search of abstracts of articles stored in PubMed.

While I can't say I've made an exhaustive search, none of the web-accessible references given in the article actually appear to use the term "spadone" as an English word, either in the sense given in the article or any other. (Furthermore, several of the references given in the article only point to top-level pages in sites, and not to the material they cite, so it's impossible to use them to confirm anything at all.)

I have read your references above. Although I can see that your edits were made in good faith based on these references, I'm not persuaded that the references given above trump the common English meaning of the word; their usage appears to be the exception, not the rule. Since Wikipedia's naming conventions suggest following common English usage by default, I've undone your page move and split. Unfortinately, because of the way you split the page, auto-disambiguation bots re-linked links on large numbers of pages, all of which I had to revert by hand.

Please do not revert these changes without first obtaining consensus for them after first discussing them with other participants in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. -- The Anome (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Byzantine text-type

Thanks for your edit but please give sources. In that case not all scholars agreed, so it should be written in more neutral spirit. Please give sources. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources for what? My only edit was adding an image. If you are asking about the origin of the image, click on it, and you'll find out what the sources were. Newman Luke (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Author? book? I saw several different stemmas. Authorship is always important. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Author, book in relation to what? My edit was merely to add an image; see the edit history of that article - [17]; and here's the diff of my edits [18]. Are you questioning the image? If so, please click on it and you will see which sources it mentions. Newman Luke (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

If you did not use any source it is Original Research. Sometimes it looks like WH theory, but not in every detail. You should wirite according to Westcott-Hort theory. "Antiochian text" is not used by the present scholars. There are some errors (Sahidic, Fayyumic, and Bohairic came from Peshitta - they are older than Peshitta). Actually we have Proto-Bohairic text, Proto-Caesarean and this beautifull stemma is anachronistic in some points. Arabic came from Peshitta? Not only from Peshitta. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

This inter-relationshipis only for the text of the Gospels, not for the text of the Book of Acts, Pauline epistles, Book of Revelation. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

CLICK ON THE IMAGE. You will see which sources it mentions. How many times do I need to write that before you do it? Newman Luke (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It does not explain errors. Encyclopaedia Biblica is tertiary source. Peshitta has about 31% of the Western text, 48% of the Byzantine and the Alexandrian element (Westcott and Hort did not know that). Peshitta is not pure the Byzantine text. Peshitta did not influenced into Sahidic and Bohairic versions. The Alexandrian text existed in the 2nd century (before Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) and it is not result of the 4th century recension as Hort and Westcott thought. The image should be corrected. Too much errors. The caption also is wrong (only for the Gospels). You used outdated source, that is the problem. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Its a widely respected source, and according to wikipedia's rules about sourcing from Encyclopedias, it can be quoted as if fact. I don't much care what your opinion on what Peshitta did or did not influence - see Wikipedia:no original research. Your interpretation is irrelevant. We must reflect what the source says. Newman Luke (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I see you have never read authors like Aland, Metzger, Ehrman, Wallace, Comfort, etc. After discovering Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75 it is sure the "neutral text" did not exist. Now the "neutral text" is unified with the "Alexandrian text" by all scholars. There was no Alexandrian recension in the beginning of the 4th century as Hort and Westcott believed (and you too). Papyri 66 and 75 represent the Alexandrian text. That is why your image is outdated. Sahidic version is from the end of the 2nd century, Bohairic (beginning of the 3rd century), but Peshitta is from the 4th century. In the 19th century almost every sholar believed Peshitta originated in the 2nd century, but now it is clear Peshitta is from the 4th century (only Hills believed in 1959 that Peshitta was made about 150 CE). Read these books and you will know what was happened in the area of the Textual Criticism in the second half of the 20th century.

• Metzger B.M., Chapters in the History of New Testament Textual Criticism, Wm. B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids 1963.
• Metzger B.M., Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Palaeography, Oxford University Press, Oxford 1991.
• Metzger B.M., The Early Versions of the New Testament, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1977.
• Metzger B.M., B.D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford 2005.
• Aland B., J. Delobel, New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis, and Early Church History. A Discussion of Methods, Peeters Publishers, Kampen 1994.
• Aland K. Aland B., Der Text des Neuen Testaments, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart 1989 (2. Auflage); Aland K. Aland B., The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Text Criticism, transl. E.F. Rhodes, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, Michigan 1995 (3th ed.).
• Ehrman B.D., The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Oxford University Press, Oxford 1993.
• Studies in the Theory and Method of the New Testament. Textual Criticism, ed. E.J. Epp, G.D. Fee, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan 1993.
• The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research, ed. B.D. Ehrman, M.W. Holmes, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan 1995.

Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

That's really rather irrelevant. The diagramme is accurate to its source. If you want to draw your own diagramme based on one of these sources - rather than your own original synthesis of all of these - and upload it to commons, there is nothing stopping you. Newman Luke (talk) 19:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you even did not know that diagramme is based on the works of Westcott and Hort. This theory dominated before 1968, now we have several theories, not one as you think. Encyclopaedia Biblica is not relevant source, it is based on the other works of selected scholars. Who now believes in the "neutral text"? Can you tell me? Read Aland (and Metzger) please and you will know my point. Do you know Aland? He was most important textual critic in the end of the 20th century (as Hort in the 19th century). Your image can remain in the articles, do not worry, but it should be written - on the basis of the theory of Westcott and Hort (this theory is not longer accepted, but unfortunatelly you do not know that). We need to be more precise. Look to the article Alexandrian text-type, there is written: "The Alexandrian text-type (also called Neutral or Egyptian)". It is correct. Just like in the books of Aland, Metzger, Ehrman, Gordon Fee, Comfort, and other present scholars. They were distinguished before 1968. We lived after 1968. In the same way are written other wikipedia articles from the area of the Textual Criuticism. In your image "neutral text" and "Alexandrian text" are distinguished. Some readers can be confused. Do you really understand the subject? Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

NO. That diagramme is based on the Encyclopaedia Biblica, and only on the Encyclopaedia Biblica; I know this, because I drew it myself.

It is irrelevant who now believes in this or that. The diagramme is based on the Encyclopaedia Biblica. If you want to draw a diagramme based on something else, there is nothing stopping you. This diagramme is based on the Encyclopaedia Biblica, and that is what it says.

I don't care what year is now, or who wrote what. All that matters is that that diagramme is accurate to its source. And its source is the Encyclopaedia Biblica.

Wikipedia:No original research. We can't just change things because we disagree with our sources. We must reflect what the source says, without expressing an opinion of our own.

The source of the diagramme says what the diagramme says. That's the only thing that matters. This is the end of this conversation. You are not listening. Newman Luke (talk) 23:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Biblica edited in 1899-1903. That is why the diagramme is outdated. Many changes were made in the 20th century. But the Encyclopedia Biblica is not a primary source, it based on other sources. In that case it based on this source: Westcott, B. F. and F. J. A. Hort, Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1882. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 00:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course its a secondary source, not a primary source. WE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO USE PRIMARY SOURCES. See Wikipedia:PRIMARY Newman Luke (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Roughly four years ago...(response)

Hello. My source four years ago was a lecture I had at York University in a class I had for a professor named Maynard P. Maidman. He's the one who told me about Jehu/Joram. I'm not quite sure how I would cite that though. -RomeW (talk) 04:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Marriagable age in Judaism/ChildMarriage

I've posted to Child marriage in Judaism's talk page some comments on the article design. I really think having two separate articles is overkill, and will make maintenance much harder. See full comments at the talk page. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Marriageable age in Judaism

An article that you have been involved in editing, Marriageable age in Judaism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marriageable age in Judaism. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidence of age of marriage in other religions

To make the article WP:NPOV here are some sources:

• Hindu:
  • Hindu scriptures say a woman must be wed before or by her first menstruation.
  • this article refers to scriptures also.

This would be a better reference

• Muslim:
  • The Nikah article says the marriage can not go forward till both parties are adults. So the age of marriage is the age of adulthood.
  • The article on Islamic marital jurisprudence#Permissible age says the "Kitab al Nikah"(Book of Marriage) limits the age of marriage.

The Kitab al Nikah is a Sunni hadith collection, do you have anything for Shia Islam? Also, the claims in those articles are uncited; the Kitab al Nikah is a large work. Newman Luke (talk) 12:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this update. The article quotes a book and verse so it can be found easily from the Sunni scriptures. No, I ddin't look for Shia. The Hindu is problematic. Maybe I misread but I didn't see the name of the particular sutra. There doesn't seem to be enthusiasm for my idea. I could be bold and start the edits but Wikipedia doesn't pay my bills and can be VERY time consuming. Alatari (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Still searching for more. Alatari (talk) 07:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Yes it is rather time consuming. And often it takes four times as long to do something than you initially expected. Presumably you have tried asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism? Newman Luke (talk) 01:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I had worked in that realm before. I'm teetering on the brink of taking another Wikivacation. At least I will wait till Marriageable age in Judaism gets it's new home. Alatari (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Illegitimi non carborundum. Newman Luke (talk) 02:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Editing suggestion for Marriageable age

The article reads just like a list and not an encyclopedic entry. The current contents could be moved to [[age of marriage by country]] and then various topics relating to the age of marriage expanded. The marriageable age in Judaism can be moved in along with headings for other religions and specific laws, such as the Convention on Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage, and Registration of Marriages or English Common Law, limiting the age of marriage. A discussion on age of majority and age of consent relation to age of marriage should be included. Does this resolve the overall problem? Alatari (talk) 08:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. But list of marriageable ages by country would be more a slightly more appropriate title for the current contents. 1891 Age of Consent Act is another specific law. Newman Luke (talk) 12:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Child marriage in Judaism

I have nominated Child marriage in Judaism, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child marriage in Judaism. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. JFW | T@lk 22:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Illness among Jews

A tag has been placed on Illness among Jews requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I42 (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Newman Luke. You have new messages at Shlomke's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Articles for deletion nomination of Illness among Jews

I have nominated Illness among Jews, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illness among Jews. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. JFW | T@lk 23:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by this?

Hello Newman, from recent edits (Illness among Jews; Child marriage in Judaism; Marriageable age in Judaism -- ALL up for deletion by various editors) it would seem that you are entering into that bizarre realm of WP:SPIDERMAN. How unfortunate. I see that you are a very erudite editor with a penchant for diving often into Judaic topics. However, it is very evident by now that the way you are coming at the subject is neither pleasant nor complimentary to Judaism, especially to points of view that connect very deeply with Orthodox Judaism and the Biblical perspective. In trying to understand where you are coiming from, I skimmed over most of the above discussions and of all the points I was horrified to read this from you:

"If something (lets call it "X" for the sake of this answer) been rejected by christian scholars, jewish scholars, AND biblical scholars, but continued to be adhered to by a group of people (lets call them "Y" for the sake of this answer) who follow the strictest version of their religion, and argue for a very scientifically discredited theory that's also rejected by the majority of their religion, what are they, if not fundamentalists?"

What do you mean by that?

1. Firstly it is sheer bull to utter that (Orthodox) Judaism is a very "very scientifically discredited theory" as if you know the ultimate meaning of all truths and realities. What does science have to do with religion? Zero! They are two entirely different domains.
2. So now are "all" the Christian scholars, SECULAR/Reform Conservative scholars and Biblical CRITICS (surprised you left out the judgments of myriads of Muslim and countless Hindu scholars) to sit in judgment on Orthodox Judaism? And in particular Haredi Judaism as well as Hasidic Judaism whom presumably you regard as "Fundamentalists" -- a very offensive and pejorative term.

I have never written that Orthodox Judaism is a very very scientifically discredited theory. Where do you get this canard of a claim from?

1. Are there no secular fundalmentalists meaning people who live and die by their secular outlook?
2. Or how about Christians who practice Christianity devoutly are they not "Christian fundamentalists" by these same "offensive" criteria?

There are Christian fundamentalists. See Christian Fundamentalists. Its a very specific belief system. And Christian Fundamentalism has a set of well defined beliefs. Christian Fundamentalists often self-identify. See Christian Fundamentalists. I don't see what you are criticising here.

1. Long ago, more than 5 years ago on Wikipedia, a consensus was reached that the words "Ultra-Orthodox" would not be used and that includes using the word "fundamentalist" THE WAY THAT YOU USE IT here and approach the topic as well as is self-evident from your edits, see Talk:Haredi Judaism/Archive 1#ultra-Orthodox as a pejorative term; Talk:Haredi Judaism/Archive 1#Differences among Orthodox Jews; Talk:Haredi Judaism/Archive 1#Should this article be renamed Haredi Judaism?.

I have only rarely used ultra-orthodox, if ever. As you will note, I was not here 5 years ago. And you will also note I have never prevented anyone changing ultra-orthodox to Haredi. So I really don't see what you are accusing me of here. As for fundamentalist I have never used it to refer specifically to ultra-orthodox or Haredi Jews.

1. Finally, your constant provocations by choosing to "unearth" topics often in violation of WP:NOR, just based on a quick Googling into nowhere, that serves no constructive purpose, are not appreciated.

I don't use google to create topics. What on earth are you basing that nonsense on. I've been creating topics in line with the goals of Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles, in relation to Wikipedia:Jewish Encyclopedia topics. Newman Luke (talk) 08:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

1. You are breeding animosity and engendering a spirit of confrontation with editors and users who are experienced, many coming from Orthodox backgrounds but still able to and have proven that they can have the obejectivity and will-power to abide by WP:NPOV and all the rest of Wikipedia's policies, yet you seem to be deliberately undermining the spirit of good will with your tendentious and highly provocative articles.

What is provocative about illness in Judaism or marriageable age? People do marry at certain ages. The Talmud, and later Judaism, does have a policy about marriageable age. Jews do get some illnesses more than others, in a statistically significant way. What is objectionable about reporting that? People finding it objectionable seem to be the ones breeding animosity, confrontation, and a lack of NPOV.

1. Think it over, the way of confrontation, even if by creeping insertion of negative articles about Judaism, never wins on Wikipedia, even if you think you can take on those topics that you imagine will udermine the "fundamentalist" views in violation of WP:POINT; WP:NOTSOAPBOX; WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and more.

What is negative about the articles? Reporting that some ethnic groups get ill in different ways to others isn't negative. Reporting that some religions have views about the appropriate age for people to get married is quite neutral. Its not discriminating about Yemen or Turkey or England and Wales to report that they favour marriage at 16, or whatever it is. I really don't see how you can construe that as negative. Furthermore, I seriously doubt that the Jewish Encyclopedia, which was written by Jews, was written by some Jew-hating pov-pusher. You seem to be deliberately trying to pick a fight here.

Constructive editing is better than violating WP:WARRING. Please take this in the positive spirit of friendship that it is meant. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 05:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems more like a rant to me. Its full of false claims, canards, and artificial fights. Newman Luke (talk) 08:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Really now? Care to respond to each point? I can and will back up each one I have made with regards to you. Shabbat Shalom. IZAK (talk)

I did respond to each point. Are you not familiar with the style of responding to each point inline? I had assumed you were, since you do it at AfD. If not, please let me know, and I will bear it in mind in responding in future. Newman Luke (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

General I take strong exception to both sets of comments. Wikipedia is neutral. It discusses all aspects of all religions. Some aspects of contemporary and historical religions seem strange to outsiders. In religions with a long history, the interpretation changes over the centuries and millenia. It is never inappropriate to discuss this in a neutral framework. I do not see these as necessarily negative articles. The way to deal with any perceived lack of neutrality is to edit them properly. Morespecifically:

1. I do not consider over-detailed to be a valid argument against the appropriateness of having any article. We're a general encyclopedia, but we're not paper, and anything that is notable and sourced can be written about if it can be made intelligible to a general audience--in some fields, like mathematics, we've even accepted they can be written about even if they require some amount of basic college-level knowledge. The very goal of an encyclopedia --any encyclopedia-- is to make accurate information on specialized topics available to a relatively more general audience. Using the current rules of notability, there is very little in traditional Judaism for which one cannot find several Reliable sources, and thus meet the GNG--especially since we are not limited to English.
2. Sourcing The Jewish Encyclopedia is an outdated sources, and cannot be properly used for contemporary scholarship. There has been a century of work and writing by religious and non-religious scholars since that period. There are new aspects to many topics, and reinterpretation of older ones It is much more appropriate to use Encyclopedia Judaica -- but in the second edition of 2006-7. It is not free, but all academic libraries have it, and most medium sized public libraries also. I would only use the old JE to indicate the view that was taken by the writers of a particular article at the time it was written. And of course for topics in Jewish law, there is a very large literature in English discussing it from the points of view of the various denominations. (There is yet more in other languages, often more detailed, and there's no reason not to use them also if one is able. )
3. IZAK, you can no more challenge an editor for having an anti-Orthodox viewpoint, than he can challenge you for having a pro-Orthodox one. In both cases, it's a strong POV on many Jewish topics, and needs to be used with careful attention to neutrality. That said, I think, Izak, that you have a very well established reputation for writing NPOV articles including POVs other than your own. I would certainly support your objectivity in everything I know of your work. But it would be much better to challenge the writing of those who may not be as objective on the basis of what they actually write, not your opinions of their objectivity. It gets too personal.
4. Newman, I think it fair to say that you do not quite have the same established reputation here yet. Some of your work has been fairly good. But in the past there has been some disquiet about people concentrating on articles focusing on some aspects of religions--particularly sex. (I am thinking here of the articles on some Islamic topics; though the topics were valid, the focus on them was considered questionable & some articles were in fact deleted, though over my objection.). I'd suggest that your work on them be done with considerable more discretion. And I think IZAK is right that you do not always give sufficient weight to accurately presenting the traditional Orthodox views. I would find it much easier to defend your articles if you were more careful with them. I do not think you are actually too anti-religiously biased to write about them, though I think I need to tell you that to neutral observers it has come to appear so The best thing you can do is to make sure to always use a variety of modern sources of different viewpoints.
5. There is considerable discomfort at Wikipedia with articles about topics that were used to the discredit of Jews by past and present anti-Semites. There are many possible reasons for it, but enough for tonight. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

DGG, thanks for your well considered efforts. As you affirm, and I can assure you, having been a Wikipedia editor for close to seven years, I have learned and tried to abide by the rules of WP:NPOV. I do not come at any subject with any personal agenda and I have never tried to make any articles conform to Orthodox-only outlooks or points of view. I have no objection to any VALID perspective being expresssed or inserted into articles or into how articles are structured. However, for the sake of clarity, specificity, accuracy, factualness and truthfullness I constantly strive to make sure that an orderly and clear presentation is made of all reliable views on a subject, but not by creating a mish-mash and upturning the apple cart or chopping and changing things in a manner that a lawyer would twist words and views into structures and things that they are not. As in this case, the way Newman has been cutting up, editing and re-structuring articles, it is very clear that he has an agenda of casting Orthodox Judaism in a negative or "fundamentalist" light as he himself puts it, totally marginalizing a larger picture that does not appear like that and is not the way that Newman often portrays it. By all means cite all the reliable sources you want and all the accepted perspectives you care to dig up, but for heaven's sake at the end of the day, don't create a "frankenstein Judaism" when none exists. This is a fine line, as you point out, but with the increasingly aggressive and now violent edits that Newman has made, one cannot just sit idly by and ignore it, otherwise years of work of creating fine articles about so many Judaic topics will be smashed and re-cast as jokes and "enemies of Judaism" when that is not what is meant or should be. Thanks for caring. IZAK (talk) 06:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

To DGG. Sourcing. I agree that more recent developments exist in Judaism. However, I don't see why the Jewish Encyclopedia should be considered outdated for coverage of things that happened before the 20th century, including, but not limited to, the bible, the Talmud, and rabbis of the middle ages. While Encyclopedia Judaica does exist, and does at least include mention of 20th century events, it has been somewhat castigated in theology departments for its PR-like editing (PR=public relations ~=~ marketing), and somewhat self-inconsistent nature, compared to the Jewish Encyclopedia. See Solomon Zeitlin's criticism of it, for example.

Obviously something needs to be said for new official positions in various Jewish denominations. But these need to be sourced, not merely added by wikipedians belonging to these denominations, who claim that the opinion they express is the official stance of all Jews of these denominations.

While I accept that Judaism has changed somewhat since it was written, I do not agree that modern Orthodox Judaism - which is a minority viewpoint within Judaism - should be the only view considered, nor that its interpretation should be allowed to dominate all others. Nor do I agree that the views of Orthodox Jewish editors in wikipedia should be the only version of Orthodox Judaism allowed to take part in articles. IZAK, for example, claims that Orthodox Jews view the Torah as condemning homosexuality, yet there is at least one gay Orthodox Rabbi - Steven Greenberg (rabbi) who disagrees - and there are plenty of gay Orthodox Jews, who are neither Rabbis nor self-hating.

Focus. As it happens, I'm more interested in marriage. Sex is merely a distraction. That's probably good advice for life in general, as far as some people are concerned, but here I write it in relation to wikipedia.

Or rather, I read the marriage article and noticed it had very little about divorce, other than the Get and the Agunah. This was disappointing. So I looked it up in various sources to see whether there was anything to add. It turned out that there was really rather a lot missing. Thus I have a focus, for the moment, of this area. It is not an obsession. It is simply a question of fixing up a single article.

However, so large is the subject, that it cannot be contained merely on one single page, as recommended article size is 32kB, and nowhere near half a MB. Thus the editing, and sometimes creation, of other articles.

As it happens, I've also worked on other topics. Illness among Jews for example.

Now it may be the case that I don't give the weight that IZAK would like to Orthodox Jewish views. But there are three reasons for this:

• More people study the bible than there are Jews.
• Orthodox Jews are a minority within Judaism. Their views should therefore not dominate articles, except where they are the only views (or where the other denominations do not have an opinion).
• The sources I happen to use do not go into the level of detail IZAK would like about modern Orthodox Judaism. I cannot put in material that is not in my sources. No-one should be trying to put in unsourced material.

There is nothing stopping IZAK from finding reliable sources about official/verifiably-widely-held views of the Orthodox Jews about subjects. IZAK shouldn't expect other editors to do things for him.

Things used by anti-semites. The Jewish Encyclopedia was written by Jews, the very opposite of anti-semites. Perhaps anti-semites also talk about these things. I wouldn't know; I don't hang around on anti-semitic websites, or reading anti-semitic literature. But that's no reason to ignore topics. The BNP use the Union Jack as their symbol, but that doesn't mean everyone else has to abandon it.

For example, it is simply a fact that there was child marriage in Judaism. This is true also of Islamic countries (I would say it of Islam in general, if you could find a source), and of Christian ones (again, not necessarily of Christianity in general, unless you can find a source). Its true of various times and cultures in history.

We have Spanish Inquisition, Massacre of Vassy, and Albigensian Crusade, etc. Even though these are topics that would be used by anti-Catholics.

We have Popery Act 1698, Popish Plot, and List of Catholic martyrs of the English Reformation, though these are topics that would be used by anti-Protestants

We have Objections to evolution, though it would might be used by Creationists.

We have Muslim attitudes towards terrorism, though it might be used by Islamophobics.

We cannot ignore topics simply because some extremist nutters might think the topic condemns one group or another. Wikipedia is not censored Newman Luke (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

To IZAK. "he has an agenda of casting Orthodox Judaism in a negative or "fundamentalist" light as he himself puts it". Either show a diff where I make such a claim, or withdraw the accusation. It is false. It is a canard. It is somewhat libellous.

"Frankenstein Judaism". Read the sources. If what they say is how I put it, there's nothing I can do about it. We cannot put our own opinions of what Judaism is or isn't into articles. Newman Luke (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Newman, just a few points. I will try to be brief (not easy): (1) Agreed, the Jewish Encyclopedia is a good and reliable source. But it is archaic in many ways and it does have a prejudice all of its own. The scholars were not from the classical traditional school of Torah scholars, so it needs balance. (2) There is no such thing as Wikipedia functioning with "wikipedians belonging to these denominations" which is total bull. Every Wikipedian has to function like a Wikipedian, period. (3) This statement is totally absurd: "IZAK, for example, claims that Orthodox Jews view the Torah as condemning homosexuality, yet there is at least one gay Orthodox Rabbi - Steven Greenberg (rabbi) who disagrees - and there are plenty of gay Orthodox Jews, who are neither Rabbis nor self-hating" -- because even if you line up a million Orthodox gay rabbis and ten million gay Jews it does not mean that objectively JUDAISM as a religion based on the Torah allows it. I will repeat again, it is a no-brainer that Judaism, as based on the Torah/Hebrew Bible is 100% opposed to homosexuality derived from two simple verses: Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. It's an open and shut case. The fact that Reform doesn't care is because they reject the Torah as being a Divinely given book emanating from God. It is a theological dispute. But please do not portray Orthodoxy as being a fringe view. In fact Christianity representing 2 billion Christians also opposes homosexuality as based on the same verses, and Islam with a billion and a half adherents also drew from Judaic Biblical tradition to condemn homosexuality. So the Torah view is key, no need to slam it. (4) Your related points are illogical, and I will point it out: You say: (i) "More people study the bible than there are Jews" -- but so what? There are more Christians than Jews, 2 billion versus 13 million, it does not negate Judaism in any way, nor does Judaism get "crossed out" because Christianity opposes its premise that Jesus is not the promised messiah. Just because more people get sick does that mean they are therefore "bigger experts" in sickness than doctors or medical scientists. (ii) How can a subject about Jews be studied without a Jewish or even Orthodox point of view? It is like eating the peel and throwing away the banana or building ahouse without knowing the original plans and the foundation. You must start with the core in Judaic topics and in Judaism Jews come first. Then you allege (iii) "Orthodox Jews are a minority within Judaism. Their views should therefore not dominate articles, except where they are the only views (or where the other denominations do not have an opinion)" which is absurd. What "domination" are you talking about? You make it sound that Judaic articles on Wikipedia are like a Torah journal. Since when are articles based on the "proportions" and sizes of groups in communities or nations? This is an odd view in any field. Orthodox Jews retain, study and observe with the highest intensity the same Torah that can connects with millenia of Jewish history. Nothing can be a substitute for that. But at no time have I or anyone advocated that "Orthodox views" or any views be predominant. You are making up things and fighting your own ghosts. (iv) "The sources I happen to use do not go into the level of detail IZAK would like about modern Orthodox Judaism. I cannot put in material that is not in my sources. No-one should be trying to put in unsourced material} but who is arguing with this? You say: "There is nothing stopping IZAK from finding reliable sources about official/verifiably-widely-held views of the Orthodox Jews about subjects. IZAK shouldn't expect other editors to do things for him>" -- What do you mean by "widely-held" and the rest of your "requiremnst" as if anyone is trying to sneak in the forbidden fruit here? Sure if anyone wants to insert what a million college professors have to say about Judaism in articles feel free, but how is that going to help anyone understand what Judaism itself objectively per se is in the first place? Don't worry, there are plenty of sources. Would you feel happy if the entire Talmud was inserted into Wikipedia? (5) I have levelled no "canards" against you. Your words, and more than that, the way you structure and come at Judaic topics renders all of Judaism, forget about Orthodox Judaism, in a less than flattering light that is worrisome. Forget about Orthodox Judaism, it will stand on its own, there are many editors and the topic has too many branches, roots and fruits to be unprooted, chopped down and sliced up. It's just very troubling, that is what I say. I am trying my best here to engage in an honest dialogue. IZAK (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

---

• (1) ALL sources have a prejudice. Balance is not an appropriate term. It suggests equal and opposite. That's like insisting that the human evolution is adjusted so that the views it expresses need to be balanced; but if you try adding much creationist stuff there, its simply going to be chucked out. You don't get to have an article that has science & liberal strands vs. very conservative strands, with equal measure for both sides.
• (2) So stop acting like someone trying to push Orthodox Judaism, as if its something special
• (3) "JUDAISM as a religion based on the Torah". Who gets to say what the opinion of that is? You are not the totality of Judaism.

It is not simply a theological dispute. Its an exegetical dispute. An argument about what the bible actually says, not just about what it means. The Torah view is what's in dispute - there is no consensus about what the Torah view actually is.

Your interpretation is a fringe view. Almost everyone, including traditional Jewish rabbis, like Josephus, regards it as referring to sex acts between men. Not to homosexuality in general. You are the fringe view here.

Christianity does not oppose homosexuality. Have you really never heard the phrase love the sinner, hate the sin? The support and tolerance of celibate homosexuality - not its condemnation. Have you not heard that the official stance of the Quakers and Lutherans is support of gay marriage? Have you not heard that the Mormon church officially condemns persecution of homosexuals [19][20][21]. In Islamic countries, celibate homosexuality is supported, indeed the love of boys (boys here meaning youths/teenagers) is regarded as completely understandable. Try reading Pederasty in the Middle East and Central Asia, for example - you might learn something.

"More people study the bible than there are Jews". My point in remarking on this is that the Jewish point of view is not the majority viewpoint here.

"How can a subject about Jews be studied without....". I never said that it should be. Though it is true that it can be.

"in Judaism Jews come first". Go and read WP:NPOV and WP:RNPOV. And then have a think about whether you should have written that.

"Orthodox Jews ...should ...not dominate articles, except where...". I here am talking about WP:UNDUEWEIGHT.

"What do you mean by "widely-held" ...". I mean if you want to say 'Jews say X' (or 'X Jews say Y', or 'religious group X says Y') then you have to have a source that is verifiably an indicator of the view being widely held. You can't just put something in because you or your yeshiva say all Orthodox Jews think such and such. Nor that JUDAISM as a religion based on the Torah says such and such - you must have a source demonstrating the widely-heldness of that view, before it is justifiable.

"Would you feel happy if the entire Talmud was inserted into Wikipedia?". If, and only if, it was put in dispersed around topics in an encyclopedic layout, and not if it was in a Talmud, Babylonian Gemara, Kiddushin, Chapter 1 style.

• "I have levelled no "canards" against you. ". Yes you have. You accuse me of being anti-semitic. Of calling Orthodox Judaism a very very scientifically discredited theory. And you imply that I have used the term fundamentalist as a criticism of Haredi Judaism. These are all false claims. They are canards.

Newman Luke (talk) 19:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Response from IZAK

Newman, thanks for the response which only confirms your determination to marginalize and basically eradicate any classical Judaic views from Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia, not just in Orthodox or Haredi ones. Since you do speak your mind, I will try to respond sincerely, following your points, I hope you can take it in the right spirit of dialogue, so here goes:

1. You keep harping that I somehow fail to get WP:RNPOV, but it is not so. You also fail to notice a very important thing, that while I may express more traditionalist views in TALK pages, like here, I do NOT go about with a hatchet inserting ANY personal views into ANY articles. In articles and edits I try to stick to the point and to adhere to the golden rule of Wikipedia of WP:NPOV. In all my almost seven years of editing I have never been accused of violating NPOV, while I have tended to express views on talk pages about the direction articles are being taken by certain editors based on the content of the articles, and I am sure when I have ever done so, can't remember when, in ARTICLES themselves it has been corrected. I never do what you have lately been doing, of violating WP:SYNTHESIS by trying to make Judaism seem like it supports homosexuality, when the Torah, meaning the source book of Judaism, specifically forbids it in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13, not to mention the moral lessons and implications of Lot's confronation with the Sodomites (hence the term Sodomy) in Genesis 19:5 and its consequences that led to God destroying Sodom. Those are bedrocks that with all your acrobatics have not changed since the Torah was given at Mount Sinai 3,322 years ago.
2. I am not trying to "push" anything! Do you go around accusing editors who edit in their fields of interest as "pushing" their topics? This is not an acceptabale thing to say because it's wrong as much as it's unfounded.
3. "Who gets to say what the opinion of that is? You are not the totality of Judaism." -- When did I ever say that I am? If anything you seem to think that anyone and anything can chime in on Judaic topics for all sorts of weird reasons, like when you claim that because Jews are a "minority" -- indeed the Bible itself says Deuteronomy 7:7 that that will be their status, so that to say that somehow "because" of that minority status they don't get a say about their own religion? How ridiculous and illogical is such a claim. Or that the Orthodox are "fundamentalists" (as you say above) so they can't be trusted to be objective in understanding Judaism. Really funny I must say.
4. You say "Its an exegetical dispute. An argument about what the bible actually says, not just about what it means. The Torah view is what's in dispute - there is no consensus about what the Torah view actually is." Wikipedia is not a seminary, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Like saying that the Popes never got to really know the New Testament or some such. You just don't go around saying that groups tied in directly with certain texts and doctrines don't know what they are talking about with a straight face, and expect to be taken seriously.
5. Josephus is not regarded by ANYONE as a "traditional rabbi" that just shows how misinformed you are. There were real rabbis in his time, like Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakai who dealt with the Romans on behalf of the Jews, while Josephus was classed a traitor. He was a historian, and perhaps a good man, but not a "rabbi" of the Jews then or in the 2000 years since then. Just because he wrote some history books does not make him into a rabbi, like just because a Hasidic Jew wears the garb of rabbis does not make him into a rabbi either. Far from it.
6. To repeat, sex acts between men are forbidden and classed as grievous sins by both classical Judaism (of course Reform have thrown that overboard with everything else) and by Christianity according to Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 and supported by the events that followed Genesis 19:5, that in turn is reflected in Jewish Law, such that homosexual marriage is condemned and banned in Torah Judaism in the objective sense of what those religions hold, regardless of the failings of the weakness of the flesh. (Of course not by Reform, they always follow the latest gay trends because they deny the Divinity of the Torah for everything). And I am not advocating persecution of anyone, let people repent if that is what their religion requires of them, and that is between them and God.
7. When you say things like: "the Jewish point of view is not the majority viewpoint here" -- as if there is a "plot" to make points of view into majority points of view when it's a case of gradations and levels and not numbers. But to claim that Jews (not as editors but as there being an objective Jewish view) do not have a say in their own Holy Books? They should go to the back of the bus here? And the Orthodox who study the texts the most and adhere to them the strictest have no credibility? I am sure that rational people would not say this. This comes from a very distorted perspective certainly not rooted in Judaism for why would a Jew or a person wanting to know about Jews and Judaism claim or expect to hear that the Jews are not to be taken seriously about their own religious texts. Or do you claim that the Tanach does not belong to the Jews, that it did not originate with them, or some such conspircay theory? Maybe the Jews don't exist at all. Anyhow how large or small a percentage of people are means nothing in interpreting texts connected with them. Would one say that professors don't know what they are talking about because there are more people with BAs and MAs who than PhDs or because there are more people with PhDs than there are ordained rabbis that the professors "must" be "right" and the rabbis are "wrong"? This is the kind of fantasy false arguments you are making. Stop it please.
8. You know, when you say things like " "in Judaism Jews come first". Go and read WP:NPOV and WP:RNPOV. And then have a think about whether you should have written that" -- and then try to back up your screwy views in this regard with Wikipedia policies yet, it is time to really get to grips with what you want here. You mean to say you will take a religion, any religion, and just because Wikipedia has rules to keep itself running smoothly, you will use those rules to pervert or reformulate a subject in WP:NOR style backing it with essays written by some latter-day writers whose sole aim in life is to discredit the Bible? How absurd can you get?
9. Saying things like: "Orthodox Jews ...should ...not dominate articles, except where...". I here am talking about WP:UNDUEWEIGHT" makes it sound like Orthodox Jews are running around like sensors or world powers. To repeat, there are no "Orthodox Jews running around in articles" but there are ways to state all points of view a NPOV way. Exegesis by secular scholars who may be atheists or Christians or Muslims or psychologists or whatnot is not the last word in any Judaic topic either and nor would it help to claim that there are more atheists etc than believing Jews and Orthodox Judaic scholars in the world and "therefore" somehow atheists should have a greater say because there are more of them. Just how weird do you plan on getting at this rate?
10. The perniciousness and sheer arrogance of this statement is mind-boggling and for the record I will just post it here that you make it. It seems you are now very comfortable hurling needles insults and surly vitriol for no real purpose as you pervert Wikipedia's mechanisms in illogical and unjustified ways. Wikipedia is not here to redefine Judaism (do that on your own time please) or anything else for that matter, but you seem to think it's an avenue to do just that, as if Wikipedia is YOUR seminary of debating and recasting things, so you say the absurd: "You can't just put something in because you or your yeshiva say all Orthodox Jews think such and such. Nor that JUDAISM as a religion based on the Torah says such and such - you must have a source demonstrating the widely-heldness of that view, before it is justifiable." -- So now accodring to you Judaism in "not" a religion based on the Torah? Not to mention that there is no Judaism without the Torah, it would be like saying please bring sources that the Sun warms the earth during the day, or that at night the Moon can be seen. If you you are so dead set against the Torah as being the primary source book and primary document for Judaism, then you have an agenda and nothing will make you happy, sadly.
11. "You accuse me of being anti-semitic." Um, where exactly did I do that? Now you lie. Pity. "Of calling Orthodox Judaism a very very scientifically discredited theory" -- or worse, do you even bother to read your own words? "And you imply that I have used the term fundamentalist as a criticism of Haredi Judaism" -- of what else then, in fact you lump all of Orthodox Judaism, that you seem to hate with a vegenace into that "fundamenatlist" category.
12. No "canards" Newman, just reading your own words and edits.

I hope you can moderate your views and at least try to work towards WP:CONSENSUS and to that end please try to post and engage as many editors as you can at WP:TALKJUDAISM where, if editors agree with you, you will then have support and allies for your views that will then create an atmosphere of dialogue and trust rather than supicioun and recriminations. (It's not enough that you seek support in groups that have nothing to do with Judaism topics and unfairly drag them into issues they are neither familair with nor interested in). Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

---

No, you really are just spouting canards there. I have no intention to marginalise views. Simply to make sure they do not receive UNDUE WEIGHT.

• (1) Indeed, you fail to get WP:RNPOV. This isn't a social networking site. Talk pages are for discussing how to edit articles. We must not express personal opinions, traditionalist or modern, liberal or conservative. We must only express opinions about what sources say, and how to go about creating an encyclopedia. With regard to homosexuality, I think you'll find the Talmud makes it quite clear that while anal sex is forbade, there is no such concern about other male-male sex acts. This was also Rashi's opinion, and Josephus'. The Torah does not specifically forbid homosexuality. It attacks anal sex between men. This is the classical Jewish understanding of what it means. This is also the Orthodox position, and the Conservative position. Its only in the US that people seem to think it means not just one homosexual act, nor just all homosexual acts, but the very existence of homosexual people. And with regard to Lot and the people of Sodom, the classical Jewish interpretation was that it was a crime of inhospitality - that's all over classical Jewish literature, all over Judaism for century upon century. This claim that it has something specifically to do with homosexuals is an originally Protestant idea. Remember, its talking about the rape of angels, not consensual romance between two male humans.
  • You must have a very unusual Talmud that it can allow you to arrive at the "conclusion" that "male-male sex acts" are "allowed" and call it "Judaism" yet. IZAK (talk) 10:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I advance (Ultra-Orthodox) Rabbi Dr Mordechai Halperin, (Ultra-Orthodox), Rabbi Gershon Winkler, (Conservative) Rabbi Elliot Dorff, to you, for example, that the Torah and Talmud only forbids anal sex. Now explain exactly what division of Judaism is left, for you to claim your view fairly represents?Newman Luke (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• (2) I'm not accusing you of pushing topics. I'm accusing you of pushing one very specific viewpoint.
  • I do not push any viewpoint. I simply edit according to WP:NPOV. I have almost never been called to task for violating that in almost seven years of editing. IZAK (talk) 10:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
    • "Almost never" means that you have been called to task for violating NPOV. Almost is worthless. And not being called to task is no evidence of innocence, it merely means you haven't been caught, or have been caught but escaped from punishment. Compare Tony Blair and the legality/illegality of the Iraq War. Just because he has never been punished for it doesn't mean he's not guilty as sin. Newman Luke (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• (3) "When did I ever say that I am?" . You seem to represent your interpretation of Orthodox Judaism as if it were the official position. It is not. The official stance of Orthodox Judaism is that Leviticus condemns anal sex specifically, not homosexuality in general. Yesterday I had a link to the official declaration, but I mislaid it when my computer had a bit of a hissy fit. I'll present it to you when I find it again. As for the Orthodox and "fundamentalists", I again tell you that I have not equated all Orthodox with fundamentalists. And again I denounce your accusation as a canard
  • You are fixated on the word "canard" as if trying to fight off some "dracula" -- try instead to discuss the issues without getting excited, you seem to be able to do that. IZAK (talk) 10:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
    • A canard is a deliberately misleading false report. You are trying to blacken my name with some blood libel by making utterly false claims, utterly without evidence. Newman Luke (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• (4)"...groups tied in directly with certain texts and doctrines don't know what they are talking about with..". What I said was that there is no universal exegesis of that passage. There is not universal agreement that it says one specific thing. There is an exegetical dispute.
  • "Exegesis" is one thing, it is not the final "conclusion" of the way Jewish Law has been fixed and applied and Judaism has been practiced the last 2000 or even 3500 years. At no point in time was what you say and imply ever sanctioned or allowed. Besides theoretical discussions in tracts, the "halacha lema'ase" (practical Halacha) does not permit any form of sexual contact between same-gender couples (that the flesh is weak and some people succumb is irrelevant, it is no way to justify anything). To justify that is a perversion of Judaism according to all streams of Orthodoxy. Of course, the Reform are free to keep on pulling rabbits out of hats and saying whatever they want, since they deny the Divinity of Torah and the Mitzvot (Shabbat, Kashrut, Intermarriage etc etc etc) therefore do not have practical meaning or application to them, they just watch the latest social trends and that is their de facto civil "religion" often minus a God or anything spiritual. That is their choice, but it is not and has never been definitive Judaism either, a "stream" maybe but not "it" either. IZAK (talk) 10:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Indeed, Exegesis is not the final "conclusion". But it is exegesis. Regardless of what you may conclude, you cannot say that the bible concretely says something if most exegesis says it says the opposite. While you may say it intends or means or refers to one thing or another, you cannot simply lie about what it actually says.Newman Luke (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
    • As for "a perversion of Judaism according to all streams of Orthodoxy". You go and tell that to the Ultra-Orthodox Rabbis Mordechai Halperin, and Gerhon Winkler, and the Orthodox Rabbi Steven Greenberg (who himself is gay). I should think they have a greater claim to speak for Orthodoxy than you do.Newman Luke (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• (5) "sex acts between men" are NOT forbidden, except anal sex. The Talmud is quite clear on this. So is Rashi.
  • This is what would be termed in classical Judaism as "megaleh panim batorah shelo kehalacha" ("exegesis not sanctioned by halacha") you are making things up and you want everyone to swallow it because you can cite ten papers written by like-minded secular scholars, often gentiles with an animus to Judaism, with no real grasp of Jewish Law or the depth of the Torah. Kind of sad really that you now want to make Wikipedia the repositery of this kind of clap-trap. But feel free, cite all the rules you want. At the end of the day, people will go online to read what Judaism has to say about homosexulaity and they will find that Wikipedia has violated its own rules by becoming a pro-gay lobby when it should have remained neutral, certainly with regards to classical Judaism. Rashi was not in the business of officially sanctioning male on male sex acts of any kind. IZAK (talk) 10:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
    • You cannot say in one breath that I am "making things up" and that I "can cite ten papers" expressing the same view. Either I am making it up, or it is a view expressed in citeable sources; logic dictates that it cannot be both. And I seriously doubt that Jews are "gentiles with an animus to Judaism". You should really check the sources more thouroughly before casting aspersions on their affiliation and character. Regardless of what Rashi's business was, all that matters is what he actually did, what he actually wrote.Newman Luke (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• (6) I do not regard there as being a cabbalistic (not Kabbalistic) plot to push points of view as if they were the majority. But I do regard some editors, and I'm looking in your general direction here, as individually attempting to do so. "Jews do not have a say in their own Holy Books" - Jews have some say, but they are also Holy Books for other religions too, and WP:UNDUE requires that Jewish views aren't presented as the main view from which all others deviate. "do you claim that the Tanach does not belong to the Jews" - I state that it does not do so exclusively. See WP:RNPOV. "there are more people with BAs and MAs who than PhDs" - as a matter of fact, I'm compelled to point out that most scholars, lecturers, and professors, in universities, in Arts subjects (including theology) deliberately do NOT have PhDs. The reasons for that are too complicated to discuss here, but it remains the case all the same. With regard to "ordained rabbis" vs. "professors" I'd have to say that "professors" would theoretically approach the subject from an unbiased side, while "ordained rabbis" would not, hence WP:NPOV is more statistically likely to favour the "professors" views over the "ordained rabbis". After all, we cannot have self-published sources; there are, after all, plenty of "professors" who can tell us what the "ordained rabbis" say, but very few "ordained rabbis" who report the position of the "professors".
  • The end result of your approach is that at the end of the day what will be presented is a hybrid animal that has no resemblence to any form of normative Judaism, not even to Reform's, just hypthetical ramblings of no real import, rooted in nothing but some folks' imaginations, in the cyberspace ether. IZAK (talk) 10:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Articles aren't the fifedoms of specific strands of Judiasm. Wikipedia has an NPOV policy. NO ARTICLE should resemble any specific single form of Judaism, unless specifically "view of Haredi Jews about X", etc. Newman Luke (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
    • "nothing but some folks' imaginations, in the cyberspace ether". And in cited books. I don't cite from the Internet. You on the other hand have offered nothing but your own personal view.Newman Luke (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• (7) "just because Wikipedia has rules to keep itself running smoothly, you will use those rules to pervert or reformulate a subject in WP:NOR style backing it". Who are you calling a pervert? Please see WP:CIVILITY. "essays written by some latter-day writers whose sole aim in life is to discredit the Bible" Now that's an utterly absurd canard - the Jewish Encyclopedia was written by Jews, what on earth would they want to discredit the bible for. You'll need a pretty massive cite to prove that particular claim, which university theology departments will rain on you like a tonne of bricks over.
  • You have obviously not heard of Maskilim who were Jews dedicated to the destruction of how Judaism was taught and practiced for the past 2000 years or more. Wikipedia is neutral and does not have to bend to them either. They are solid scholars but they should not have the final say. IZAK (talk) 10:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I have heard of Maskilim. I have cited from NONE of them. I have also heard of Wikipedia:POV warriors. You have cited from no-one but yourself.Newman Luke (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• (8) "makes it sound like Orthodox Jews are running around like sensors or world powers". No. It makes it sound like one or two Orthodox Jews are doing so. The same applies to other denominations, of all religions - there are one or two people in wikipedia doing this. And I'm directing the statement to you. "Exegesis by secular scholars" is just that - its exegesis by people approaching the topic from a point of view without including any religious bias. "who may be ..." Jews. They may be Jews. Secular doesn't preclude Jews. The point is that they don't put their religious bias into their work; on account of being secular scholars - they wouldn't be secular if they did. "somehow atheists should have a greater say because there are more of them". That's not at all my point - I'm saying that religious groups should NOT get a greater say, and especially not minority groups - WP:UNDUE requires that minority views are not given undue weight.
  • Jews by definition are a "minority" group even if you count every last intermarried and assimilated one, as I said it is even in the Torah that God tells the Jews that they will always be a minority Deuteronomy 7:7 "It as not because you had greater numbers than all the other nations that God embraced you and chose you; you are among the smallest of all the nations. It was because of God's love for you, and because He was keeping the oath that he made to your fathers...", so it is absurd to claim that they are not in a position to have an opinion or decide how their own religion is taught, defined or practiced. What "new" thing am I saying here? IZAK (talk) 10:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
    • The "new" thing you are saying here is the mistaken claim that "their religion" equates entirely with "the bible". Other faiths hold the bible as a key document. And academics have studied it thoroughly. "Jews", specifically "Orthodox Jews", specifically "Orthodox Jews with IZAK's POV", aren't the only people with something to say about "the bible"; and since they are a minority among people with something to say about "the bible" their views shouldn't be allowed to dominate things about "the bible", because to do so would give them Undue Weight.Newman Luke (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• (9) "perniciousness...sheer arrogance...surly vitriol". See WP:CIVILITY - NOW. RIGHT NOW. BEFORE READING FURTHER.. You've massively violated the principle. I expect and demand that you make no further comments of that sort towards me whatsoever. Wikipedia is not here to state the views of a particular geographic form of a Jewish denomination utterly without challenge. Nor is it here to whitewash them. According to me you cannot declare Judaism to be one thing or the other. You are not the totality of Judaism. Neither are you are not the spokesman for the totality of it.
  • My, even pointing out your own words makes you mad. Is there any point in this dialogue? I don't think so. I will therefore not comment MUCH beyond these few reactions. IZAK (talk) 10:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
    • They are not my words. You have not offered even a shred of evidence for that claim. I have repeatedly asked for diffs. You are just making up canards. Nor is there any excuse whatsoever for your abject incivility. I again suggest you read WP:CIVILITY.Newman Luke (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• (10) "anti-semitic. Um, where exactly did I do that?". On someone else's talk page, a few days ago. I'll provide the link as soon as I recollect the user's name. "do you even bother to read your own words" Do you? I asked you for a diff - for cold hard evidence - you have provided none, so I must assume your claim is baseless. It is a canard. "of what else then, in fact you lump all of Orthodox Judaism.....into that "fundamenatlist" category". Again this is a canard - you must provide a diff - cold hard evidence of me doing this - or withdraw the accusation. "that you seem to hate with a vegenace". Again this is a canard. You have no evidence for this. Provide a diff or withdraw the accusation.
  • Right, you can't find it because I never accused you of being "anti-Semitic" anywhere. You lied.
    • I haven't been able to find it because I've recently interacted with quite a few editors, and trying to identify which one it was who had it on their talk page therefore takes a particularly large amount of time, especially given that the passage is more than likely archived by now. When I have the time to find it I will probably endeavour to do so. Newman Luke (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• "you will then have support and allies for your views". I'm not in the business of playing with WP:MEATPUPPETs. I hope you are not either.
  • This just confirms that you only cite rules that suit you, when WP:CONSENSUS is key in getting anything done without getting into any WP:WAR. IZAK (talk) 10:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Consensus is not the same thing as getting "allies". In fact, its the very opposite.Newman Luke (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• "It's not enough that you seek support in groups that have nothing to do with Judaism topics". Would you like to provide evidence for that accusation. If not you must withdraw it. Newman Luke (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Take a good long hard look at your edit history. IZAK (talk) 10:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
    • SCO tried that argument with IBM. The Judge condemned their approach (as did the other Judge to look at the case). You must provide specific explicit evidence or withdraw the accusation.Newman Luke (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Add Judaism delsort template

Hi Newman: Please, if and when you nominate articles obviously relating to Judaism, be so kind as to place the {{subst:delsort|Judaism}}<small>~~~~</small> template on any AFD page connected with Judaism, and ALSO place the relevant link at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism page like this: {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bashert}} for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bashert. IZAK (talk) 08:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I thought it was a robot that did that. Something did that automatically when I put things into the appropriate deletion sorting categories before. Newman Luke (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Newman Luke. You have new messages at Alatari's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mishk'vei ishah

Hi Newman, please see Talk:Mishk'vei ishah#Talk:Mishk'vei ishah, Thanks IZAK (talk) 16:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Newman, when you placed the {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mishk'vei ishah}} here [22], you should have also then placed a corresponding {{subst:delsort|Sexuality and gender}}<small>~~~~</small> template on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mishk'vei ishah page. I have now done that. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Is that robot still not doing that automatically? Newman Luke (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I dunno. What robot? If there is one it's not working timeously. IZAK (talk)

Hello. Relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mishk'vei ishah was neither warranted nor appropriate as you are an involved editor. The AFD is from November 18 and discussion woudl run for seven days with ample of participation already anyways. See also WP:RELIST and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_speedy_closure_of_this_AfD. noting that this thread has not been brought up as complaint against you. Best regards, --Tikiwont (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It was warrented because several people had turned up and voted, without commenting, despite the fact that AfD is NOT A VOTE. It was warrented to generate discussion, to avoid it turning into a case of "people" who make 1 edit a month turning up out of the blue and making a vote, rather than a discussion. Newman Luke (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The DRV

Sorry to see the DRV thread on that AfD was closed prematurely; I didn't anticipate that. Let me know if you need any more help with the situation. Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Forbidden relationships in Judaism

Since this article is called Forbidden relationships in Judaism you should not complain about the article following Jewish interpretations. In general, if you want to make such drastic changes, the right way is to discuss it first on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Its not a terribly drastic change to point out that the Bible doesn't say "women captured in warefare", or "halitzah", in Leviticus 21:7. Its a plain fact that it doesn't. Read it for yourself - [23]. It says 'whores', 'the profane', and 'women put away from their husbands'. Its simply not neutral or accurate to claim that it says something it doesn't. It may be the Jewish interpretation that 'halitzah' and 'women captured in warfare' are what is implied, but you cannot put "Lev 21:7" as the reference for these - you can only say "Judaism says that this means....". Newman Luke (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is the Hebrew. Who says the word "whore" in the Torah means the same as it does in English? And "the profane" is not a correct translation: it refers to a very specific group. Likewise a "grusha" is a "divorcee", not a "woman put away from her husband". You are making the mistake of judging the text through English eyes. These are not interpretations, these are plain translations of terms. Debresser (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I know "grusha" is a divorcee. "woman put away from her husband" is just the archaic way of saying "divorcee" - I wrote that because that's what how the first hit on google rendered it; I'd rather quote it to you from an actual english bible translation, rather than rely on memory/my own translation (after all, WP:NOR).

As for "whore" and "the profane". Indeed, who is to say what it means. We cannot take the view of one group and say that's what the Torah actually says. We can only say 'this is a literal rendering', and 'Group X think it means ....'. Which is how I altered it - to say 'it says profaned, Judaism thinks this refers to...'. You cannot say 'Torah says women captured in warfare', because it does not say that. You can say something like 'Torah implies women captured in warfare', but implies is a subjective thing - it has to be attributed; in this case attributed to classical Judaism.

Hence 'Torah says profaned. Judaism thinks this implies women captured in warfare...'

There should not be anything controversial about that. Its basic WP:NPOV procedure. Newman Luke (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

A lot of Wikipedia:Wikilawyering, or BS in plain English. In Judaism there is no other interpretation that has been accepted in the last 2000 or so years, than the one I use. I urge you again (!) to discuss any further edits on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You confuse 'interpretation' with 'what it physically says in the actual physical words physically written on the page'.

"the profane" is a correct translation. Now it might refer to something specific, but it does not actually say that. What it says is the profane. People may interpret that as a reference to some specific group or other, but the only words in the actual text are the hebrew for the profane, etymologically related to other hebrew words for the profane, cognate (curiously) with halal (the arabic word that now means something like kosher).

You cannot say the text says something it does not. You can say that people interpret whatever it says to refer to some specific group, which you can identify, but you cannot say the text explicitly says that, because it doesn't. In point of fact, the Septuagint only has two women - literally "the woman prostitutional and profane, and the woman cast out by her man" (the latter almost definitely = divorcee); which is why one or two major english bible translations render the passage as "the profane prostitute and the divorcee" rather than "the prostitute, and the profane woman, and the divorcee".

The text is clearly not necessarily referring to a specific group by "the profane" - that's just one interpretation among others. Now it might be the correct interpretation, it might be supported by most scholars, but its still only an interpretation and not the actual words on the page; at best, it can only be "the bible says 'the profane', which is generally interpreted to mean a specific group, namely....". To put "the bible says a specific group, namely..." is simply a violation of NPOV, regardless of what the article is about.

It doesn't matter here what Judaism thinks, or what Scholars think, or what I think, or what you think. These are all things thought, not the actual physical text. The actual physical text has the word "halalah". It does not state what this means. You cannot say that it does, because that is simply a lie. You can say that "in Judaism 'halalah' is near universally interpreted to mean such and such...." but you cannot say that the bible says that, because it simply doesn't.

Newman Luke (talk) 05:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Mishk'vei ishah

Unexpected ending to the saga. The material needs to be presented, it is obviously cogent and important. The title should be different. Hard to say how else to correct it, as the closing admin presented no useful rationale. It might have been better if he had let the editors know, even in advance, of his objections, they could have been corrected. Let me know if you need a hand. Haiduc (talk) 08:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Your reversal of the consensus move

You are the only person who is complaining about the article's move, which was done rather well by Debresser. Please do not go against consensus. -- Avi (talk) 06:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)