Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism

Main        Discussion Board        Members        Article Assessment        Templates        Categories        Resources        Manual of Style        To do        New Articles       Discussion Board Discussions relating to Jews and Judaism. (edit) (back to top) IPA fot Zeev Suraski Could someone provide the IPA for Zeev Suraski, the current article is a bit ridiculous. Thanks, JACOPLANE • 2008-06-27 10:14 Nomination for deletion Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unification Church and antisemitism "Rabbinical Rabbis" In the article on Criticism of the Talmud the term "rabbinical rabbis" is used in the reference to the debate with the Frankists. Does "rabbinical" make sense as a modifier to "rabbi"? -- Jlodman (talk) 05:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC) It's a pleonasm if ever there was one. The word "rabbinical" is sometimes used instead of "mainstream Judaism". JFW | T@lk 13:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC) I don't know what a pleonasm is (sorry - I'm still trying just to get people to use adverbs), but Judaism for maybe 1500 years was split into two parts - Karaite Judaism, and Rabbinical Judaism, the latter of which has mostly prevailed. So if that is what is referred to, it is correct, if confusing.Mzk1 (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC) While we are on this, where is Rabbinic correct and where is Rabbinical correct? I prefer the former as less midieval(sp?)-sounding, but I have been corrected on this. I would appreciate help here.Mzk1 (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC) I wouldn't say "Judaism was split". Karaites are a too insignificant a group to use the word "split". "Rabbinical rabbis" could also refer to Pharisees as oposite to Sadducees? It obviously denotes those who stick with what we now consider "mainstream Judaism". But I agree another word should be used, other than the pleonastic "rabbinical rabbis". Debresser (talk) 06:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC) I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. Of course Karaites are not a very large group presently. But I was speaking historically, as was the person asking the question. At one time they were quite a significant group.Mzk1 (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC) "rabbinical rabbis" is a tautology, like saying "priestly priests". In previous centuries the now archaic "Rabbinites" was used for the rabbis and their disciples. The term Rabbinites redirects to Rabbinic Judaism on WP it was taken to mean what today would be called Orthodox Judaism who continue with it, but Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism also claim to subscribe to Rabbinic Judaism claiming they are its true heirs, since neither Reform nor Conservative agrees with or subscribes to Karaite Judaism. At any rate, it was the Rabbinites who opposed the Karaites in their day, and it should be placed and understood in that historical context. IZAK (talk) 08:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC) It certainly appears redundant to me, especially after the preceding comments. I don't see any signs that non-rabbinic rabbis occur unless the word "rabbi" is used to mean things other than as a teacher of Judaism.Jlodman (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Well, there are Karaite Rabbis (or whatever term they use). I saw a pciture of one quite some time ago, and he was dressed in standard Israeli Rabinnical garb - black and and suit. But, OK, the phrasing is unfortunate.Mzk1 (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC) LOL! So who gets to fix it? Jlodman (talk) 05:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Rabbinic vs rabbinical Again, Is it possible someone could explain to me where "rabbinic" is applicable and where "rabbinical" is? As I said, I much perform the former, but many seem to insist on the latter.Mzk1 (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Perhaps you could solve your dilemma by viewing it as a problem of English usage and there are similar cases in English, perhaps like "magic" versus "magical" or "satanic" versus "satanical" or "comic" versus "comical" etc (sorry those just sprung to mind off the cuff). IZAK (talk) 02:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC) OK, any English-usage experts there? Or is there a better place to ask? (As I say, I have already had stuff modified on this basis, but left it alone due to lack of knowledge.) I will try some reference works, also. Mzk1 (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Ed Miliband I'd like to ask whether people here are interested in assisting with a discussion of the new Labour Party leader, who according to perfectly reliable sources is Jewish. Discussion here -- where you will find some astonishing claims, e.g. the Jewish Chronicle and Haaretz cannot be trusted on this matter because they have "Jewish readerships". The edit in question is here, where an admin simply deletes the statement that he is the first Jewish leader of the party. Does this seem right? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC) He is Jewish. Even though he is not a practising Jew, he was born to Jewish parents. Jewish in this case refes to his ethnicity, not his religious beliefs. Hence Jesus is categorised as a "Roman era Jew" and as a "Jewish Messiah claimant", etc. Chesdovi (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC) The point at issue is whether it is sufficient to describe him simply as Jewish, without any qualification or clarification, given the different meanings (religious, ethnic, etc.) which many readers place on the word, and given that he has said that he has no (or, no strong) religious beliefs. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC) I think similar articles tend to introduce such a person as "born to Jewish parents" or similar. Chesdovi (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Ghmyrtle and Chesdovi—there aren't "different meanings," or at the least—these are of no concern to us. If you wish to elaborate on his "Jewishness" in accordance with reliably sourced information—that is a possibility. Of course some might object to undue weight being given to this aspect of the man's identity, given that his Jewishness is not highly correlated to the individual's notability. A nonobservant Jew is no less Jewish than an observant Jew. No source questions his "Jewishness." I think adding information, if reliably sourced, is a reasonable possibility. If sources say he has "no strong religious beliefs," then that wording constitutes a reasonable qualifying phrase that you might want to add. But I think it is totally unacceptable to exercise one's own personal reasoning to override what reliable sources say. They say he is Jewish. So I hardly see that as something that can be omitted. Bus stop (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC) "A nonobservant Jew is no less Jewish than an observant Jew." That is your view, and, I'm sure, the view of many Jews. However, it is confusing to many other WP readers, and we should strive to reduce that confusion by making clear what we mean, in this circumstance where a prominent public figure has stated that he "does not believe in God". Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, he need not believe in God. Do you suggest that the article on Ed Miliband go off on a tangent about Jewish identity? No, of course not—that would be silly. The appropriate thing is to add more information, not to take away information. Therefore in the same breath that the article asserts that he is Jewish, it should also include language, that strictly adheres to that used by reliable sources, which would serve to modify the fact of his Jewishness. Therefore it could be noted that he, "does not believe in God," if that is what a source says. Bus stop (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC) This is precisely right. Unfortunately a great deal of ignorance about Judaism is clouding the discussion, with one contributor in particular repeatedly referring to Jewish "blood" (see WP:BLPN). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Most readers are, in your terms, "ignorant about Judaism". That is precisely why we need clarity. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Our BLP policy, which applies to infoboxes also, says " Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." How far that should or does apply to plain text within an article is not so clear as far as I know. Dougweller (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC) It is irrelevant. We need not elaborate on his "religious beliefs." Jewish identity is primarily based on birth or conversion. This is unlike Christianity—a person is a Christian only if they accept Christ as their Savior. That is a belief. Jewish identity does not require belief. Many Jews are nonobservant. Many Jews state that they are atheists. This is all irrelevant to their being Jewish. It could be argued that if a person (an otherwize Jewish person) said that they were not Jewish, we would have to accept that as concerns the writing of our article, and certainly if the person was a living person. But Ed Miliband does not get stripped of his Jewish identity as a consequence of saying that he might not believe in God, or that he rarely if ever goes to synagogue. Such statements are not sufficient to support an argument that he is not Jewish. The situation that describes is common. The majority of Jews might not be observant. This issue is about trying to fit Judaism into a mold based upon Christianity. The two religions share similarities, but the two religions are different as well. Bus stop (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC) "Religion is the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or a set of beliefs concerning the origin and purpose of the universe." Unless that statement is false, it follows that someone who states that they do not believe in or worship a god who is central to a particular religion cannot reasonably be described as an adherent of that religion. We can say things about their identity, their cultural background, their parents' or grandparents' beliefs, etc., but we cannot characterise that person as being an adherent of that religion - which is the wording used in infoboxes. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Feel free to set up your own project where this is the way policy works; you have that right. Meanwhile on this project, we have WP:BLP and WP:V and the long-standing idea that exceptional claims need exceptional sources, and that in cases of doubt we err on the side of not including contentious information on living subjects. --John (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC) John—our article should state that he is Jewish because all sources that address that topic state that he is Jewish; no source asserts that he is not Jewish. In light of this I am trying to understand your WP:V concerns. WP:BLP is your other policy concern expressed above. You refer to "exceptional claims." What is the exceptional claim? That he is Jewish? You refer to "contentious information." Who finds this contentious? Sources are unanimous, including Miliband himself, that he is Jewish. Can you please explain to me what you find to be contentious? Bus stop (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC) If the fellow doesn't self identify as a "Jew" then don't label him as such. Same goes for Catholic, Scientologist, Hindu, whatever. A mention that his parents are/were jewish is certainly appropriate for mention in the "education and upbringing" section. The binary categories are a way to label people, many of of whom don't appear to want to be so-labelled.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Ah -- but he has: "Obviously I'm Jewish, it is part of my identity, but not in a religious sense." Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC) This is revisiting discussions elsewhere. He is "Jewish" in the sense of having a Jewish identity - but, as a service to readers, what that means needs to be clarified beyond describing him simply as "Jewish". He is not Jewish in a religious sense, and it is therefore incorrect to describe his religion as "Jewish". Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC) I agree, and I would not propose to add "Jewish" to the infobox. I would suggest that this discussion move to the article talk page -- my purpose in coming here was to attract the interest of people who might actually know something about the general topic, but discussion should take place there. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC) David Cameron Strange, but about two weeks ago the widely read (in Haredi circles) English-language Mishpacha Magazine had a detailed article, with a very nice photo, of current British PM David Cameron posing with a leading UK Rabbi Chanoch Ehrentreu making a presentation to Cameron of a Jewish Torah book written by a famous rabbi who is an ancestor of Cameron. See Index for the issue at Feature Article 2: DAYAN EHRENTREU’S FRIEND from TEN DOWNING David Damen, and see the first part of the article, with that great photo of Cameron with the rabbi at: Dayan Ehrentreu's Friend From Ten Downing (PDF). The article did not say that Cameron is "Jewish", but it stressed the fact that based on Rabbi Ehrentreu's personal close relationship with Cameron, that after they had met in the past, there is no question that Cameron has verifiable Jewish ancestry as well. The piece was probably also meant to counter negative PR against Cameron in Jewish circles for making pro-PLO statements lately. So it seems that both heads of the big parties in Britain come from Jewish roots. Mazel Tov! IZAK (talk) 11:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC) This is not news. The article on David Cameron refers to "his great-great grandfather Emile Levita, a German-Jewish financier who obtained British citizenship in 1871..." Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC) You quote from article that was published a little over a year ago, it's not that long ago. It may have been known in the UK, but it is very radical for Cameron to "go public" personally in a widely read modern-day English-language Haredi popular magazine and have a photo of himself openly published with one of the most powerful living English rabbis, who oversees conversions to Judaism in all of Europe today of all things, being pictured together and quoted getting a book from the rabbi who says that: "The prime minister is the direct descendant of one of the most prominent Jewish grammarians of five centuries ago.. Rav Eliyahu Ashkenazi" that goes further back than his great-great-grandad who came to the UK. So what do they want from the Milibands who have more recent Jewish ancestry, whose mother was evidently Jewish by birth in our times and not five hundred years ago. IZAK (talk) 05:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Frankism Frankism is notable enough to have its own article, so I've created it and nominated it for DYK. It's a difficult article to write, especially NPOV--please have a look and let me know what you think. --La comadreja formerly AFriedman RESEARCH (talk) 06:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Added Category:Frankism. IZAK (talk) 13:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Jewish temple The disambiguation page may not be needed. If it is needed it needs some touch up. Any thoughts at Talk:Jewish temple would be appreciated.Cptnono (talk) 04:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Hi Cptnono: Thanks for noting this. I took care of it. IZAK (talk) 11:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC) The Transliterated Siddur I have a feeling that the article, The Transliterated Siddur, either needs expansion or should be merged somewhere else. I have not been involved in the set of articles regarding prayer and prayerbooks. Perhaps someone could take a look at it and see if it belongs elsewhere.Joe407 (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC) New Jewish Music article Megama - Perhaphs someone has the names of their other albums?? Joe407 (talk) 12:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Welcome changes to Reliable Sources Frustrated with random quotes from newspaper columns being used to slander all and sundry, I started a discussion at Identifying Reliable Sources asking if facts inside newspaper columns were considered top-level Reliable Sources, as news articles are. This resulted in what I believe are welcome (and still ongoing) changes in the rules regarding the level of RS of news opinion pieces. I recommend people take a look; while I do not like removing long-standing material, I think there are some places that could use a meat-axe. Of course, many articles appear to have little or no sources at all...Mzk1 (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Yeshiva - New addtition, Gaonic period An editor has made a potentially valuble contribution by adding a large section to the article regarding the Geonic period. However, it has flaws, including the reliance on a single source that was not really geared towards the subject. I have put some of my reservations in the talk pages, and recommend that those interested take a look. (Don't forget the main source for the period, Iggeret Rav Sherira Gaon.) Perhaps some of you might like to take the original editor's good work and improve on it.Mzk1 (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Expansion of Yitzchok Hutner article There is now a discussion concerning the recent expansion of the Rabbi Yitzchok Hutner article, more input is welcomed at Talk:Yitzchok Hutner#Expanding the article discussions. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Religion of Ancient Israel A couple of users, one of them rather new, created a new article today at Religion of Ancient Israel. They're having a few disagreements between them at its talk page and they both made a number of edits to the lead of Judaism that accord with the contents of that article and link to it. I reverted because I didn't see any sources and the changes didn't seem to me to summarize the Judaism article. Then, I went to the new article to find that it has no sources or references at all. What do others here think? Is this a POV fork of Judaism? walled garden? I think the new article needs input from a wider range of editors. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC) It's very odd; POV, OR, and entirely unsourced. I'm not sure what, if anything, could be salvaged from it. Jayjg (talk) 02:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC) I think this could be salvaged, at least in name, if we added sources. Since Religion of Ancient Rome and Religion of Ancient Egypt are articles, I was surprised that Religion of Ancient Israel was not--until now. We should add information about other gods that were worshiped in ancient Israel, and possibly remove much or all of the information about modern religious movements that claim to be continuations of Israelite religion. --La comadreja formerly AFriedman RESEARCH (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC) What reliable sources would you use? Jayjg (talk) 03:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC) And why wouldn't those sources simply be used in the "History" section of the Judaism article instead? Jayjg (talk) 04:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC) I was actually thinking of this as a child article for Israelites. I would use reliable sources about ancient Israelite idolatry, for example. The Israelites article doesn't seem to have an extensive discussion of the various religious movements that competed for the following of the ancient Israelites. --La comadreja formerly AFriedman RESEARCH (talk) 04:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC) At the moment it is a redirect to Jewish history#Ancient Israelites. I brought it up at WP:Fringe where it was also suggested that ""Religion of Ancient Israel" would be about the pre-exilic, pre-monotheistic religion and as such a sub-topic of Ancient Semitic religions" which makes sense to me. Except that I don't like the word 'Israel' here as it is too limiting. Dougweller (talk) 07:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC) That may be if we define the scope of the entry differently. The original move to "Religion of Ancient Israel" was not correct IMO. The entry creator was trying to create an article on "Mosaic religion" which is a synonym of Judaism. His take on what that meant was monotheistic ancient Judaism but not the pre-monotheistic Semitic religions. The title move confused this however. Judaism is indeed the parent topic here, and its ancient history is the specific context. We have articles that deal with these topics already.Griswaldo (talk) 11:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC) I made the move not because of the article as it stood at the time of deletion, but because of how I was imagining the article would be rewritten. I think there's consensus that coverage of how the Israelites and their ancestors worshiped other gods, both before some of them became monotheists and after monotheism had become firmly established, is a conspicuous hole in the encyclopedia. We're done with discussion about the article "Religion of Moses and Israel", I think--no one seriously objected to its deletion. IMO the discussion is about where the relevant article about polytheism in Israel would be. --La comadreja formerly AFriedman RESEARCH (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Redirected Religion of Ancient Israel to point to History of ancient Israel and Judah#Religion, which appears to contain the content you're looking for. Jheald (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Frege Philosopher Frege was a Hitler admirer. There is an odd attempt going on at talk:Gottlob Frege to mitigate criticism of his anti-semitism by means of specious attacks against reliable sources. Tkuvho (talk) 06:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Redemption (theology) Does a concept of "redemption" exist in Judaism? If so, something should be added to Redemption (theology), which is currently stubby and narrowly focused. bd2412 T 16:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Looking at the article, in Judaism this would refer to the concept of repentance, but I'm not sure this could be shoehorned in. I removed the second sentance in the header as unrelated. Didn't somebody ask this same question once, even write an article about it with a lot of made-up things? Debresser (talk) 08:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC) I added a small section to Redemption (theology). Debresser (talk) 08:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Jewish practices on Christmas (Chinese food and movies?) I'm not Jewish myself, but had seen some media and pop-culture references indicating that in some areas there's a tradition of Jewish families going to the movies and going out for Chinese food on Christmas. One article mentioned the term "National Go to the Movies and Eat Chinese Food Day" in this context. WP has articles on Chrismukkah and the Matzo Ball, but those don't quite seem to cover this subject, with the former being more a fusion holiday than "alternate practice among non-Christmas celebrators". Am I missing the article I'm seeking, or is there no article on this practice? Should there be one? What would the title be: Jewish Christmas, Jewish alternate Christmas activities? I'd be happy to help put an article together, as the concept is interesting, even if it is less-common than in past decades where more mainstream businesses were closed during Christmas. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC) It's a parenthetical gag at best. It has no other significance than "Hey we have nothing to celebrate but we are off of work - let's go out!" And the only resturaunts open are ones owned by other non-christians (most common being Chinese). Joe407 (talk) 07:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Agree. It's like when I went to see fireworks on Silvester while I was living outside Israel. I just liked to watch it. No traditions involved, and definitely no pagan rituals. :) Debresser (talk) 08:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC) In the UK there's always Limmud -- Jheald (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC) It's not a practice. It just happened that some of the only places open on Christmas have traditionally been Chinese restaurants and movie theatres. Since there was nothing else to do, those are the two places a lot of Jews ended up during Christmas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.209.109 (talk) 09:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC) The custom goes back quite a while. The phenomenon is called nittel nacht, where Jews would avoid doing anything joyous on Christmas Eve (which includes studying Torah, which is meant to be a joyous activity) to avoid giving the impression that they were celebrating the non-Jewish holiday. JFW | T@lk 23:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Country Yossi Folks in this project may be able to contribute to the above discussion, J04n(talk page) 19:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC) This AfD was withdrawn after sources were added. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moshe Sacks Another AfD that may be of interest to this project. J04n(talk page) 13:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Unreferenced BLPs There is currently a push to add sources to all unreferenced BLPs. There are over 20,000 of these article, which is down from over 50,000 this past January. Lists have been compiled breaking down the articles by projects. The list for this project can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Unreferenced BLPs. There are little under 100 articles currently on the list, any help in adding sources to these would be greatly appreciated. For more information see Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. J04n(talk page) 14:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Is Ed Miliband "Jewish", "of Jewish descent", "Jewish atheist"? There is a lengthy discussion going on at Talk:Ed Miliband#Cats again about whether or not Ed Miliband is Jewish, and in exactly which categories he can be included. Miliband is the child of two Jews, and has stated publicly several times that he is Jewish, as have various reliable sources. However, Miliband is quick to qualify that statement, by noting that he is not Jewish in a religious sense, as he does not practise Judaism, and, in fact, does not believe in God. Furthermore, he states that his family was not connected to the Jewish community when he grew up. The dispute is as follows: Some editors there have said that, based on his statements and various reliable sources, he should be included in the categories Category:Jewish atheists, Category:English Jews, and Category:British atheists. The first, in particular, was designed exactly for Jews who don't practise Judaism or believe in God, and the second is for anyone who either claims to be Jewish, or who reliable sources state is Jewish. Other editors have insisted that these categories are not applicable; that the fact that a person states he does not believe in God does not necessarily mean that he would agree he's an atheist, and claiming he's an atheist based on that statement is original research including him in a "Jew" or "Jewish" category would mislead the reader into believing Miliband practised Judaism. This is, in their view, a WP:BLP violation, because Miliband himself makes it clear he is Jewish, but doesn't practise Judaism. Miliband has only stated he is "Jewish", but not a "Jew", and therefore "British Jew" doesn't apply. The second set of editors have argued that Miliband should instead be included in Category:British people of Jewish descent. The first set have argued against this category, noting that the category is intended for people who are not Jews themselves, but do have Jewish ancestry, and in any event that is not what Miliband himself has clearly stated, and thus would itself be a violation of WP:BLP. Fresh, knowledgeable eyes on this discussion would be greatly appreciated. The discussion starts at Talk:Ed Miliband#Cats again, and is currently active in the Talk:Ed Miliband#arbitrary break 3 section. Jayjg (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Why not just let him describe his faith/ancestry in his own words and leave the binary categories off altogether? He's made it clear he's not much interested in a binary label. We shouldn't presume to slap one on him.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC) I'd be happy if all the "Jew" categories were done away with - and indeed, all the other "ethnicity" categories. However, that doesn't seem likely to happen, so we have to work with the existing labels, and the existing inclusion criteria. We can't really make special exemptions. Jayjg (talk) 18:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Jayjg asked me to comment. To a large extent, my answer is "I don't really care." Beyond that, my suggestion is that since these things really come down to self-identification, and since he is very much alive and not particularly hard to reach, it would seem to me that the best way to resolve this would be to contact the man himself and ask which of these categories he would consider appropriate self-description. - Jmabel | Talk 04:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC) That would be OR and since he is a primary source, you'd have to attribute that self-opinion to him. --Shuki (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC) That would be a prime example of why I am no longer a particularly active contributor to en-wiki. - Jmabel | Talk 22:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Outlines on religions Outline of Islam Outline of Christianity Outline of Buddhism Outline of Hinduism Outline of Judaism The Transhumanist    19:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC) I started Outline of Judaism, take a look. Please everyone, feel free to improve it. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC) Did You Know Does anyone know if a List with text copy/pasted from the main Judaism article is eligible for DYK? Outline of Judaism looks like it might be a very good DYK if it meets requirements. BTW, 2 more WP Judaism DYKs confirmed: (1) "that clarinetist Margot Leverett started a band that fuses bluegrass music with the traditional Jewish musical style called klezmer?" (2) and speaking of crossing boundaries, a DYK for Frankism about how it encourages people to transgress every single one. --La comadreja formerly AFriedman RESEARCH (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC) Chesed Shel Emes Currently the article Chesed Shel Emes seems to be about an organization rather than about the concept. Should we rewrite to be about the concept with a sub-section about orgs or split the article to the concept of Chesed Shel Emes and if there are any notable orgs, they can have their own article. Thoughts? Joe407 (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC) It seems to be about 'the' organization, but not about a specific one. I think the article can be developed for both the concept and the organizations. --Shuki (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC) It would seem to be that the concept would belong under the Chevra Kadisha article, particularly since the organizations are often called "Chevra Kadisha Gemilas Cheses Sehl Emes (GCS"A)". Why not just modify the titles and create a disambiguation page?Mzk1 (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Articles Judaism and Mosaic Law Would you mind taking a look at these articles, please? There is a user called User:Greyshark09 who is intent on turning "Mosaic Law" into a full fledged religion distinct from Judaism, and changing the Judaism article to claim that Judaism is based on this Mosaic Law. Thanks. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Greyshark, by the way, is the same editor who created Religion of Ancient Israel under the title Religion of Moses and Israel (discussed above). That article was an unreferenced POV push until it was (mercifully) redirected. What he's been doing at the dab page clearly goes against MOS:DOB. I left him a note to that effect and made a few edits to the page to bring it more in line with the guideline. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Frankism has made DYKSTATS The article on Frankism, recently expanded from a redirect, got 8,400 views while on the main page and is currently November's most-viewed Did You Know article. See Wikipedia:DYKSTATS#November_2010. Thought you might be interested. --La comadreja formerly AFriedman RESEARCH (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Template:Hebrew script FYI {{Hebrew script}} has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Category:Yiddish CfD Please see here Per that discussion, I have split Category:Yiddish into Category:Yiddish culture and Category:Yiddish language. Members of this project may want to inspect the inclusion of certain articles and the categorization of those articles for accuracy. Furthermore, I have taken all of the interwiki links and placed them in Category:Yiddish language, as it appears that this is the meaning of most of the other-language Wikipedias (and it is explicit in some of their names as well.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Ed Miliband Infobox Ed Miliband is Jewish according to sources. Sources say he is nonobservant. The Infobox, it is argued, should read "None" in the field for "religion." Agree? Disagree? Bus stop (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Disagree. He does not practise Judaism, so it is not his religion. "Jewish" should be put under ethnicity or the like. Chesdovi (talk) 13:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Chesdovi—I'm not sure if you are addressing precisely the question we are grappling with. At issue is that there is a field in the Infobox for "religion." The question is—how should that be handled? Should something be written in it? If so, what should be written in it? Or, should it be left blank? If it is left blank, then the whole question becomes unaddressed, in the Infobox at least—because the word "religion" does not appear as a consequence of no material being placed by an editor in that field—that is how the template for the Infobox works. Bus stop (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC) The Bible as a story book? Please see WP:ANI#Is wikipedia policy to confirm that the Bible is a story book?. Please see Solomon's temple for more background. -- Avi (talk) 13:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Sephiroth FYI, the usage of Sephiroth is under discussion, see Talk:Sephiroth (Final Fantasy). 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Writing "G-d" in Mezuzah article I am unclear as to whether Wikipedia style guidelines support this edit at Mezuzah. I understand the reasons why some (but not all) Jews prefer to write the divine name in English as "G-d", but I couldn't find any "manual of style" ruling on whether or not this should be systematically done in articles about Judaism and Jewish topics. I do note, for what it's worth, that the current text of the Shema Yisrael article writes out the word "God" in full — and my initial thought is that references to the Shema elsewhere in Wikipedia should follow the lead of the main article on that topic. What do other people think about this? Richwales (talk · contribs) 15:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Absolutely no reason to adopt this writing style on Wikipedia. There is no Jewish law that directly prohibits a non-Hebrew name of God to be spelled out; there is merely a custom to do so but not to the point that this should ever be a MOS issue. JFW | T@lk 20:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC) I wouldn't go as far as saying "no reason". Because pronouncing the word "God" is problematic in any language. But for clarity's sake, especially in non-Jewish publications, I think spelling it out is best. Debresser (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC) I think either usage is acceptable—G-d or God. I don't think it would be a bad idea to simply follow that which would be suggested by the WP:ENGVAR guidelines. It suggests that "no variety is considered more correct than another." It says that "When an article has evolved sufficiently for it to be clear which variety it employs, the whole article should continue to conform to that variety." I think that this obviously would only apply to articles on subjects related to Judaism. Depending on the leaning of the editor(s) who initiate the article—the article should retain that spelling. I realize this has nothing to do with a variation in English. I just feel the same sorts of principles could be applicable. Bus stop (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Why would pronouncing "God" in any language be problematic? JFW | T@lk 23:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Because that is what it says in the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (6:3). Debresser (talk) 08:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Actually, I think a more relevant analogy here might be made to the style guidelines for the treatment of divine references in Islam (see WP:PBUH): "In keeping with the neutral nature of Wikipedia, Islamic honorifics should generally be omitted from articles, except where they are part of quotations." That would point to a uniform use of "God", except in the case of a direct quote containing "G-d", "Hashem", etc. Richwales (talk · contribs) 23:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC) So far, over the years, the writing of "G-d" on Wikipedia has been totally rejected in favor of plain and simple "God" as understood in English. If one wishes to make sure it's the Jewish God then disambiguate the word God as follows [[Names of God in Judaism|God]] = God (click on last link to see it). While Wikipedia respects all religions, including all aspects of Judaism, it is neither a synagogue nor a yeshiva. Hope this helps. IZAK (talk) 08:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC) I agree with both the fact that "nornal" spelling is preferred here on Wikipedia, and with the suggestion to use this link (first time only, off course). Debresser (talk) 08:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Camp Moshava RfC Howdy, Currently, the only Camp Moshava article is a redirect to Camp Moshava, Wild Rose, WI. While it is a very comprehensive article about this camp, it does not seem to pass WP:N and I think is a recreate of a page that was deleted a few years ago. What has occurred to me as a way of saving the article is that Beni Akiva's Camp Moshava as a whole (all of the camp sites) should be sufficiently notable that an article about it would pass WP:N. I've opened the question of redefining the scope of the article on the article's talk page. Perhaps you'd like to weigh in? Joe407 (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Who is putting these articles to the test now and deciding if they "pass" or "fail" anything? What's with all the "ayin hara" against articles that should be treated tenderly according to WP:DONOTDEMOLISH? At a time when quite obviously deletionism is on the rise and on the offensive all over on Wikipedia, therefore as a general rule it would be very unwise for serious Judaic editors to start their own virtual mini-campaign of deletionism at this time that in effect amounts to a self-defeating and counter-productive "non-policy" of cutting off the nose to spite the face. What we are trying to do is build up articles in a spirit of WP:CONSENSUS and hopefully of inclusionism rather than throwing them out. It takes a few minutes and it's very easy to march articles to the AfD gallows, but it's much, much harder and it takes years to write, build-up and improve articles. Let us consider the serious consequences of punching holes all over articles in Category:Jews and Judaism instead of saving and improving them!! IZAK (talk) 08:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC) I'm not looking to delete the article. I'd like to redefine it as Camp Moshava, merge the Camp Stone article, and add information (and sources) about the other camp sites (Indian Orchard, PA and others). This is not an effort to remove but to improve. Joe407 (talk) 08:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC) If an article can't meet our notability criteria, then it should be deleted. If it can, it should be fixed and not deleted. It's that simple. If anyone wants to throw out the notability criteria they should argue that out at the appropriate venue, not here. Dougweller (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Doug you sound too harsh and that's not the way WP works. WP was not started and does not grow with a grand policy in mind. The first consideration is the creation of an article and allowing it to grow and then prove, OVER TIME, that it can meet as many of WP's criteria as possible, that is what's called building an encyclopedia and not "demanding" that articles be delivered on platters, by order of the "higher command" like ordering "hamburgers and fries with ketchup" and if the fries or ketchup are missing the order gets sent back, the article loses it's head and an AfD nominator gets to gloat like he just shot a clay pigeon down. Nope, that's not the way WP works! Creating, writing, editing and improving articles is an art-form and takes time, and you cannot dictate how art should function. This forum is the best forum to discuss how Judaic articles should be treated and developed. IZAK (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Judaism in the United States military - viable article topic? I'm about to start work on an article, Sikhism in the United States military, and though it might be worth expanding the concept to articles to cover other aspects of religious groups in the US military. Particularly in terms of how those groups' customs/beliefs are accomodated (or not), issues of discrimination, etc. A quick perusal of GoogleBooks seems to show some promising leads; with some texts on the appointments of the first military rabbis, the "untold story" of Jewish servicemembers, etc. Anyone else have an interest in this topic, or at least support its creation? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC) I highly support the idea. One of my best friends in the army was Jewish. I was amazed by the way he would try to adhere to various holidays while in the field on training missions. I once saw him light a cigarette, break the bread from the MRE, and drink grape cool aid in place of wine. There are no doubt others in the armed forces that go through similar struggles. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC) I agree. It sounds like an excellent topic for an article, and it's quite notable. Let us know if and when you start the article--if the prose portion is over 1,500 characters long and the article has an interesting cited fact, Template talk:Did you know gives you instructions on how you or other people could get a link to it on the main page. --La comadreja formerly AFriedman RESEARCH (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC) Good deal; I've started the article with just a few basic sections, and any help expanding it and developing it would be greatly appreciated. Already ran across a really interesting anecdote about how Mark Twain criticised Jews' unwillingness to serve, was called out on it and given statistics to prove him wrong, and then wrote a retraction saying that the stereotype should be eliminated as incorrect. I'll go hit up WP:MILHIST for help too, but I think this could quite easily become a large article. The tricky part will be tracking down some good pics... MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC) It's a beautiful new article and y'all worked hard on it today. IMO, it would be a standout among the main page "Did You Know" articles. I've nominated it and feel free to review the nom--Template_talk:Did_you_know#Jewish_American_military_history. --La comadreja formerly AFriedman RESEARCH (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC) Series of edits that I find problematic About 40 articles were changed in about 45 minutes by one editor. The article's "Infoboxes" were changed from reading "Religion": "Jewish" to reading "Religion": "Judaism". These are the articles: Edward Zorinsky, Joseph Simon, Richard L. Neuberger, Herbert H. Lehman, Judah P. Benjamin, Dick Zimmer (New Jersey politician), John Yarmuth, Lester L. Wolff, Anthony Weiner, Brad Sherman, Allyson Schwartz, Chuck Schumer, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Lynn Schenk, Steve Rothman, Abraham A. Ribicoff, Richard Ottinger, Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky, Nita Lowey, Sander M. Levin, Tom Lantos, Ron Klein, David S. Kaufman, Steve Kagen, Steve Israel, Elizabeth Holtzman, Paul Hodes, Alan Grayson, Gabrielle Giffords, Martin Frost, Bob Filner, Peter Deutsch, Ted Deutch, Susan Davis (politician), Steve Cohen, Ben Cardin, Eric Cantor, Sol Bloom, Isaac Bacharach, Gary Ackerman. Recent activity at the Jan Schakowsky Talk page seems to be the precipitating factor leading to the above edits. In my opinion, wider community input is called for. Bus stop (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC) This complaint is so wrong for so many reasons. First, clearly the religion field takes a noun and "Jewish" is an adjective. Judaism should be treated like other religion and in every case possible should be clarified as Orthodox Judaism, Conservative Judaism, Reform Judaism, etc. We don't say "Catholic" when when have the details to say "Roman Catholic" or "Irish Catholic". We don't say "Protestant" when we can say "Baptist" or "Lutheran", people don't really say "I'm Orthodox Jewish", "I'm Reform Jewish", now do they? Finally, to anticipate the complaint that we say "Catholic" not "Catholicism", "Catholic" is a noun. A person might say "I am a Catholic" but no one ever says "I am a Jewish". There might be an argument to use "Jew", "Orthodox Jew", "Reform Jew", which I don't think is better than using "Judaism", but there is no possible argument for using "Jewish" in a field that takes a noun. Yworo (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC) The problem is that Judaism is not just a religion. And due to the complexity of the religious/cultural issues involved, "Jewish" is appropriate. There are many people who will identify their religion as being Jewish, but will not identify with Judaism. Perhaps you should have looked into the subject before assuming that everything on Wikipedia has to be absolutely uniform. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 23:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC) Not true. Per the hatnote on the Judaism article, it is precisely about the religion. It is true that a subject may identify their ethnicity as Jewish but not also identify with the religion, Judaism. However, in such a case there should be no religion field in the infobox at all (or the religion field should specify the religion with which the subject does identify). The religion field requires that the subject identify with a religion (self-identify if a living person) and specifies the religion with which the subject identifies. There is an ethnicity field which should be filled in as "Jewish" if the subject so identifies but does not also identify with Judaism as a religion. You will find that articles where the subject has converted to Christianity (for example) with "ethnicity=Jewish, religion=Unitarian" for example. Yworo (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC) Please see the relevant section of the Jan Schakowsky Talk page. This is not about theory. Nor is this about grammar. The Washington Post can serve as a guide as to how we should construct our Infobox because 3 examples are given in which The Washington Post creates Infoboxes for Jan Schakowsky—example 1, example 2, and example 3. "Religion" is considered "Jewish" in the Washington Post's Infoboxes for Jan Schakowsky. The 40 articles were created by editors who presumably knew the difference between a noun and an adjective, and they presumably were aware of the term "Judaism." Just as the Schakowski article is being discussed so should each of the above 40 articles be discussed. In my opinion one editor should not be deciding that "Jewish" should be replaced by "Judaism" in all of those Infoboxes and without any discussion. WP:NOR says, "stick to the sources." Bus stop (talk) 01:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC) It is not original research to switch between an adjective and a noun (or vice versa) in order to use the the correct grammatical form. Continuing to imply that it is just sounds ignorant. It's a complete red herring. Also, this is Wikipedia, assuming that the user who filled in a field in an infobox knew what they were doing is quite a stretch. Yworo (talk) 02:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC) Can anyone cite some halfway reliable sources as to shades of meaning yielded by Jewish and Judaism? Oh, wait, I guess I did. Jewish can mean one who follows the faith, or it can have to do with one's ethnicity, whatever their faith. Judaism means the faith. It has nothing to do with info box buckets taking nouns or adjectives, it has everything to do with what the words mean. I don't think it's a big deal to call someone who follows Judaism Jewish or a Jew. I do think it's a big deal on en.WP (and rather nettlesome) for an editor to go on about it, in a way that hints they think calling someone Jewish is a handy smear, maybe, since the word is much more widely known/heard than Judaism, the latter word meaning, spot on and only, the faith. So cite the dicdef if need be and anyone who is bickering over their hopes to plug in the fuzzier word, please stop, your slip is showing. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)