Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism

Isaiah 53

Would members of this project mind glancing at Isaiah 53? I just want to make sure that the Jews and Christian POVs are being accurately represented, and that we aren't giving any undue weight. Thanks for your help.-Andrew c 15:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks OK. Do the JFJ articles have any sources that we could quote directly? JFW | T@lk 20:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Dov Ber Pinson

I was going to nominate this for speedy deletion until I found that he actually has authored several books. I'm not sure what should be done with it now. --DLand^TALK 16:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Many people have written books. That does not equal notability, especially if the books are in Hebrew/Aramaic and the readership is a rather select group. JFW | T@lk 20:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

FAC on a Jewish topic

Hello, the article Trembling Before G-d is currently a featured article candidate. Anyone who's interested is welcome to cast an eye over the article and discuss its FA candidacy. Thanks! —Angr 18:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Surprisingly balanced article. Naturally makes uncomfortable reading for many. I wonder how Dubowski's film about muslims will fare. People have been fatwa'ed for less. JFW | T@lk 20:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

help needed with Nudity in Judaism

Help is needed for the Nudity in Judaism article, as it is, it's an exact copy of the christian nudity article, and is full of incorrect information - or I should say information that has no jewish source, even though (some) christians might believe it (naked prophets for example).

I'm leaning toward just asking to have it deleted, but perhaps it can be fixed, or made to be a counter to the christian article. It does list a bunch of sources but I have a feeling they are being mistranslated, or that the commentary explanations are being ignored - which is fine for a christian article but not for a jewish one. 71.206.197.105 02:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Nominated for AfD. --Shirahadasha 07:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

here's a strange article

Commentaries on the Bible: Jewish. Don't really know what to do with that one, so I'm passing it on here. — coelacan — 13:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems to have been created to be a counterpart to the Commentaries on the Bible: Christian article. I say delete, as we already have pages about Jewish exegesis of the TaNaKh.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 08:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirected to Rabbinic literature. JFW | T@lk 22:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the Commentaries on the Bible:Christian article, because the first section is oxymoronically entitled Jewish Commentaries. --User talk:FDuffy 00:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Sons of Jacob

IMHO, this template should be renamed Template:Children of Jacob, since Dina is clearly not a "son", and is mentioned in the header as well as the body of the template. Thoughts? Tomer^talk 05:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I support either a move to children of Jacob, or just removing her from the list. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 18:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Heeeellp fellow Jewish Wikipedians!

I have no idea how to to file the right kind of request for comment or mediation or arbitration, or whatever. I have a determined troll following me around "proceduring" me to death. He has been following me around through a series of articles that I have been working on, constantly editing things while I am in the process of editing them too, demending changes, moving things around.

• Jewish reactions to intelligent design
• Jewish opposition to evolution
• Natan Slifkin

One of the big problems, frankly, is that the topics I am working on require some knowledge of Hebrew and a lot of knowledge of Jewish philosophy and theology. This editor, who knows nothing about these matters, is simply creating one stumbling block after another, always citing some wikipedia procedure. He appears to be going to my contributions file to see what I am working on, and then going there to mess something up. He appears to try to be in the article at the same time that I am there.

I frankly don't want to know all the Wikipedia policies and procedures. I want to write. I've been doing so for about a year, and so far, I've been very happy with it. I've asked him to back away. I asked him to come back and edit the article later in the day, or in the evening. I've offered for both of us to leave and come back in a week, to allow some other writer a chance to work.

Wikipedia needs contributors who are writers, who know a subject well, who do careful research work in the subject and write well balanced and thoroughly sourced articles. I am such a person. I don't claim authority in any field, like an advanced degree. (I do have a degree, I just don't claim that it matters here on Wikipedia.)

What I can do is easy to see from what I have done. I have started dozens of articles, and never had one deleted, working some of them through to completion. Many of them are on serious scholarly topics. I enjoy writing. I don't claim to "own" these articles. If I wanted that, I would write somewhere under my own name.

What happened to me over the last few days was an incident of procedural harassment. I have never experienced anything like it. User:ZayZayEM has been following me around through a group of articles that I have been working on, creating a long series of procedural problems. Each time, he cites some Wikipedia policy for why he is right.

I'm not interested in arguing about Wikipedia policy X or Y. I am interested in writing. I am not interested in going thourgh some kind of elaborate Wikipedia arbitration determination procedure, in which we somehow determine who was right.

It's very simple. There are 1,697,300 articles on Wikipedia that this person could be working on, and most of them do need work. User:ZayZayEM could be working on any one of them, but instead, he chooses to harass me.

Looking at his recent logs, his last RfC was a few days ago. I've never had one. I didn't even know what an RfC was until a few days ago. This user is simply looking for fights.

If I'm supposed to go to some kind of arbitration panel and write some kind of elaborate defense or request, I'm outta here. I'm not interested in spending time doing that. I've never bothered to figure out how to cite logs, and I don't want to. User:ZayZayEM has presented an endless series of procedural hurdles, and such a process would be more of the same, and a complete waste of time. I'm sure that once the process was finished, he would be back to more of the same.

He knows nothing about the topics that I am trying to write about. I would welcome a collaborator or two who does, but this fellow isn't that collaborator. He simply creates endless headaches. Each time, he cites the wikipedia policy under which he is of course "right," but if I then try the same thing back, or try to suggest something else, there is some other Wikipedia policy under which he is also right.

I've read that Wikipedia is interested in the product, not the process. Well this user is obsessed with the process, and presents endless hurdles to improving the product.

If your answer is that I'm supposed to file wiki-dot-colon-xxxcite-procedure and wait for a wiki-xxxxarb-med-committee to volunteer to handle the case, my answer is no. That's his game, not mine. I'm sure he is good at it too. --Metzenberg 05:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Calm down. You're taking Wikipedia way too seriously at the moment. Sit back, take a deep breath, and relax. If you actually read their messages to you, he makes a lot of sense. Yes, Wikipedia is about writing, but it is also about policy. If you want to write and disregard policy, you should discontinue editing and create your own website. That user is simply trying to help you do both at once by giving you policies that will help you with your writing.

You have taken all of his messages way too seriously and have gotten to the point where you said he was a stalker who was harassing you, which is a stretch at best. I've taken a look at his contributions and he's editing everywhere, not just on these pages and he's been an established editor, not administrator, for several years. This user now feels like they are being harassed and personally attacked by you. I hope you understand that he was just trying to help you to get it right the first time. I know from your talk page you said you would disappear, but hopefully you still read this message and maybe gain something from it. --pIrish 17:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Israel?

Project Judaism is now a part of Project Israel? Really? Daniel^C/_T+ 18:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it. Seemed ridiculous, but I thought I was the only one who felt that way. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 18:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Holy Land and Holy Land (Biblical)

Please comment here on a proposed merger or restructuring of these two articles. They currently contain a large amount of common content. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree. Identical premise. JFW | T@lk 22:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

A Racial Program for the Twentieth Century

I've never heard of this book before, but it would seem from the content of the article, and of the talk page, that the article's editors are heavily weighed towards an anti-Semitic view. The article says that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are an "allegedly" false document, and attempts to prove the validity of a global Jewish conspiracy, stating that the Racial Program is widely believed because "these documents accurately describe collective Jewish behavior that Jews work very hard to either conceal or deny attention to through their ownership of much of the white world's mass media."

Admittedly, the article is categorized under forgeries, and contains some other portions that are quite neutral and objective in their phrasing. Nevertheless, I think it would be a good idea if someone knowledgeable and/or interested in the subject would take a look at the article, see what can be changed and fixed, and keep an eye on it for a bit. Thanks. LordAmeth 09:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

House ARI needs help

- NYC JD (interrogatories) 19:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I made a couple of spelling corrections then realized that the whole text looks like it has been copied and pasted. It's now located at Ari Synagogue. I just noticed that the editor who created it, User talk:Ashpaa was warned and blocked once for copyright violations. While doing my best to AGF, I will admit that this aroused my suspicions. I don't have much experience with this issue and am not sure what to do next. I thought it best to leave the text alone until someone asks him where he got it. --Steven J. Anderson 00:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, compare this:

The Isaac Kaplan Old Yishuv Court Museum is located in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, “between the walls.” The building apparently dates from the 15th or 16th century, and all signs point to it having been built over the ruins of a previous, more ancient structure. We regret that archaeologists have never excavated the site, nor has there been any research study of the building.The entryway is very narrow and dark, with a barrel-vaulted ceiling. One door leads out to the inner courtyard, the second to an additional yard, and the third leads into a typical room where one family used to live. Opposite the entranceway is a stairwell to the upper floor. As soon as one enters the building, it is possible to feel a mysterious sense of encounter with a different universe.

from the article, to this:

The Isaac Kaplan Old Yishuv Court Museum is located in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, “between the walls.” The entryway is very narrow and dark, with a barrel-vaulted ceiling. One door leads out to the inner courtyard, the second to an additional yard, and the third leads into a typical room where one family used to live. Opposite the entranceway is a stairwell to the upper floor. As soon as one enters the building, it is possible to feel a mysterious sense of encounter with a different universe. The building apparently dates from the 15th or 16th century, and all signs point to it having been built over the ruins of a previous, more ancient structure. We regret that archaeologists have never excavated the site, norhas there been any research study of the building.

from [1]. --Steven J. Anderson 02:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Peer review for Jerusalem

Some input from members of WikiProject Judaism is requested in regards to a peer review for the Jerusalem article:

Jerusalem

I have been working on this article for the past three months and I'm hoping to put this up for featured article status sometime in the near future. Essentially, I'm looking for a critique of the article and suggestions for things that might need to be rectified prior to submitting it for a featured article candidacy.

• I was a bit worried about the length of the article, but I personally feel it is okay since much of the kilobyte-age comes from the large number of sources rather than from over-the-top text. However, if you disagree, please do offer up suggestions for shortening the article.
• Because I know the Jerusalem article is (somewhat) controversial, I want to make sure any issues with neutrality (especially in regards to the capital issue) are squared away before making a final submittal. I believe I did a good job, but perhaps something is subtly biased that I did not notice.
• A good look at the prose would be great. I just finished writing the last section, so I haven't gotten the chance to do a thorough proofread; I'll proceed to do that this week while this peer review takes place, but by all means chip in.
• I want to ensure the facts are correct. I have never been to Jerusalem, so my writing comes exclusively from extensive research. If something looks factually incorrect, please fix it or make a note of it (although please use caution if the change will conflict with a source). If a source was misinterpreted, please please fix it or make a note of it.
• I want to ensure foreign-language words are used and/or translated properly, since I'm not knowledgeable in Hebrew or Arabic.
• I'm not sure what to say about local, city, or municipal government in Jerusalem. I may have to keep it short, but if anyone can think of any ideas, that would be great.

You are, of course, welcome to assist in other areas as well. Thanks in advance for any help you may provide. -- tariqabjotu 16:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Any chance of more citations from the Holy Scriptures? WikiNew 16:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Where do you believe additional citations from religious texts would be useful? -- tariqabjotu 17:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Looks great overall; I have a few POV issues, but I'm sure these are just oversights, and I certainly do not make any accusations as to your opinions or anything like that; we must work together to make these sorts of things as objective as possible, and it's a tough business. I just have a few minor stylistic questions. Rather than go in and mess with your wording myself, I thought I should let you work on your own project.
  1. "and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre among different sects of Christians." -- different from what? would this be better as "some sects" or "various sects"?
  2. "while majority Palestinian areas dominate the north, east and south of the Old City" I think I get what you mean - "areas where there is a Palestinian majority" rather than "the majority of areas which are Palestinian/ majority of Palestinian areas" - but this is a bit ambiguous as it reads now.
  3. The section on The Temple Periods ends by saying that for over 18 centuries Jerusalem was not the capital of any independent state; I like this. It's accurate, it's dramatic, and it's an interesting historical fact. But I think that as this could be taken as a political (i.e. POV biased) statement, it should perhaps be balanced by a brief description of the fact that no independent state called Palestine has ever existed and/or of the Greco-Roman origins of the word.
  4. The last few sentences of the State of Israel section in the history also seems to be a bit tilted. Perhaps a slight expansion would be pertinent on the problems with the city being split, and the causes of the Six-Day War. As it stands right now, I feel it reads as though Israel's capture of East Jerusalem was entirely selfish and vicious, and that its rule/sovereignty over the united city is somehow unfair or unjust.
  5. A more explicit mention of the Three Hills (Mount of Olives, Mount Zion, and Temple Mount) and Three Valleys might be good in the geography section.
  6. In the Capital section, "only two members of the United Nations — Costa Rica and El Salvador — have their embassies located within the city limits of Jerusalem...and several consulates within the city itself." Are these consulates of Costa Rica and Ecuador, or consulates of other nations? Seems unclear from the wording.

Thanks for your hard work. I truly do apologize for introducing POV issues into this, but I think a few minor changes here and there would be good to ensure the objectivity of the article's message. LordAmeth 19:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'll get back to you on a couple of these points, but it may be best for you to address a few yourself because I don't see the ambiguity with some of them, particularly with your second point. I added the number of consulates in regards to your second point, but I didn't specifically mention that those consulates did not include Costa Rica and El Salvador (since it wouldn't make sense for a country to have an embassy and a consulate in the same city). I fixed the first point, but take issue with doing something about the third point (because mentioning Palestine rather superfluously might sound like a subtle desire for a nation-state by the name of Palestine). -- tariqabjotu 15:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've eliminated the ambiguity I had perceived in the "majority areas" phrase. As for the thing about Jerusalem not being the capital for 18 centuries, all I'm saying is that inclusion of this fact could be interpreted as an argument against the legitimacy of Jewish/Israeli claims on it as their capital. By explaining that there has never been an independent state called Palestine, you discount their claims on it as well, balancing the POV. That's my thought. LordAmeth 12:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I would shorten the religious significance section. The sub pages should be sufficient for most of what is there. That would help with the length issue. I might also link to category: neighborhoods of Jerusalem somewhere. --יהושועEric 03:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree on the point regarding shortening the Religious Significance section. In comparison to the five articles on the religious significance of Jerusalem, the section is quite short, only touching upon the most basic facts about the significance of the city in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. I'm thinking that perhaps the History section could be cut down, but Jerusalem does indeed have a very long history; the summary in the Jerusalem article is much shorter than the full piece at History of Jerusalem. However, I encourage you to make whatever changes you feel are necessary to cut down on the length. At some later date, I'll calculate how much readable prose is in the article (so we can compare the article with WP:LENGTH), but I'm rather confident there won't be a tremendous issues since there are a heck of a lot of sources that do not count toward the readable prose total. For comparison, this is 63kB of prose. As long as this article is less than 50-55kB of prose (WP:LENGTH actually says less than 60kB), any objection based on length alone would not be warranted. -- tariqabjotu 15:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I determined that the article in its current state is 34 kB of readable prose, well within the limits of WP:LENGTH. See User:Tariqabjotu/Jerusalem. -- tariqabjotu 04:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)\

It is important to distingush between the Old City and the New or West and East Jerusalem. Fbc215 18:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see the deletion discussion for List of people who went to heaven alive

This article's name isn't the best (replacement suggestions are welcome), but the concept of ascension into heaven is important in a number of religions. But the article is inadequate without a better, fuller description of Jewish scholarship on this. Several editors in the deletion discussion apparently think the idea of ascension into heaven is "a joke." It seems to me that the best response to that is to improve the article and show the concept is not treated as a joke by those who take religious questions seriously. Please take a look at the article and the deletion discussion and consider contributing to both.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who went to heaven alive

Noroton 19:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Racism in Talmud

Could someone take a look at Talk:Criticism of Judaism#Racism in Talmud section? Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 19:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for Wikipedia:Vital articles

Copying the message below from my talk page, please add your suggestions. Thanks ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Do you notice to WP:VA. This page does have a problem with being Eurocentric. I proposed some notable persons and other things. But I'm not knowledgeable in the case of Judaism. Also there is a debate about religious leaders and scholars in Wikipedia talk:Vital articles#Religious scholars and leaders. Please participate in the discussions or invite other knowledgeable wikipedians in this case.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 15:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Question on NPOV in an article describing Halachah

I am planning on expanding the article on chametz, maybe translating the Hebrew version or writing my own from scratch. I have a question about NPOV: it seems that Wikipedia articles on Jewish tradition tend to qualify with "Observant Jews traditionally do such-and-such." This seems cumbersome in an article where every practice mentioned is only maintained by observant Jews. It's much more comfortable for me to write "Chametz should be destroyed..." and it will be obvious to readers that I'm describing the Halachah's POV, which is the topic of the article. Another possibility I have considered is "Chametz is destroyed," which sounds more objective. Any suggestions? —Rafi Neal 17:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

As long as the intro makes it clear that the article describes a traditional Jewish practice as codified by Halacha no further weasel words are necessary. JFW | T@lk 18:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of notable variations within observant Jewish practice, for example on the status of kitniyot; Ashkenazic Jews don't eat them but Sephardic Jews do. I would suggest starting out by identifying the practices of Orthodox Judaism including variants, then presenting any varying views by Conservative Judaism. I'm not sure if they have any official differences but can research. Perhaps they may have decided to permit kitniyot or some such. My understanding is that the view of Reform Judaism is that all these practices are optional but some of them might be of spiritual benefit. --Shirahadasha 19:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "Chametz should be destroyed..." sounds like something from a how-to guide which is unencyclopedic. It's not necessarily wrong, just something to watch out for. Also, please use the spellings "halakhic" and "halakha", both uncapitalized. They are, I believe, the common spellings on Wikipedia (see below). --Steven J. Anderson 01:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it does sound like a how-to guide. However, Halakhah basically is a how-to guide. I stand by my wording "Chametz found during Chol HaMoed should be burned immediately," for example, because that's what the halakhah is. In fact, from the Halakhah's POV, "should" is almost too soft and "must" is a better word, which I use in the article as well. But your point "something to watch out for" is well taken. (I'm sure you notice that I disagree on spelling "Halakhah"; I added my input below. I also happen to think "Halachah" looks cleaner, but I won't disrupt the consensus on "kh" and will henceforth conform.)  —Rafi Neal |T/C 04:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if parts of this response come off strong, I do appreciate your feedback. If you have feedback on specific examples of the article's style, I would appreciate that too. Also, this discussion should have a link to the article in question for the sake of convenience, so here it is: Chametz. But when I posed my question I was wondering about NPOV in general, hence the discussion is here not at Talk:Chametz. Happy editing to you, too.  —Rafi Neal |T/C 04:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem on WP:FAC

Jerusalem is currently undergoing a featured article candidacy. The FAC page is transcluded below (feel free to remove it from this page if the FAC gets too long):

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jerusalem

Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs), 05:20, 2 April 2007

Please avoid transclusion. These pages can snowball, especially with topics that are potentially political. JFW | T@lk 07:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

FDuffy, a chronic problem

First section header

I discovered today, not for the first time, the extensive damage caused by the single user FDuffy (talk · contribs). I suspect the main problem is that most members of this WikiProject are not familiar with either this user's agenda, the poverty of his sources, the untenability of his POV, and the Jewish sources necessary to debunk his waffle.

Many users have had difficulty with Francis Duffy. It started with Sons of Noah, which was moved back and forth to Table of Nations at Duffy's insistence. Codex Sinaiticus (talk · contribs) spent a lot of time working this out. Months later, the article still has tags on it.

I ran into the same Duffy on Ten Commandments. He unilaterally changed it into a disambiguation page to the Ritual and the Ethical Decalogue, reflecting his POV that Ex 34 contains the "real, original" Ten Commandments - something only Bible critics believe and has not gained popular acceptance. Duffy spawned Wife-sister narratives in Genesis (not originally titled that way). This is part of a long series of articles with unencyclopedic titles retelling the Book of Genesis according to his God-King, Richard Elliott Friedman.

Shirahadasha has done battle with Duffy too. I'm unsure of the particulars, but it must have been bad.

I need some help from other users going through Francis Duffy's contributions and making highly necessary improvements. A lot of it can go to AFD, cleanup, NPOV, NOR and {{fact}}. JFW | T@lk 12:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently dealing with FDuffy's edits to the various tithes -- Maaser Rishon, Maaser Sheni, etc. A good deal of the material he added was properly sourced to the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia and will eventually be restored. However, he simply wiped out all the material on current Jewish practice, halachic decisions, made in the 20th century regarding the status of obligations with respect to them, etc., creating an article that gave an impression this was a biblical thing with no modern counterpart. He also presented as fact an opinion by the JE editors that tithing was folklore as distinct from a mainstream part of the religion. I don't mind the biblical criticism parts that he added (principally to the effect that there was only one tithe and the different tithes we know today represent different claims about "the" tithe by different sources) as long as they are properly sourced, don't go beyond what these sources say, are put in an appropriately designated section, and are not presented as fact. Best, --Shirahadasha 15:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think JE should be officially deprecated as a reliable source. Actually, it is just an encyclopedia. And it's as biased as hell towards the so-called scholarship. In Francis Duffy's case, it prevents the really important sources from being presented.

I'm also not opposed to a mention of biblical criticism, but it should be mentioned in context, in parallel with the traditional views, and with problems clearly outlined. JFW | T@lk 16:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment on the JE. I have not found any source as complete as the JE on a wide variety of Jewish topics. It is old, true, but since when do we "deprecate" sources for that reason? Also, I have no problem with articles such as "wife-sister parallels" or whatever. This sounds like it might prove to be an interesting resource to people, though possibly it should fall under a broader heading, such as "parallel stories in the Bible" or something like that. (Which could then be accompanied by an [huge] article called "parallel aggadah in the Midrash and Talmud". That would be a fun one to write!) My own perspective is that a JE article which is brought up-to-date and de-biased is about a million times more valuable than what 99.999% of Wikipedians could ever compose given infinite time. (And I include myself in the first 1%). —Dfass 14:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Shirahadasha, please read this article in the Jewish Encyclopedia. Then please read the dates that Maaser Rishon and Levite Tithe were created. Now that this has rendered you more informed, please consider whether you are so certain where the article came from, and which one is the POV fork (I was rather bemused when I found out who had created the Maaser Rishon article).

The only objection to the Jewish Encyclopedia that I can see you having is that it sometimes goes presents evidence against your beliefs. Asking for a document to be 100% true is statistically unrealistic, it is far more likely that not all of it is (try checking the odds down at a bookmakers for a non-zero number of things in it being wrong). And as for calling the Jewish Encyclopedia just an encyclopedia, and therefore unreliable, this is just an encyclopedia too, so are Easton's, Catholic Encyclopedia, and the Encyclopedia Brittanica, all of which already form the basis of a very large number of wikipedia articles; to discount one of the most respected of these for just being an encyclopedia, means that you also need to discount the rest, and that you must scrap the huge chunk of wikipedia which is based on them. It throws your bias into sharp contrast for some of you to call the Jewish Encyclopedia biased as hell against Judaism; has it escaped you that the people writing it were Jewish?

And calling my edits extensive damage, when all I am doing is adding in content concerning the views of respected and notable Biblical scholars, archaeologists, historians, and classical rabbinical sources, is really quite suggestive that you want to keep out any view that deviates in any substantive way from your own views. I suspect the main problem is that some members of this WikiProject are not familiar with WP:NPOV, WP:AGF, and WP:OWN. And of course, pointing out WP:STALK goes without saying. --User talk:FDuffy 22:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know what the argument is about since I haven't been following it at all. All I've gotten from what little I've read seems to be that you think an encyclopedia is a reliable source. You might want to read the section about primary, secondary, and tertiary sources here. It specifically talks about why encyclopedias are not reliable and then goes on to say exactly why certain ones are reliable so long as they meet certain criteria (such as the Encyclopedia Brittanica). --pIrish 00:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It says articles signed by experts in Encyclopaedia Britannica and encyclopedias of similar quality can be regarded as reliable secondary sources (emphasis added). The Jewish Encyclopedia article states Jenny Mendelsohn, of University of Toronto Libraries, in an online guide to major sources of information about Jews and Judaism says of this work, "Although published in the early 1900s, this was a work highly regarded for its scholarship. Putting these two together .... --User talk:FDuffy 00:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You're reading what you want to, but not what you need to. The Encyclopedia Britannica is updated every year to reflect changes that have happened during that time, that's what makes it so valuable and high quality. Even then, the day it is published, it is already out of date. Information does not stay the same in the span of year, let alone the span of an entire century, thus, encyclopedias must be updated to reflect that. The Jewish Encyclopedia was a work highly regarded for its scholarship. The very Wikipedia page for the encyclopedia also has quotes that say "Much of the material is still of value to researchers in Jewish History" (not all) and "For events prior to 1900, it is considered to offer a level of scholarship superior..." (not events or discoveries of new information after that time, and there have been a lot). It's a great source for general information and events that occured before it was published, but it cannot be relied upon heavily due to the simple fact that it hasn't been updated in a century and time does not stand still. Even the page you quoted says that. --pIrish 17:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I also consider FDuffy a chronic problem, with edits like this: [2]. JE is one of important historic resources, let's keep in mind that it was published in 1906. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless you can evidence from Reliable sources that the academic position has changed since it was published, and in which details and directions it has changed, then it really doesn't matter whether it was published in 2007 or 1702. Oh, and that's an edit to a talk page, not to an article, and its about whether the bible says that all Canaanites should be killed, and their culture destroyed, or not, if it does, that's clearly advocating genocide (but whether it does or not isn't a matter that really merits discussion on this talk page). --User talk:FDuffy 00:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You are not citing academic sources. You are using a 100-year old Encyclopedia as a reference without even providing access to the lemmas you are citing. This is bad practice, continuously unacceptable, and repeated exhortations have not made you change your habits. I feel it is my duty to alert others, and I will not enter into direct discussions with you anymore. Your agenda is blinding you, and your bias is showing. JFW | T@lk 21:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This user behaves very arrogantly without any edit comment or discussion he removed large amount of information from Levite and replaced the page with his own version [3]. Forbear 21:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me be clearer about the difficulties with the Jewish Encyclopedia in this area. A critical difficulty is simply that it's a century out of date. One area of Jewish religious law that has developed extensively since it was written involves religious obligations related to the Land of Israel, and particularly those involved in agriculture. Jewish religious law developed extensively in these areas during the 20th century as large numbers of religious Jews became involved in agriculture in the Holy Land and responsa by rabbinic authorities were developed to address questions regarding the applicability of ancient Jewish agricultural laws to modern situations. One example is the Maaser Rishon. The Jewish Encyclopedia article discusses only the Bible and ancient times, but subsequent to its publication views on the applicability of these obligations in modern times, and how to satisfy them, were published and became notable. Thus, relying on the Jewish Encyclopedia here would be a bit like deleting all references to the United States and insisting on referring to Massachusetts as a colony based on an article in a 1750 encyclopedia. Problems of anachronism are inevitable in a source this old. A second problem is that the Jewish encyclopedia takes a particular editorial position -- one User:FDuffy appears to share, as he is entitled to do, but only one position among others. Classical Reform Judaism generally took the view that much of religious ritual is nothing more than unmitigated superstition to be denigrated and done away with. The Jewish Encyclopedia editors shared and wrote from this view. In the subsequent century, however, Reform Judaism backed away from its former virulent anti-ritual stance and adopted a more tolerant view of ritual, as a legitimate option to consider and a source of potential spiritual benefit. Thus, the Encyclopedia's characterization of belief in tithing as "Jewish folklore" does not represent a current Jewish position, and should not be presented as fact in any event. That said, much of the Jewish Encyclopedia material is legitimate and can be incorporated in the article, as long as existing content isn't simply erased and written over with content wholly derived from that source, and as long as Jewish encyclopedia content is properly attributed, and when editorial views are presented, they are presented as its editors' views and not as fact. --Shirahadasha 18:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It may be a century old, but that doesn't mean that scholarship has done a volte face in the intervening century, and very often its just as up to date as more modern sources. I appreciate that Jewish religious law may have changed, but classical rabbinical literature has not, and that's because it was already over 1000 years since it was written by 1903, and it won't suddenly stop having been written and become something else, because without a time machine you can't change what was written in the first millenium. Relying on the Jewish Encyclopedia here to say what classical rabbinical sources thought would be entirely appropriate; some sects of Judaism may very well have changed their minds, but others have not, and the view of classical rabbinical sources is still what it was before, because they aren't alive anymore to change them. Representing modern views is fine, if they are sourced (I don't see any citations for the modern views, though I usually retain them in re-arranged articles, often being careful to attribute the particular sect which has the view). Modern Orthodox views are fine, but they aren't the views of all of Judaism, and they don't get to be the default view presented like "this is the view, but some Reform Jews disagree". The Jewish encyclopedia doesn't take a particular editorial position, it presents the views of academic scholarship - that is, the views of those who approach the Bible as a historic document, without religious assumptions (even if the scholars who do so actually do have pro-religious views) - as well as the views of classical rabbinical literature, and classical islamic literature. This has nothing to do with Reform Judaism or otherwise, classical literature are historic documents, and do not change, and scholars approaching the bible as a historic document, a method known as Historical Criticism (Criticism is an unfortunate term as it has since come to be viewed as a negative thing, but that isn't how its meant in historical criticism), are performing a secular activity, rather than approaching it from one form of Judaism or another. The Jewish Encyclopedia editors may have all been from a particular sect (and I'm not sure they are), but they didn't write about their own religious views, they wrote about what academics thought, and what classical sources thought. The Encyclopedia's characterisation of belief in tithing as Jewish folklore (if it does make such a claim, I don't recollect it) is the opinion of the leading academics in Historical Criticism, and generally not that of the encyclopedia editors (you'll find similar views in more recent encyclopedias/commentaries that present the scholarship of Historical Criticism. --User talk:FDuffy 07:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Your reply does not address various problems. (1) You often don't cite the actual lemma of the JE, making it nigh-impossible for anyone to verify what you've written. (2) The JE is an encyclopedia and is therefore based on other primary sources. Why can't we quote the primary sources in question? (3) "Classical" Jewish scholarship is alive and well. Since JE has appeared, 100s of works have appeared that interpret the Bible according to the Orthodox POV, and most of those sources would disagree vehemently with the DH. I need only mention Epsteins' Torah Temimah, David Zwi Hoffmann's commentary (which expressly aims to disprove DH claims), Umberto Cassuto's work, and so on. To suggest that JE is an impartial source of Jewish scholarship is misguided. JFW | T@lk 16:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Levite

I agree that the rewrite to Levite by FDuffy happened without discussion and for no good reason. JFW | T@lk 22:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Other pages that have received the same treatment recently are Tribe of Reuben, Tribe of Simeon, Tribe of Naphtali, Tribe of Zebulun, etc. While there is nothing wrong with that in principle, it seems these rewrites are being prepared offline and then copied & pasted into existing namespace content. Surely that will make collaborating a lot harder. Naturally, all articles listed simply refer to JE and Friedman's book without citing the lemma or page number. How is one meant to verify the content, let alone have a reasonable discussion about the suitability of the source in question? JFW | T@lk 23:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we are going to have to insist on footnote-style sourcing for these articles given the need to present different views and to attribute each view. In my view, if a user simply erases existing content and rewrites an article to present only one view in a way that prevents sourcing the multiple views separately, a revert is warranted. However, if a user adds new content to an existing article without erasing the existing content, sourcing problems can be addressed by adding {{fact}} tags to each contested sentence or paragraph added to represent a request for footnote-style sourcing where needed. I believe this would address the sourcing issues and a revert would not be appropriate. --Shirahadasha 19:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

They mainly come from the Jewish Encyclopedia. The choice of some editors to just copy and paste the Jewish Encyclopedia article into the bottom of articles, isn't something I view as sensible (you'd just get headings again, cover similar material separately, etc. ). I prefer to wikify the JE articles offline, and work out how to combine them with the current article offline (because the process of putting the two together isn't quick, and the intermediate stages are extremely messy, with bits of articles all over the place), and since that already means constructing an article offline, that's when I choose to add relevant details from other sources (Friedman etc.). Its necessary, it seems, to point out that I'm not "erasing existing content", I'm just rearranging it, adding details from other sources, and merging it with JE articles, some of which are often much larger (and so it may appear - which is an illusion - as if the earlier content has been removed, simply because there is a "sea" of other content around and through it) --User talk:FDuffy 07:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

In the past Wikipedia Judaism content was based on wikified JE articles. There is still some of that fossilised content around, but it is really not acceptable anymore, for reasons stated above.

If you feel that your "complete rewrites" are NPOV despite the alterations I would strongly recommend making the changes piecemeal, and perhaps discussing your plans on the talkpage before going ahead. Clearly, your approach has not gone down well with a number of editors. Even if you think you are right, you need to take that into account.

As I have stated on numerous occasions, no editors of this WikiProject want to bar "critical" content from articles. The dispute is obviously is about the relative weight lent to "classical"/Orthodox views and the scholarly counterpart. While each side may be convinced of its case, Wikipedia is not the arbiter here. JFW | T@lk 16:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Alternate text of the haggadah

I would appreciate community input at Talk:Haggadah of Pesach#set text of the haggadah in regards to a dispute I am having with user:Rickyrab whether the text of the traditional haggadah should be presented as the text with modern alternate versions presented as a minority view, or that the traditional should be presented as one of many alternate versions. Jon513 17:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

new wikiproject and template

Heads up Wikipedia:WikiProject Kabbalah, Template:Kabbalah --Shuki 19:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

To misconstrue the entire Kabbalah as "occult" is more than just slightly radical. Unfortunately, Kabbalah means a lot of things to different people. JFW | T@lk 23:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Would hope we would have some Kabbalah experts who could join and keep an eye on the project -- there appears to be some danger of the project being taken over by occult/popularization/Kabbala lite types not grounded in serious scholarship. --Shirahadasha 03:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the aims of that WikiProject are quite genuine, e.g. they want to write about the Chasidei Ashkenaz. Do we actually have any "Kabbalah experts" on Wikipedia? JFW | T@lk 06:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Tongue inextricably stuck to the interior of my cheek... "SJ maybe?" Too soon? Tomer^talk 11:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Move of Matzo to Matzah

The article has been put up on WP:RM and a new discussion has been started on the Talk:Matzo page. Anyone who has anything to contribute is welcome to participate; I'm looking for some consensus this time around, one way or the other. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 21:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

oh lord

A new template {{LORD}} that formats the words "LORD" has been created and is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity#LORD. Jon513 17:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Help needed creating cats for Jewish articles

The deletion of Category:Jewish Encyclopedia (see CFD) left many articles uncategorized. Those of us who are working on this list could use help on those articles that were previously categorized with Jewish Encyclopedia. As there's quite a backlog, thanks in advance to anyone who can chip in on this task by recategorizing these articles.--Fisherjs 18:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Speedy everything that has been pasted from JE and not updated or copyedited. COI: see above. JFW | T@lk 13:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Jewish music, redux...

For those who missed my comments above, I'd like to point out a coupla things, and say mazal tov to a couple of editors who have done an excellent job on the following articles (and template): {{JewishMusic}}, Contemporary Jewish religious music, and Miami Boys Choir. שבת שלום and don't forget to count the `omer! Tomer^talk 08:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Animals that are Kosher: category? list? series?

I had an idea I thought I would run by y'all. In the spirit of this Shabbos being Parashat Shemini, It would be nice to have some way of identifying Kosher Animals on wikipedia. I want to gauge your interest in whether or not I should go ahead with this and, if so, which method I should use, namely those found on Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. Should I categorize specific animal articles as "Kosher", should I just create an article which lists kosher animals ("List of Kosher Animals"), or should I add to the Animal series template "Kosher: [yes|no|mixed opinions]". I'm thinking the last one would add too much to the clutter, but what does everyone else think? --Valley2city^₪‽ 18:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I say List of kosher animals only. It would be nice to eventually have a complete list, at least for meat and fowl. Such a list can include a note about the few kosher locusts and cover, briefly, the reasons why there isn't an exhaustive list of fish species. That said, a partial list of fish species that covers the types commonly sold, scaled, in supermarkets, might be useful for people who aren't particular about purchasing fish w/ a hekhsher. I guess. Tomer^talk 20:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

But how would this list deal with animals whose kosher status is debatable (among Jewish scholars)?--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 23:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

With notes. Tomer^talk 23:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, I have to support the category idea for meat and fowl animals, although not for fishes, except for those widely consumed as food, salmon, cod, smelt, etc. That said, I want to throw whatever weight I have (which is more than the CDC says I should) behind the idea of a "list" as well, since within the context of a list you can actually attach notes to "questionable" species, something you can't do with an appreciable level of clarity in the context of a Category. Tomer^talk 11:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I created the article. Feel free to contribute.--Kirby♥time 01:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Shomer Shabbat Wikipedians

I was also thinking of creating a template/userbox similar to that on WP:Break that Shomer Shabbat wikipedians can put at the top of their talk pages so that they can indicate that as Shomer Shabbat people they will take a weekly wikibreak from Friday afternoon to Saturday Nightfall and will not respond to anything during that time. Are there any coding experts who can figure out how to incorporate timezone into this template?

My current temporary prototype is at User:Valley2city/Userboxes/Shabbat, and appears as such:

This user observes Shabbat and therefore takes a wikibreak between Friday afternoon and nightfall on Saturday.

as modified and extended from that of User:Olve/Userboxes/Shabbat. A potential category is also included in the userbox code. --Valley2city^₪‽ 18:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Won't do that, buddy. Firstly there's timezones. Secondly, it's an invitation for trolls to modify a shomer Shabbat editor's contributions when they are certain he/she isn't looking. JFW | T@lk 07:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Most recently, afaik, assumption that Jewish editors wouldn't be looking played a rôle here (albeit during Pesach, rather than "simply" Shabath). Followed, of course, by several assumptions of bad faith when people happened to find out about it. Tomer^talk 08:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

As an addendum...don't get me wrong...I have nothing against having such a userbox, I just think it's probably not best to say, essentially "attention trolls, I won't be around to counter you 25+ hours of the week beginning ... NOW!" Drop the category idea too...if editors go around specifically seeking out people who are shomrei shabath, they're probably not worth their salt as WP editors, which makes it just a good basket for the aforementioned trolls to figure out whom to sabotage. Tomer^talk 11:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking at histories, I have noticed that there have been an increased number of controversial debates launched on late Friday afternoons into Shabbos, particularly relating to Israel articles. There is something inherently unfair about this. I have no idea how possibly to incorporate this but I feel that the fact that a sizable portion of the Religious/"Zionist" side of the debates are technologically-incapacitated for 25+ hours (and many more hours in terms of coordination with people in other timezones) and this should somehow be taken into account during discussions which seem unusually tipped to one end of the scales for such a heated debate. I'm rambling, but it's frustrating the changes that are made during the times that us religious folk are removed from the picture. --Valley2city^₪‽ 21:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There is {{User Shabbat}}. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal - Remove Bob Dylan from Category:Converts to Christianity

Please see these sections of the current Talk: Dylan & His Judaism and I dreamed I saw St. Augustine. I propose that we remove Bob Dylan from that category, because his period of gospel singing appears to have been a temporary one, from more than two decades in the past. He has clearly identified with Judaism in more recent years. Please comment at Talk:Bob Dylan. --Metzenberg 21:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Isru Chag

OK, I've done all I have time for for today...someone in the know, please check over my changes to Isru Chag and fix as necessary. שבת שלום! Tomer^talk 23:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Gotthard Deutsch

I wikified the above bio article as part of the wikification wikiproject but it could still do with more attention and you probably want to add it to the project. Seems that he was an important scholar (and also a very nice person). Itsmejudith 15:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Jewish musicians

Category:Jewish musicians and a few of its subcategories have been nominated for deletion. This is part of a larger set of nominations related to Category:Musicians by religion. You may comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 16. Dr. Submillimeter 09:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

UK Youth Movements

I'd like to confirm the natability of UK Jewish Youth Movements. I have been I member of a group and wanted to see if they had an article. Looking further it can be seen that several groups do have pages such as Reform Synagogue Youth, LJY-Netzer and Federation of Zionist Youth. These articles seem to have been written by members of the group with little discussion - apart from by people who feel they should be deleted. Even if the organizations are notable there re definate problems with the articles which currently amount to little more than vanity projects and have in general a quite unencylopaedic tone with several NPOV issues. For example from Federation of Zionist Youth.

"In the summer of 2001 FZY set an example to the whole world by leading nine tours to Israel despite the reluctance of Jews all over the world to go there in the time of the Al Aqsa Intifada; our Israel tours and Year Course programmes continue to grow with record numbers of participants."

". FZY prides itself on creating an environment where people of differing beliefs can strive together towards common goals and learn from one another."

Reform Synagogue Youth is probably a better article however it contains sentences like "Each camp has two roshim and a senior tzevet (team) containing a rosh toran a rosh tabach and other important bogrim" - this would not be comprehensible to your typical English language reader (This is English Wikipedia).

LJY-Netzer was the group I was a member of and I'm not convinced that they meet notability criteria - although I haven't gone through all the policy.

Additionally the only references given in any of the three articles are to the web pages of the movements they refer to - to me this suggests that maybe the articles are not actually neccessary and maybe a list page with brief descriptions and links to the websites would be made. Essentially all the pages are doing is advertising the Youth Movements - ableit in a slightly encyclopaedic way.

I think most of the problems can be summed up in a a quote from one of the discussion pages.

"'fantastic' is ... NPOV, there is no other way of describing RSY tour"

Sorry for the long post, especially if this does not come under your remit, or if the topic has been gone over before. [[Guest9999 12:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)]]

TfD nomination of Template:ORBCOTW

Template:ORBCOTW has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — YechielMan 17:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Orthodox Jews and Judaism in New York City

Category:Orthodox Jews and Judaism in New York City has no pages and one subcategory Category:Orthodox Judaism in New York City. It appears to serve no useful purpose and should be deleted.--Redaktor 14:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Redaktor: There is nothing factually wrong with these categories. Since NYC has the largest concentration of Orthodox Jews and Orthodox/Haredi Judaism-based communities anywhere in the world outside of Jerusalem, these categories have been created and are usefull first steps to serve as the foundations for all the articles relating to them. Let's fill them in, it shouldn't be that difficult. Thank you, 10:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Halakhic - cap?

I'm trying to determine if the adjective "Halakhic" should be capitalized when not at the beginning of a sentence. Both the Jew and Halakha articles are internally inconsistent on this point.--Steven J. Anderson 23:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"Halakhic" as a concept is capital. a single halakha is not. Halakhic refers to the concept so it should be captial. Jon513 19:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly. "Halakhah" as a formal body of law may be capitalized. Anywhere else it is not in formal or academic writing, not even as an adjective ("halakhic"). Dovi 19:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that neither halakhic nor halakha need be capitalized. Were there a book entitled Halakhah, that, of course, would be a separate issue, but just as minhag or mishna as concepts should not be capitalized, so neither should be halakha, any more than should be the terms, whereëver they might appear, "tradition"/"practice" "repetition"/"exposition", or "path"/"doctrine". It's just a word...that it happens to be a Hebrew term that embodies a great deal more than can be "simply" expressed by a single English word does not accord it the status of "proper noun" (which would necessitate capitalization). This is quite analogous to the situation of how brith mila captures a far more specific concept than simple circumcision. Neither of these should be capitalized, nor should be halakha. TIA. Tomer^talk 10:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. No need to use a capital unless the word is a proper noun.--Redaktor 16:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The book "Halacha" by Yechiel Galas (ISBN 0-910818-13-4) consistently uses a small h.--Newport 19:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This is also an issue for articles relating to Sharia, should we invite editors from Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam to help the discussion? Jon513 10:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Be bold.  :-) Tomer^talk 03:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I downcased "halakhic" in both the Jew and Halakha articles, but haven't made any other changes as yet. --Steven J. Anderson 20:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dovi on this one. In my opinion the "Halakhah" as Judaism's body of normative law is a proper noun, while an individual "halakhah" is not. This is similar to the difference between the Mishnah compiled circa 200 C.E. and a mishnah that was stated by Tannaim. I don't know why "halakhic" is lowercase while "Mishnaic" and "Talmudic" aren't. How about an analogy to the U.S. Constitution (lehavdil)? Is "constitutional" ever capitalized?  —Rafi Neal |T/C 03:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I did and here's what I think. I went to Jew and Halakha and did a search for the word "halakhic". I found that a clear majority of the time halakhic was uncapitalized (when not at the beginning of a sentence or capitalized for some other reason). I put that together with the comments here and made a decision to downcase it throughout both articles. I also looked at a few other articles where I thought I could expect to find the word. I don't recall finding it capped anywhere else. Anyone who's interested can check my edits to verify this; I'm not 100 percent certain.

I agree with Tomer that "halakha" is probably not a proper noun referring to a specific work in the way that "Mishnah" and "Talmud" are, but more of an abstract concept, like "law" or "ethics". The U.S. Constitution is a single document with a proper name. However, "constitutional" is an abstract concept. "Mishnaic" and "Talmudic" are adjectives that are capitalized for the same reason that "Jewish" and "American" are (I think).

Perhaps we should start a formal process to find a consensus on this.

Perhaps we should start a section in Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Manual Of Style on this issue.

What's most important to me is that the inconsistency within the articles makes them look dumb, dumb, dumb. This would never happen in a professionally edited encyclopedia and I want to leave the articles I work on in the best shape I can. It's a change that's easily made once a decision is made about what's to be regarded as conventional.

There are a few additional comments from other users about this on my talk page.

Oh, I also just did a search on the "Talmud" article. I found eighteen "Talmudic"s and one "talmudic". I'm about to upcase that right now. --Steven J. Anderson 04:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Two things...nay three—first, I moved Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Manual Of Style to Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Manual of Style, for case consistency with WP:MOS itself. I also created a redirect thereto, from WP:JEW/MOS...I could be convinced to go just with WP:JEWMOS or even WP:JMOS if people care that much about it. I do think that if this discussion continues much further, it should really be moved to the talkpage there...

Second, I'm not opposed to upcasing Halakhic, but I think eventually doing so is going to create serious issues when we start butting heads with people who are opposed to upcasing Biblical, which for far better reasons, should be upcased...but is not. For this reason, especially in conjunction with what I agree is far too much inconsistency, Talmudic should actually have been downcased 18 times rather than one of them being upcased.

Third, I strongly disagree with Dovi and Rafi's assertion that halakha, as the body of Judaism's normative religious law makes it a proper noun any more than "morality" or "conscience" are. Tomer^talk 05:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I only said that as a body of law halakhah may be capitalized, i.e. it's not clear, not that it must be. I've seen both. I've also seen "talmudic" and "mishnaic" in lower-case the vast majority of times. I'm not pushing the upper-case, just trying to say that lower-case is certainly justified.Dovi 06:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess the question's answer we should be trying to reach consensus on is whether or not "halakha" is/n't a proper noun. Tomer^talk 06:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"Jewish descent" versus Jew

Recently, a new trend has appeared whereby notable people classified as Jews are being reclassified and put into new lists and categories under the label and nomenclature as being of "Jewish descent" which is not in itself a recognized academic or Halachik term. The discussions have unfolded at Talk:List of Polish Jews#Scope of the article where Polish editors have questioned the definition of "Jew" and have created a new List of people of Polish Jewish descent (by User:LeszekB). Problem: How far does the "Polish Jewish" identity keep on going for? So far there is no known answer. Another recent manifestation of this trend is the creation of Category:People of Jewish descent and sub-categories Category:Canadians of Jewish descent and Category:Canadians of Israeli descent (by User:Mayumashu). Problem: Does Wikipedia need categories for both Category:Canadians of Jewish descent AND Canadian Jews, and which is the true parent category? This is the kind of chaos and cofusion that awaits if this trend continues. Thus the greatest problem that this new "system" and "terminology" creates is that it runs the very clear danger of creating parallel and redundant lists and categories and cause chaos and confusion regarding where and how to listify or categorize Jews. This entire subject touches upon the core issues of Who is a Jew? and there are already a number of methods that have been devised in order to clarify who and what a Jew is in all Lists of Jews for example, such as {{Jew list}} which advises: "This page is a list of Jews. For more on who is considered Jewish, see Who is a Jew?. This List of Jews contains individuals who, in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies, have been identified as Jews by reliable sources." Before nominating these new lists and categories for redirects, renaming and/or deletion, this trend is now brought to the attention of a wider number of serious and long-standing editors familiar with the issues. See the following proposal, thank you. IZAK 09:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC):

PROPOSAL: The term "Jewish descent" should not be used in the headings of Wikipedia articles, lists, or categories, the word/s "Jew" or "Jewish" is enough.

• Agreed for above reasons. IZAK 09:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Agree - even if this was conceived with best intentions, what's next: skull measuring? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Wholehearted agreement, and a hearty commendation to the nominator for agreeing with his having made this nomination.  :-p Tomer^talk 10:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Agree, sensible points as to lack boundary of how far this might stretch back to include people and, both more importantly and easier to argue, for the classification entanglement it risks causing here in an encyclopaedia. David Ruben ^Talk 11:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Agree Judaism is not a race. If it really matters for the biography of the person, the father, grandfather or paternal grandmother can be described as being Jewish. gidonb 11:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Judaism is not a race, but it is an ethnicity and a cultural tradition outside of pure religious observance or belief. In any case, halakha says that Jewish identity is passed down through the mother, so your example of naming the father or paternal grandparent is flawed. LordAmeth 12:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    • These examples are relevant because they illustrate that the phrase "of Jewish descent" is often used for persons who are not Jewish by (any) halakha, but the author nevertheless wants to link to Judaism or Jewishness. gidonb 17:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Minor point, but Judaism is a race for the purposes of UK law. Dan Beale 21:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    • In official use and daily language, the concepts of race and ethnicity are often mixed up. gidonb 14:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The List of people of Polish Jewish descent is a red herring. It is a list of Jews of Polish Jewish descent and was created because LeszekB objected to the presence in the List of Polish Jews of people who were undoubtedly Jewish and of Polish-Jewish parentage but born elsewhere. Would it be better to rename it to "List of Jews of Polish Jewish descent"?--Runcorn 13:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Agreed. Using the phrase "of xxxx descent" usually indicates that the individual has previously lived in another country but is now in some intermediate stage of acculturation. Jews, however, by default are living in "another" country, and so the line between "Jewish" and "of Jewish descent" is much more blurry. Since we can't go around asking everyone how Jewish they feel, I think we should stick with just calling these fellows "Jewish" as has been done until now. --Eliyak T·C 13:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Agreed. People should be in charge of their own labelling, and I'd be against adding more categories whose assignment criteria are debatable. Is the child of a convert considered to be of Jewish descent? It could get murky. EdJohnston 13:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree with proposal as a whole. As per comment of User:LordAmeth, Judaism is passed down maternally and that Jewishness is commonly viewed as a standard ethnicity (which is non-controversial). I created the page Category:Canadians of Jewish descent for listing people (where verifiable) who are of partial Jewish ethnicity (that is who have a Jewish father or grandfather and who are not practicing Jewish faith - someone like Mark Steyn, in fact the only person listed thus far), just as I ve created lists for Canadians of other partial ethnicities. Any posposal needs to include "forbidding" "people of fooian descent", not just singling out this particular ethnicity. This is entirely different matter than that of the list of Polish Jews born outside Poland, who are Jewish/Jews. Mark Steyn isn t Jewish but is of partial Jewish ancestry/ethnicity/descent. As for Category:Canadians of Israeli descent, it is not a duplicate of Category:Canadians of Jewish descent, as not all Israelis are Jewish. Mayumashu 15:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Agreed. Parentage can be mentioned in the article, if relevant, for non-Jews who have Jewish ancestry. --Shirahadasha 15:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Agree, but the person in question needs to be either self-identified as a Jew (which may even be the case if they are not halachically Jewish) or widely known as us. JFW | T@lk 15:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. This entire problem could be avoided by forbidding people from categorizing or listing people based on their skin_tone/quantity_of_moles_and_other_skin_blemishes/hair_color/ear_shape/race/ethnicity/ancestry/etc. There are much better ways to spend time editing a reputable encyclopedia than in the pursuit of what, in many cases, consist primarily of little more than idle gossip and worthless speculation. The whole lot of this sort of pigeonholing should be excised from Wikipedia on the simple basis that it is irrelevant twaddle. This prolly isn't the place to gripe about this, but this sort of piffle really gets my goat, especially since the subject seems to come up again and again, over and over, repeatedly, ad nauseum, etc. Anyhoo, hope you enjoy the easter egg links. Tomer^talk 16:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Agree this looks like another example of the creation of multiple almost synonymous categories with new oportunities for confusion.--Redaktor 16:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Agree with reservations I would not wish to create or be involved with something called "List of people of Jewish descent", but I'm not sure that we can ban people from creating such lists. I must strongly disagree with TShilo12; every name I add to lists of Jews is supported by a reliable source and there is far less "idle gossip and worthless speculation" than in many Wikipedia articles. Would he care to review my contributions and then withdraw his comment?--Newport 18:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  No, but he'll be happy to not include you in his List of list-making Wikipedians who waste a lot of everyone else's time with idle gossip and worthless speculation when he makes it. Cheers, Tomer^talk 19:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  OK, you waste time with idle gossip and worthless speculation; I'll get on with making an encyclopaedia, creating and expanding articles. Deal?--Newport 20:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  As I have little interest in making lists to pigeonhole people, your terms are unacceptable. We will have to renegotiate before moving forward. Tomer^talk 22:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Agree, grouping or labeling people this way in a category or list is far too ambiguous and of no utility. The only place it might be appropriate to mention such detail would be within the text of an article where the person self-identifies as a Jew and/or where one's (verifiable) Jewish ancestry is relevant. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 19:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Agree, "Jewish descent" is a meanlingless and unnecessary additional classification. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 20:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• I totally agree. Wikipedia does not need a one-drop rule. These lists have no place in this encyclopaedia anyway. They are all original research and are bound to attract tension and fighting because of that. Grace Note 01:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly agree per IZAK and Grace Note. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 09:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - So people of Jewish descent will be called Jewish? I do agree that we should not have categories or lists of people of Jewish descent because of the difficulty they inconter. Poland is the most tricky because if you lived in Poland in the day, you were either Catholic or Jewish, but alot of folks did not self identify and there should be solid evidence either way before labeling a person as either it seems. Anyways, good luck with this! --Tom 12:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Agree per Izak et al. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree Someone who's father is jewish isn't jewish so they shouldn't be classified as such they do have jewish ancestry and should be classified as jewish ancestry also if a person who's mother is jewish embraced religion z they aren't jewish and should be classified under jewish ancestry --Java7837 01:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  Why are these people being "classified" in this way to begin with? Tomer^talk 03:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree but only if what User:Jfdwolff said is followed. A person should only be identified as Jewish if it is "well-known" that that person is Jewish or if that person clearly, directly, and seriously identifies as Jewish in a personal statement. Meaning, a website that decides to call someone Jewish simply because they have a Jewish ancestor should not be held alone as a valid enough reason to qualify the person as Jewish if there is not anything more thorough to back it up. People who are only partly of a certain ethnicity should always have this information made present and viewable at all times. Otherwise, I disagree. This is different for nationality, of course. LeszekB 15:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree – While I sympathize with the intent, I’m afraid I have deprecate the proposal, as presented, on the grounds of NPOV and NOR; essentially, it renders a decision on the question of “Who is a Jew?” in favor of the Orthodox/Conservative POV. If the most sagacious minds in Judaism have not resolved this issue, then Wikipedia is not in a position to do so either. On the other hand, I don’t see the need for such a list, not just because of the vagueness of the term, but also since we need to be sensitive to the historical evil uses made of such lists with “Jewishness” defined by outsiders (e.g., the Nazis’ Nuremberg Laws). The term “Jewish descent” appears to cover so-called “ethnic Jews” (excluding any persons whose Jewishness is incontrovertible according to the most consensual – i.e., conservative – interpretation of Halakha). As such, it would seem to include those who are agnostic, converts to other faiths, of “illegitimate” (i.e., patrilineal) lineage, or non-observant – all of which have negative connotations to most people “assigned” to this group. With respect to WP:NOR, WP:BLP and respect for individuals’ privacy, Wikipedia should include in any list of people only those who self-identify or who are widely identified by reliable sources (and without formal denial) as being in said group. IMHO, this is the reason to deprecate Wikipedia’s having any list of people of “Jewish descent”, since the very term calls into question the individual’s “Jewishness.” Askari Mark (Talk) 18:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Question - as an outsider, I realize I may have no place in this discussion, and appreciate that. You are all free to either criticize or ignore the question I am about to ask. However, I personally can see having lists of people of what is apparently Jewish descent as being at least potentially useful in some cases. It would at least resolve controversial cases when it isn't clear whether someone is being tagged as either an ethnic or religious Jew. While I can wholeheartedly agree with not having an "ethnic Jew" listing, for the very valid reasons above, I'm wondering whether it might not be possible to create instead a grouping of "observant Jews" within the larger "Jews" grouping for those individuals who observe the Jewish faith in its various forms, and by so doing making the "ethnic Jew" the basic entry in the "Jew" groupings. I realize that this might not solve many of the problems cited above, and may in fact (unfortunately) perhaps down the line cause others, because to a certain degree such problems are unavoidable when dealing with matters of ethnicity. I do however think it might be useful to separate the two groups somehow, so that we don't wind up having someone with a Jewish mother and no other connection to Judaism at all placed in the same grouping as Hillel the Elder. John Carter 18:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Agree per proposal Notmyrealname 18:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Jews and Judaism in FOO

I find the entire category scheme unhelpful. Something is either related to Category:Jews or Category:Judaism. In the event it is relevant to both to Category:Jews and Category:Judaism, it can be tagged with both categories. So Category:Jews and Judaism doesn't look useful in any sense. -- Cat ^chi? 16:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a huge can of worms... Where to draw the line between Jews and Judaism is a very hairy topic, and depends a lot more sometimes on whom you're talking to, than it does on what you're talking about... Tomer^talk 18:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and think about trying to put Category:Jews into Category:Judaism or vice versa. Should be enough to give you nightmares. --Eliyak T·C 05:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

<shudder/> Tomer^talk 03:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Remember, this is a category we are talking about here and not an article. The purpose of categories is to connect subjects on a higher level. The purpose of Category:Jews and Judaism is to serve as a parent category for the two separate yet connected sub-categories of Category:Jews (rooted in its lead article of Jew) and Category:Judaism (rooted in its lead article of Judaism), and the two articles do explain the differences (which a category cannot and should not do!), but in the absolute religious, historic, practical and logical sense Jews and Judaism cannot be separated, no matter what "reasons" anyone could possibly concoct, and User:Cool Cat cannot simply and glibly say, oh well, these categories are "unhelpful" and "doesn't look useful." Why and what are they "unhelpful" to and what's the meaning of "deesn't look useful"?? One could say about a lot of things that one is ignorant about that they are "unhelpful" or that they "don't look useful" while they may actually be invaluable to those who are more educated about a subject or to those who sincerely want to learn about a subject they may know little about. So since he does not even bother to give actual in-depth reasons based on either the subject of Jews or Judaism, he cannot be taken seriously, especially in light of the fact that the great category he is so flippant about has been around for almost three years [4] (could it be that for almost three years no-one found it "useful"?) I agree with what Tomer and Eliyak are basically saying, that Jews and Judaism go together like a horse and carriage (exactly like "Love and Marriage") IZAK 06:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Rif

Please look at my question at Template talk:Judaism re. Rif. I can't tell who this is supposed to be, yet there's a link in the template. Is it Abba Arika, known as Rav in the Talmud? --Steven J. Anderson 20:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I correct it. it now points correctly to Isaac Alfasi. Jon513 20:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

RFC: Bob Dylan on List of converts to Christianity

There has been an ongoing discussion on the talk pages of both articles referenced above about whether the sources cited for the subject's conversion to Christianity are sufficient to describe and/or categorize him as a Christian convert. The previous discussions are at Talk:Bob Dylan#Request for comment and Talk:List of converts to Christianity#Request for comment. The centralized discussion for RFC purposes is on the latter page here. Thank you for your attention in this matter. John Carter 00:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yetzia bish'eila

Could someone who knows more about this than I do please take a look at this article? The editor who created it says that he initially translated it from he:יציאה בשאלה. I find the claims about Sholom Aleichem and Mendele Mocher Sforim surprising at best. Perhaps it's a good candidate for deletion. In a year and a half, it's never been anything more than a stub. --Steven J. Anderson 22:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

the Hebrew article is featured. And, while wikipedia is not a source, it is an accurate translation. Sholom Aleichem and Mendele Mocher Sforim were both secular Jews with a religious upbringing so they would fit the term. Even though the article doesn't cite any source and will likely never move past a stub, I still don't see that as a reason to delete. As it is talking about a phenomena not a term it is should be renamed. Jon513 20:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Spelling -h for silent final letter ה

Wikipedia is horribly inconsistent about this issue. Searching with one spelling for any particular Hebrew word will unpredictably redirect to the other spelling. In my opinion, "Halakhah," "Mishnah," "matzah," et al. should be spelled with an h at the end. Can we discuss this? I've done some searching, and am surprised that I can't find a previous discussion on it. I suppose this discussion belongs at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Hebrew), so let's start it there. Thanks.  —Rafi Neal |T/C 03:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a good place to start. Frankly, the whole world is horribly inconsistent about this issue... JFW | T@lk 05:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The current standard in transliteration is not to use an h to denote a silent ה. There are some words for which the older spelling has stuck, such as Torah and mitzvah (just off the top of my head). Halakha, on the other hand, is most commonly spelled without an h. It should not be thought of as inconsistent, but rather as consistently following the most common current practice. --DLand^TALK 05:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Capon on List of kosher animals

Question here. Knowledgeable citable input requested. Tomer^talk 06:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Wasserman

The editorial behavior of Wassermann (talk · contribs) has been getting stranger and more controversial by the day. He seems to be obssessed with categories and lists of Jews and with queer edits, such as to the Death of Adolf Hitler article where he adds "NOTE: Hitler's eyes were actually blue, not brown" [5] and this doozy: "Fairly definitive quote from Hitler on the "Final solution to the Jewish Question," stating that if another war occured Nazi Germany would 'annihilate' European Jewry."[6], not quite clear if it's meant to be gloating or mourning over the Jews? (so which is it, "Wassermann"???) Since he officially assumed a user name in February 2007 [7], he openly espouses an anti-Admin outlook, see User:Wassermann#Censorship Watch -- Administrator Watch, has already been blocked for attacks, see User talk:Wassermann#Block, has been reprimanded for linking to attack sites, see User talk:Wassermann#Don't link to attack sites, has attacked well-established editors and admins, see User talk:Wassermann#"User Jayjg's policy" and User talk:Wassermann#Censorship as examples, created and reposted crazy articles about Jews, see User talk:Wassermann#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewdar (2nd nomination), and persists in adding new and old categories relating to Jews and Judaism in a random fashion on a wholesale basis without any reason, see Contributions/Wassermann. Beyond that it seems he simply seems to enjoy "targeting" Jews' topics for attention. Someone who is so hostile to Wikipedia and its goals should be watched more closely when making edits and comments on pages, articles, categories or lists that about Jews and Judaism. I am worried. IZAK 12:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing to be worried about, and I wish that so many people around here would stop being so paranoid. That being said, I'm not denying that some of my editing behavior has been non-PC (others might say "controversial"), but you make quite a few baseless, wild, and ridiculous assumptions here which I will try to address one by one. As far as being "obssessed [sic] with categories and lists of Jews," the same could be said about yourself (judging by your edit history) and all of the editors you are close with (after looking at their edit histories). Now on to your accusations:

Regarding the Death of Adolf Hitler article, I merely wrote that Hitler's eyes were blue and not brown, thus pointing out a glaring historical inaccuracy on the TIME magazine cover that readers should be made aware of; is there something "strange" or "controversial" about pointing out a historical inaccuracy? I'll soon try to find the quote(s) from one of the books that I own to prove this, but anyone that has done some actual reading/research on the subject knows this to be the case.

The Hitler quote that I added on the Final solution page is a definitive quote on the reality of the Holocaust in the sense that Hitler clearly says in that quote that if another world war occurred Nazi Germany would "annihilate" European Jews (apparently, the Hitler quote which I added is reiterated further down on that page by Goebbels when he says: "He [Hitler] warned the Jews that if they were to cause another world war, it would lead to their own destruction. Those were not empty words. Now the world war has come. The destruction of the Jews must be its necessary consequence" [8].) I may have inadvertently added an awkwardly written edit summary (what you call a "doozy"), but the quote was meant to definitively prove that Hitler and the upper-echelons of the Nazi Party made pre-Holocaust statements that foretold the impending destruction of European Jewry; thus I added that quote in the hopes of proving that Hitler and Nazi Germany did indeed target the Jews for "annihilation" during WWII (thus debunking the Holocaust deniers). Of course I'm not "gloating" about the Holocaust, so please don't accuse me of something as horrendous as that because it is pure slander (please see WP:No personal attacks). I find that assertion of yours to be DEEPLY OFFENSIVE because I am myself a Jew. I'm not here to "gloat," and I'm not here to "mourn"...I'm here to state the facts and retain a NPOV.

I'm not anti-admin., but I am indeed anti-POV-pushing admin. The problem is that MUCH hypocrisy and censorship occurs here on Wikipedia when it comes to certain articles, and I've done my best to try and be a counterweight to that type of behavior. I am obviously not anti-Semitic, and I am not blatantly philo-Semitic either (unlike many of the POV editors around here...the philo-Semitism of these biased editors skews/slants their edits/deletions in a highly POV way). In short, I try to remain as neutral as possible regarding ALL topics here on Wikipedia, and hope to provide room for ALL points of view however controversial or non-PC they may be. I was indeed blocked for a little while, but I feel that the words that caused me to be blocked had to be said (I'd also like to point out that I'm certainly not the only user that has major problems with the inexcusable and irrational behavior of certain editors around here).

I wasn't aware that The Wikipedia Review was/is considered an attack site when I linked to it a little while back, and by linking to it I simply wanted to point out to User:Shii that it's not nice to stalk users, vandalize their user page, and slander them behind their back. Also, I don't see you jumping all over Shii for actually USING that website, even though he is an admin. and a 'high ranking' official here on Wikipedia (by the way: isn't it 'illegal' for users/admins to use that website?). I'll have to mention that to him here in a moment.

"..created and reposted crazy articles about Jews, see User talk:Wassermann#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewdar (2nd nomination)" -- The "Jewdar" phenomenon is a documented one, and Wikipedia's failure to allow the article to stay in reeks of POV and censorship. I'm not sure why you all don't like this article, as it is perfectly innocent and is very well sourced. The Jewish Heeb Magazine even has a 'Jewdar' section regarding Jewish society, and it has been noted in reputable publications like the Washington Post and the Weekly Standard (among others); there are also numerous pop-culture references found in many sources on the topic. It is a part of the whole "Yiddishkeit" culture of NYC and other Jewish population centers, and it's no big deal; it just doesn't make sense to me why you all dislike that article so much. Wikipedia has MANY articles on the most obscure rabbis and topics imaginable, but for whatever reason when it comes to the "Jewdar" phenomenon many editors are vehemently opposed to it (and here you even call it a "crazy article"). It makes absolutely no sense...

"...persists in adding new and old categories relating to Jews and Judaism in a random fashion on a wholesale basis without any reason, see Contributions/Wassermann. Beyond that it seems he simply seems to enjoy "targeting" Jews' topics for attention." On Wikipedia one my favorite things to do is to add categories to articles, mostly because categorization is by far the best way to lump together related information, thus saving said articles from wallowing in the huge sea of Wiki-disorganization...is there something wrong with that? My additions are constructive and accurate, and I don't vandalize or insert personal POV in to articles. The reason I add categories and build lists is to improve articles and the project as a whole by making it more comprehensive and organized, and because I am interested in the topic(s). As for the randomness that you accuse me of, that is only because I add categories as I come across the articles (which is rather randomly). Is categorizing people and adding people to lists now considered "targeting" by you all? I see that you have been adding "Category:Yeshiva University rosh yeshivas" to many articles recently...why is what you are doing not considered "targeting" while the categories I am adding is considered "targeting"? Well over 85% of your edits are on Jewish articles/topics (and it's the same with many of the people that you sent this message about me to), so why are you all not thought to be " 'targeting' Jewish topics for attention" as you accuse me of doing? Also, I will not even begin to explain the numerous examples of methodical (and unconscionable) censorship used by some editors here to erase the good progress and constructive additions I have made in many articles/lists/categories; I'll just leave it at that brief mention and what I have said before on that subject.

If I was "hostile to Wikipedia," why would I be here? I am hostile to hypocrisy and POV however, and these are the traits that I seek to expose and which I do my best to remedy. Since Wikipedia now shows up as #1 in the search results on Google, it is more important that ever that accurate and NPOV information is found on Wikipedia in regards to ALL topics. I've done my best to tone down my rhetoric around here lately (because I do admit that some [not all] of my words in the past were a bit too harsh for some to handle), but it's difficult not to over-react when ones sees valid, relevant, helpful, and good edits being censored/erased, with nearly every edit being questioned, scrutinized, and finally reverted for no apparent reason. I hope that you and the others can begin to understand this, and that you all will eventually cease being so paranoid and hyperprotective when it comes to articles/categories about Jews and Judaism and the people that edit them.

• Louis Brandeis: "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants." --Wassermann 05:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Boruch of Medzhibozh

A resolution is needed on a disagreement over whether Boruch of Medzhibozh should be considered a disciple of his grandfather, the Baal Shem Tov, or of Pinchas of Koritz, who was his tutor. Klezmer will not hear of anything but that Boruch should be under Pinchas, and denies that Boruch had any Medzhibozh dynasty or that it existed, and I hold that this makes no sense.

Klezmer says that Boruch was a student of Pinchas of Koritz and followed his spiritual legacy. I can't understand this, since Boruch was clearly a favorite of his own grandfather, the Besht, who he worshipped and studied with and wanted to continue his own grandfather's legacy NOT that of Pinchas of Koritz, which is why he went to Medzhibozh and not Koritz to become Rebbe. According to the article itself on Boruch it says "As recorded in the early Hasidic work Mekor Boruch (first published in 1880 from handwritten manuscripts), at the time of the Baal Shem Tov's death, Rabbi Pinchas of Korets and Rabbi Jacob Joseph of Polonoye, two of the Baal Shem Tov's closest disciples, reported to the Hasidim that the Baal Shem Tov had designated Reb Boruch as his successor, and instructed Reb Pinchos to take responsibility to carry out those wishes." That clearly would say that Boruch belongs under the Besht not under Pinchas who was just following the Besht's wishes. and not that Boruch left his grandfather to become a follower of Pinchas's spiritual legacy. Almost all the Rebbes have teachers and tutors other than their own father or grandfather, it doesn't make them disciples of the teacher or tutor instead of their own ancestors.

Klezmer quotes Wiesel "Souls on Fire", but Wiesel's "Four Hasidic Masters" says that Boruch rejected the approach of Pinchas, "was eager to resemble" the Besht and declared that "he, Reb Boruch, was his (the Besht's)successor", so how would that put him under Pinchas spiritual legacy instead of under his own grandfather, the Baal Shem Tov.

However Klezmer just keeps reverting to his own opinion. This affects mainly two pages: Israel Baal Shem Tov (the "Spiritual Legacy" section at the end), and List of Hasidic dynasties (also the "Spiritual Legacy section at the end) -- you can see what has been going on by looking at the history of the article.

From two other articles it appears that this is part of a larger agenda or opinion to unvalidate Medzhibozh as a dynasty and strengthen Apta and the Bick family as the true continuation of Medzhibozh. This is reflected in the comment inserted in the begining of the article on Medzhibozh dynasty that "Other unrelated rabbinic dynasties that claim Mezhbizh as their geographic root include the Apta (Hasidic dynasty) and Rapoport-Bick (rabbinic dynasty))"

It was already pointed out by others that the Bicks weren't Hasidic and didn't belong in the Medzhibozh hasidic dynasty article, so the long section on the Bicks was removed and a separate article started (but still referenced there anyway), but the other serious error in my opinion is that in the Apta article Klezmer insists on including the Apter as Rebbe, when it is widely known that it was always the Apter Rov, and not Rebbe. (you can also see this dispute in the history of that article).

Finally, in the Mezhbizh hasidic dynasty article, Klezmer tries to eliminate the existence of a continuation of Medzhibozh from the Baal Shem Tov and Baruch by claiming that because Yaakov Yisroel (son of Mordechai of Medzhibozh, son of Yekhiel Mikl of Medzhibozh, etc., etc. back to Baruch) married the daughter of the Zviler Rebbe that makes him no longer Medzhibozh but Zvil, (even though his grandson is the Zvil-Medzhibozh rebbe, descended from Medzhibozh, and continues the line through Medzhibozh -- I didn't see it myself but someone told me the sign on the Bais Midrash actually says only "Medzhibozh" and not Zvil).

Again, this appears to be just a way of unvalidating Baruch and his descendants, and is not accurate or true. You can also see this dispute in the history of the Mezhbizh hasidic dynasty article, and also in the talk page for the Medzhibozh hasidic dynasty article, where Klezmer starts a section on "Messed up the Medzhibozh Rabbinic Lineage bigtime", and continues after that one with "Facts wrong about Rabbi Boruch's descendants in Medzhibozh" but makes several errors like confusing Mordechai of Zvil with Mordechai of Mezbuz, relies on his own research and recent books but gives no credence to Alfasi's master work on hasidic dynasties and so reverts everything to only his own version instead of at least, as Redaktor suggests, putting in both approaches.

Any input from other editors who are knowledgeable and familiar with hasidic dynasties and families would be helpful. --ChosidFrumBirth 14:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• To clarify, ChosidFrumBirth is referring to Klezmer (talk · contribs) who needs to modify his intolerant attitude to Chosid's obvious expertise in this area. Klezmer needs to adopt a more co-operatve attitude because the study of Hasidic Judaism is not a "black-and-white" or "open-and-shut-case" based only on books often written by secular authors, since as well all know it's very much a "Torah-she-be'al peh" phenomenon as well. So let's give co-operation a big try here. Thank you, IZAK 15:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Please join centralized discussion at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-29 Mezhbizh (Hasidic dynasty)

Mediation Cabal

I have initiated a request at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-29 Mezhbizh (Hasidic dynasty). Hopefully this will add outside input and help to create some balance in the discussions between User:Klezmer and ChosidFrumBirth (talk · contribs). Thank you, IZAK 15:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Please join centralized discussion at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-29 Mezhbizh (Hasidic dynasty)

Jewish Collaboration of the Week

Zealotry has been the Jewish Collaboration of the "Week" for many months so I have replaced it with the current top vote-getter ("current" meaning "as of January"). Therefore, the new collaboration is on Tikkun olam. Now fix the world and fix the Wikipedia article! Shalom, y'all, --Valley2city^₪‽ 15:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Jews and Judaism in Europe and the European Union

OK...here's what's happening...I took some text in European Union#Religion and tried to turn it into something a bit more respectable:

16:56, May 1, 2007 TShilo12 (Talk | contribs | block) (78,471 bytes) (→Religion - rm weaselish whitewash)[9]

Another editor thought my edit needed some work:

12:17, May 2, 2007 {{Boson (Talk | contribs | block) (78,371 bytes) (→Religion - I think several genocide attempts" needs references. Relevance to EU (which has existed since 1957 at most) needs establishing. Belongs in Religion in Europe ?) [10]

I commented on the user's talkpage indicating why I'd left the word "genocide" in the article, as well as made a few related comments, here.

The user replied on my talkpage, responding to what I'd said, as well as making some additional remarks, here.

Believing this subject might be of interest to members and lurkers of this WikiProject, I figured I'd bring it up here. Cheers, Tomer^talk 23:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)