Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism

Missing editors

Has anyone noticed that User:IZAK's last contribution was over a month ago? Has he left Wikipedia or has he taken an unannounced wikibreak? I also noticed that User:Shirahadasha's last edit was June 27. What's going on here?--DLand^TALK 18:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Send them an email. JFW | T@lk 20:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It's time for the next generation to take over. --רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 23:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Vehemently disagree. IZAK and Shira both had skills that are NOT matched by the present cohort of editors. Of particular value I found Shira's readiness to take on Francis Duffy in his roughshod ride through Tanach articles.

I would be quite happy sending either of them an email on behalf of the WikiProject. Please sign below if you agree. JFW | T@lk 21:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Controversial as he could be, Izak put more work into this project than almost everyone else combined. Shir was a valuable asset as well, and was a welcome voice of reason in many instances. It would be a shame to lose either of them. Daniel^C/_T+ 21:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I got an email from IZAK (on an unrelated issue). He is traveling with little opportunity for internet access. I'm sure he'll be back shortly. Anyone heard from Shirahadasha? JFW | T@lk 14:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why, but over the three weeks period I notice that a lot of us scaled back our contributions. Maybe the general malaise of summer weather? I've definitely scaled back my edits over the summer which is counterintuitive as I was on vacation last month with little to do. Valley2city 02:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi all, ever heard of the word/s "travel," "vacation," "business" or "real life" and some people do not realize that in the United States and the Northern Hemisphere it's Summer and thus many people are away for all sorts of reasons (travel or family stuff) or have different jobs starting from June, through July and August, and even up to September (when the Yom Tov season requires our attention) -- anyhow, thanks for missing me!!! IZAK 11:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi and shanah tova to all, also back. "Real life" also called. I'll probably have to edit a little less frequently than I did before. Thanks for the warm compliments. --Shirahadasha 01:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Use of Hashem vs. other names of God

It's been suggested to me that I try to build consensus on this matter before I go about making changes. Anyway, it's been rubbing me the wrong way that Wikipedia, which is supposed to contain scholarly articles, has many articles which use "Hashem" when directly quoting sources where an actual name of God is used. I think this in particular makes the articles inaccessible to non-Jews, who might not understand Orthodox interpretations of the 3rd Commandment.

I think we need some standard for what name of God should be used in what types of articles. My personal view is that direct quotations from the TaNaKH should use the relevant name (usually YHWH), quotations from prayer should use "Adonai" since that's what would be said in the actual prayer, and quotations of common expressions (e.g. ";baruch Hashem", "kiddush Hashem") should continue to use "Hashem". And in any case, the first use of any given Hebrew name of God in an article should be linked so a non-Jewish user has a prayer (no pun intended) of sorting them all out.

Anyway, the short of this all is that I'd really like to make Judaism-related articles more accessible to non-Jews, and I think having a scholarly standard for uses of names of God is one thing that could help. BeIsKr 00:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree when a Hebrew name of God is used it would be helpful to add links to an article explaining the usage, such as Names of God in Judaism. As to which Hebrew term to use, this issue originally arose in the context of the Birkat HaMazon article. One concern is that the purpose of the encyclopedia is to communicate what Jewish practice is in articles specifically on Jewish practice. One can explain the practice more clearly, but if one is going to refer to God in Hebrew at all in an article on traditional Jewish practice, why not use the Hebrew term that practicing traditional Jews use? I could see an argument to use English and not transliterated Hebrew at all, but I'm not sure why one Hebrew term would be clearer to a non-Hebrew speaker than another. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I would add that for a direct quote of someone Hashem [God] should be used. Jon513 19:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with BeIsKr that Hashem with no qualifiers or links is a bad idea. In the English language, God is the accepted term for a monotheistic omnipotent and omnipresent deity. In that sense, it is a perfectly acceptable term that every reader will understand. As per Jon513, the use of Hashem should be limited to direct quotes (with a link to Names of God in Judaism if necessary) or as part of clichés (Im Yirtzeh Hashem). JFW | T@lk 20:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I have frequently seen "Yahweh" used to signify "the God of the Jews" in Bible articles. I think this is just silly, especially since any transliteration vocalization of YHWH would be either OR or POV. YHWH is not so great either, since, as JFW points out, this also leaves many readers scratching their heads. I think the best option is to use either "God," "the Lord" or occasionally "the God of the Jews" with a wiki-link to Tetragrammaton, unless the name is relevant to the context, such as in Biblical criticism articles/sections. (Tetragrammaton is currently a redirect to Yahweh on an ostensibly temporary basis.) --Eliyak T·C 22:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the use of YHWH, I think there are certain places where etymology of names is discussed where there's no good alternative to using it. E.g., in the Hebrew names article, I changed "devotion to Hashem" to "devotion to YHWH", because it was a paragraph discussing names ending in "-yah". Or in the 1 Maccabees article, it's hard to discuss the possible etymology of "Maccabee" from the acronym MKBY without saying what the Y stands for. BeIsKr 22:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

So far it seems three options have been proposed: Using "HaShem", using direct names, using English. I can understand the justification for the third option. Could you please provide a justification for the second? That is, why use language in the Birkat Hamazon article that the kind of people who say Birkat HaMazon wouldn't say? Isn't accuracy and authenticity a desirable trait? In an article describing native customs that uses phraseology in native language, what's the justification for imposing a usage which is not only non-native but one which native speakers would regard as incorrect? The very idea that Jewish usage would be considered inappropriate for an article on Judaism beggars my imagination. Please enlighten me. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, the changes I made to the Birkat Hamazon article were to change "HaShem" to "Adonai", which is what someone who says Birkat HaMazon would say in the course of actually saying Birkat HaMazon. Am I mistaken? Translating "Adonai" as "HaShem" in an otherwise English rendering doesn't make much sense to me. BeIsKr 09:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"Hashem" should not be used on Wikipedia (excluding cases like Kiddush Hashem where it is intrinsic to the idea.) Over the years it has been "God" which is perfectly legitimate. My own policy in this regard in articles relating to Jews and Judaism, is that when the word "God" is used, I create an internal link to the Names of God in Judaism. Thus "God" in a Judaism article does not link to [[God]] alone but to Names of God in Judaism by using [[Names of God in Judaism|God]]. This should be of help to any person not familiar with Judaism's notions about God to help them get a better perspective, and it does not "limit" God as far as Judaism is concerned. Neither "Hashem" nor "Jehova/Yaweh" nor "YHWH" nor "Adonai" nor "Tetragrammaton" should not be used in articles (as these only add to the confusion, and they are basically not suitable for an encyclopedia like Wikipidia that is striving to sound neutral and not like another version of the Catholic Encyclopedia!) Thus I essentially agree with JFW and with User:Shirahadasha. IZAK 06:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The only issue I'd have with that is that it could potentially be useful from a scholarly point of view to distinguish bewteen when a tetragrammaton-derived name is used and when an "El"-derived name is used. I tend to only think of only the latter as being translatable as "God", though I acknowledge that's just a personal preference and others may differ. Then again, we should probably have a standard for how to translate "Baruch... melech haolam". BeIsKr 09:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"Blessed are you, God, our God and King of the Universe..." There is no pressing need to distinguish between YKVK and E'l-based named in most articles. JFW | T@lk 10:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Some good points have been made here. But God is the accepted term for a monotheistic omnipotent and omnipresent deity certainly conflicts with Allah. Summed up, God usually refers to the bible only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shuki (talk • contribs) 19:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

In what way are Allah and God dissynonymous? The article says the opposite, and I have met many Muslims who use God. JFW | T@lk 10:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about specifically Judaism-related articles here, so Judaism-specific terms are under discussion, and Allah is not such a term. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe it's appropriate to interpose the perspectives and usages of academic Bible scholars whenever a Bible verse gets quoted in a prayer. If a Bible verse was quoted in a Shakespeare play, we wouldn't change the text of the play on the grounds that Shakespeare's language isn't a sufficiently scholarly rendition of the Bible and substituting our own text for Shakespeare's represents better Bible scholarship. We'd recognize that we are primarily studying Shakespeare, not the Bible, and the Bible comes into play only through a lens of Shakespeare's usages. Same here. Articles on contemporary Jewish topics such as prayers are not primarily articles on the Bible. the Bible comes into play only through a lens of subsequent usage. The views of secular Biblical scholars are often relevant, but the primary subject, and usage, is not theirs. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be a good idea for someone to do a quick review of scholarly books on bible, prayer, machshevet yisrael (Jewish philosophy) etc to determine the standard usage? I would imagine it varies greatly and probably depends on the choice of a name for God used in the source text. I know articles in biblical scholarship either use God or the exact name used in the text being studied. This is essential to discourse since a dominant theory in biblical criticism understands the different choices for the name of God to reflect different editoral voices. Midrash also sometimes plays on the particular choice in the name of God in biblical text. Commentators on Medieval piyuttim would also need to pay close attention to the choice of God's name used in the text because it is often part of the word play.

As for ShiraHadasha's point - shouldn't we use the name of traditional religious Jews? Whilst Jews have always been fond of circumlocations for God's name, the favored term has changed over time and varies by philosophical tradition. For example, Ein Sof is common in kabbalistic literature. HaMakom is used in Midrashic and Talmudic text. HaShem I think came into common use post talmudic period (anyone know when?).

I'm in the process of moving and won't have time to get to the library until the next week or two, but if we can wait a bit to decide this issue, I would be glad to dig up some citations and sources, if that would be helpful. Egfrank 16:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Two comments. First, I don't understand why a claim a word is post-talmudic could be an objection to its use in an article on an aspect of contemporary Judaism. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Of the discussion so far, there have been various objections to different Hebrew words, but no objection so far to use of the English word God. Does anyone have such an objection? It would certainly make sense to use English in an English encyclopedia. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear in my point about HaShem being post-talmudic. I only meant to say that the claim "this is the term religious Jews use" depends on the time, place, philosophy, and (in the present day) movement.

I think using the generic English word God is a great idea, so long the term actually used by the source text itself may be used in articles that describe the interpretive tradition of that source text. Egfrank 19:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Appetizing?

Is Appetizing for real? I've never heard of this term. --Eliyak T·C 03:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Send to AFD. No evidence, and a dicdef anyway. JFW | T@lk 12:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

as somebody who lives in a jewish neighborhood i can testify that it is true we call all lox and fish sandwich stores appetizing here, it may be a false term but the mases do use it.--יודל 12:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

So it's a dicdef. JFW | T@lk 14:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The result of the AFD was "Keep and clean-up --Haemo 18:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)" [1]. -- The article has not been cleaned up, or edited in any way, since 20 September 2007. If people aren't going to clean this up (and add sources), IMHO another AFD would be in order down the line, and the decision might not go for "Keep" next time. -- 201.19.77.39 15:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

recent changes

David Adam Lewis (talk · contribs) recent made substantial changes to both Red heifer (diff) and Yom Kippur (diff). Jon513 14:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This user has repeatedly made wholesale changes to articles -- generally replacing existing content with content copied from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia. This has resulted in the wholesale erasure of existing material reflecting different sources and points of view. Because the user has added substantial amounts of useful material to these articles I've attempted to work with and this user and to stress the importance of participation in the WP:Consensus process and to discuss any proposed large-scale deletions of existing material with other editors, but so far without success. --Shirahadasha 21:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted this user's edits of Yom Kippur. and will revert the edits to Red Heifer. This user needs to work with other editors before deleting existing sourced material. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In response to a note on User talk:David Adam Lewis, the user appears to be claiming that religious sources are not reliable sources for religious subjects on the grounds and only academic sources are reliable. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That is just Francis Duffy editing under a new username. JFW | T@lk 00:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I never heard of Duffy before, but you're absolutely right. Compare Mazzoth (by "Lewis") and Massah (by "Duffy"). — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Besides being an unusual name, the Mazzoth article merely repeats content which is in (or should be in) the Passover article. is ther any reason why it should not be deleted? --Redaktor 16:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I redirected it to Matzo.--DLand^TALK 17:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The original article was used to discribe Passover, not Matzot. Of course it's not known by such a name -- the hebrew chag hamazot never became known as mazzoth. But perhaps it's not a bad guess for what contemporary people might call it if all one had to go on was the Bible, Peake's Commentary, and the Jewish Encyclopedia. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

David Adam Lewis (talk · contribs) has made some more edits. It is hard to them all out as he tends to rewrite entire articles. I certainly object to the using to saying "According to the Holiness Code and the Deuteronomic Code" instead of "According to the Torah". It may not be a clear POV violation but it definitly violates Raul's Razor (#13). Jon513 09:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Jon513 - the Holiness Code found in Leviticus and the Deuteronomic Code found in Deuteronomy refer to specific portions of the Torah so saying "according to the Torah" is not the same thing. Also scholars have identified differences in tone and focus between the two codes so sometimes it is important to clarify that one or both have affirmed a tradition. I don't have specific examples, but I suspect even our ancient rabbis were tacitly aware of the differences. They differ with the modern biblical scholars only in the way they handled them. Traditionally the tendency has been to synthesize the text via midrash, talmudic debate, or halakah. Biblical scholars are often more interested in the differences themselves than the synthesis. Egfrank 20:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Followup: both User:Shirahadasha and I (User:Egfrank) have placed comments on User:David Adam Lewis's expressing concern over his methodology. I have expressed concern about over-reliance on sole secondary sources. User:Shirahadasha has expressed concern about his halakhic reasoning. Egfrank 21:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Biblical original research

For a good while, User:Rktect has been making significant modifications to various biblical articles — for example, compare his/her changes to Stations list here. S/he has been blocked four times, twice in the last three months, after long insertions of original research. Please compare the current version of Elim (Bible) with the way it was before Rktect began editing it in July. I'd appreciate it if some of you in this wikiproject would watch a bunch of these articles, lest this OR be restored. Nyttend 23:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Magog

Hey y'all, there's a bit of a conflict at Magog (Bible) as to whether it should be merged into the main article Gog and Magog. It's intended to deal with the figure from Genesis, whereas Gog and Magog deals with the whole schmeer comprehensively. The way I see it, there's just not enough information there to justify it being seperate; virtually all of what's there is dealt with in a superior form at the main article. I'd appreciate some input!--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

missing Person in WP: Chajim Bloch

The jewish writer and rabbi Chajim Bloch (perhaps you can spell Chajim differently) is missing in the english WP, contrary to the German, see de:Chajim_Bloch. The German National Library (Frankfurt) holds 28 books written by and about him, and his books about the Golem and Hersh Ostropoler were sold as piracy-prints (correct word?) in Berlin in the 80s. Plehn 10:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Is he notable in this area? Some people may be notable for a German encyclopedia and not an English one. JFW | T@lk 10:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Should we use term Reform Judaism or Progressive Judaism in Judaism articles?

Copied from User talk:Shirahadasha:

I'm concerned about the arrangement of the Reform Judaism articles, mostly because it would make it hard for me to place material (yes cited material) in the right place. Much of the material in "Reform Judaism", IMHO really belongs in Progressive Judaism. I'd even go so far as to say that Reform Judaism should be merged with Progressive Judiasm and that Reform Judaism be turned into a redirect to Progressive Judaism. Depending on the amount of material specific to each country a sub-article (Progressive Judiasm in XXX) might be merited.

The problem is that "Reform" is just one of the terms used to describe the Jewish religious response to the Haskalah. Outside the US, communities call themselves liberal and progressive as well as reform. Jointly they have chosen the name "World Union of Progressive Judiasm" to refer to themselves. Individually, the choice of "Reform" over other synonyms has little meaning - it isn't possible to make assumptions about a particular stance based on choice of name.

Discussion about the above two paragraphs probably shouldn't be carried out on user pages. Please feel free to move the above paragraph to the appropriate page and leave a note on my user page where to look for the discussion. Yours, Egfrank 08:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I believe "Reform Judaism" is the term used in a large number of Judaism articles. I would suggest bringing it up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism rather than attempting to deal with it individually here. I don't know if these movements are sufficiently similar that they can all be presented as having a single outlook in general or if the matter would be issue-by-issue. Best, --Shirahadasha 14:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm (User:egfrank) more concerned about the arrangement of materials among the articles than the name used in articles. However, the choice of name also bears discussing. I've added some more details explaining why I feel that the "main" article should be Progressive Judaism and that the articles Liberal Judaism and Reform Judaism should either be simple redirects to that article or disambiguation pages.

Common name - in the USA Reform Judaism is the term in most common usage and perhaps its heavy usage suggests a largely USA or Canadian based editorship?. The advantage of using the term "progressive Judaism" is that it is internationally neutral. It may also be less confusing for international readers. In some countries, for example, the UK, terms like "liberal" and "reform" refer to particular associations of congregations (Liberal Judaism and the Movement for Reform Judaism respectively). Despite organizational differences congregations associated with both organizations are members of the WUPJ and train their rabbis at common institutions. In other countries the terms reform,liberal,and progressive are used interchangably. Even in the USA and Canada where "reform judaism" is the more common term, the terms "liberal" and "progressive" Judaism are considered synonyms (see http://urj.org/worship/letuslearn/rj/).

Common institutions. There are several organizations that liberal/reform/progressive congregations and their members tend to belong to. For example, Arzenu - the international umbrella organization for progressive religious Zionist organizations and World Union for Progressive Judaism (WUPJ), the international organization for progressive/liberal/reform/reconstructionist congregations and ParDes, an association for Jewish day schools.

Common intellectual roots. Although they may stress different thinkers, the movements have their intellectual roots in the 19th century German Reform movement (cf. articles on Abraham Geiger, Samuel Holdheim, Zacharias Frankel among others). A common set of core beliefs is evidenced by the WUPJ mission statement (see http://wupj.org/About/About.asp). It would be hard to discuss their differences apart from this common intellectual background. Egfrank 16:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Common rabbinical training programs. Rabbis for progressive congregations around the world train in common institutions: Leo Baeck College (UK), the Abraham Geiger College (Germany), and the Hebrew Union College (Israel, USA). Students from all three schools spend their first year studying together on the Jerusalem campus of Hebrew Union College. Egfrank 04:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I just putting my 2 cents in, in some cases reformism is not Judaism and shouldn't be mentioned in some cases. --Shuliavrumi 17:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Just the sort of comment that encourages Ahavas Chinam, isn't it? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that was not a very helpful. JFW | T@lk 10:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Object. Worldwide, by far the most commonly used name for the movement that has inherited the principles of C19 German Reform is "Reform Judaism".

Furthermore, by *far* the largest number of those followers are in the USA and identify themselves and the movement to which they belong as Reform. WUPJ started out in London at a time when there was rather more suspicion between between the UK Liberals and UK Reform than there is now. I doubt very much that there are many members of Liberal synagogues in the UK who would object to be associated with the Reform movement worldwide. (They might or might not be so comfortable with UK Reform). Jheald 15:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I also think the Liberal Judaism article was better as it was, before the edit you're insisting on. Jheald 17:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to consider this issue. Whatever its historic origins, the World Union for Progressive Judaism (WUPJ) is now recognized as the international (42 countries) umbrella organization of those congregations that grew out of C19 German Reform. Those organizations have chosen to collectively call themselves "progressive". It is their choice and I think we should respect it.

As for the UK issue - the problem in the UK isn't a question of "who wants to be associated with whom" - liberal and reform congregations have been using the same rabbinical seminary for years. Rather "Liberal" and "Reform" in the UK now identify particular organizations. The potential for confusion would be more like confusing Nefesh B'Nefesh with the Israeli government's klitah program - both serve the same purpose (absortion) but have different organizational structures (amuta vs. government). Egfrank 19:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Not entirely true. There are distinct differences in outlook between the UK Liberal and UK Reform movements, and people do tend to strongly associate themselves with one rather than the other. UK Liberal is affirmatively progressive. UK Reform covers a broader range, including some schuls that are anything but progressive. It's appropriate for the two pages to explore the two different outlooks. The two movements are not identikit clones of each other, and it's not just simply a question of affiliative organisation. Reducing the pages to just being about the organisational structures is doing a disservice to Wikipedia. Jheald 20:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It was not at all my intent to "reduce pages to being about organizational structures" - I suggest though that we continue this discussion on the Liberal Judaism talk page. The issue of whether Liberal Judaism is a movement or organization is a good one. I agree that there are some strong feelings and that "Reform" in the UK is sometimes anything but, including some that are strongly anti-egalitarian. Interestingly, the two organizations also seem to differ in self perception - the Liberal Judaism website describes itself as a movement whereas the Movement for Reform Judaism ironically describes itself as an umbrella organization. Go figure...

As for the discussion here, your points about reform/liberal only seem to make the point stronger that the preferred term should be "progressive". In the UK particularly there are some strong feelings associated with the words "liberal" and "reform". I don't know the history of the WUPJ's mission statement (though I'm sure I could get it - the HQ is just down the block - finding a published version though may be another matter - sigh) but I suspect the decision to use "progressive" rather than "reform" or "liberal" may have been related to just such an issue. Why then do you object to the use of "progressive" to characterize them both? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egfrank (talk • contribs) 21:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi! As I understand it, Egfrank is also suggesting replacing Category:Reform Judaism by Category:Progressive Judaism. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. I don't believe that would be advisable. Nor is it necessary. With appropriate redirects it is always possible to use multiple terms.

Categories exist in part to help people find things. Therefore it is important that category titles use terms of reference that are natural and spontaneous to the reader. The fact remains that the liberal/reform/progressive movement has three names and the name that someone will search for spontaneously will depend on their country of origin and possibly the name of the umbrella organization to which their synagogue belongs.

In articles, the choice of name is less problematic. While people may not spontaneously search on the term "progressive", they will usually recognize it as a synonym. In that context, to maintain NPOV, I think we should use "progressive" when discussing matters that apply to the movement as a whole. When discussing matters that relate specifically to a region where reform (or liberal) is the preferred term, either "progressive" or the region's preferred term is acceptable. When discussing historic movements, such as the German Reform Movement of the 1800's, the term Reform is not only appropriate, but required. Egfrank 19:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is with the current set-up. I think the pages we have at the moment on Liberal, Reform and Progressive work well, are well matched to their subject matter, and match people's expectations of those terms. What is the problem you think you're trying to fix? Jheald 20:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well to start with, where would you write up in detail the commonalities I've listed above? Egfrank 23:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we do a pretty good job, as things are at the moment, under Reform Judaism. That article IMO covers most of the bases, does a very useful job of untangling C19 German Reform, present-day American Reform, UK Reform etc; and in the process covers pretty well most of the commonalities.

I know that the word Progressive is particularly used in Israel; but in most of the world, especially led by the States, I think Reform would be the most instinctive word to describe the worldwide alternative to the Orthodox.

I'm curious about the States though, and maybe somebody from the U.S. can help. My impression is that the word used is Reform. Aren't there overtones about the word Progressive that some might feel less comfortable with? Jheald 01:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Putting the material into the article on Reform Judaism won't work:

• The article begins by saying that Reform Judaism refers to American Reform Judaism (See line before the TOC). Hence it is not about the world movement.
• The article does not address the fact that there is a core movement that has many different names, but rather choses to focus on the two movements that prefer the name "Reform Judaism". Israel is only covered because its adherents are often called "reformim". (The movement itself prefers the term "ha tenua ha mitkademet ha Israeli" - the progressive Israel movement).
• Both in structure and content, the article emphasizes differences at the expense of commonality. The movements in the US, UK, and Israel are presented as separate entities with no connections other than historical. There are significant funding and intellectual exchanges that are completely ignored. The only attempt to compare and contrast is titled "Transnational Differences in the Reform Movement" and as its title suggests it only discusses differences
• To its credit the article does distinguish between the modern movement and its historical roots. However, the coverage of the modern movement is skeletal at best. Theses are just some of the critiques I have:
  • Reform/Liberal/Progressive approach to text is reduced to Plaut. There is much to be discussed there: the influence of reader-response criticism, the increasing value placed on midrash, are just part of what needs to be added. Where are the citations? The summaries of major thinkers? The review of feminist critique?
  • The discussion of Reform/Liberal/Progressive Halakhah is skeletal and lacks history and depth. Halakha in the reform/liberal/progressive movement is a complex issue and deserves far more than a few paragraphs. Neither is it a modern invention. Moshe Zemer is mentioned but one of the most prolific responsa writers, Solomon B Freehof, is ignored.
  • The rise of pluralism as a core concept is completely ignored. Considering that the concept would most likely be incomprehensible to 19C reformers, it deserves significant explaining.
  • The changing understanding of universalism and particularity on both pragmatic and philosophical levels isn't mentioned even though this has played a key role in the rise of tradition in later years.
  • Much of the article is dominated by a presentation of 19C German and American reform (which IMHO belongs in a separate article). This is particularly problematic in any presentation of the progressive/liberal/reform movement because one of its core principles is openness to developing intellectual thought. Modern philosophy has progressed greatly beyond the 19C universalists and liberal/progressive/reform Judaism has moved along with it.
• The article is over 40K and should already be broken down into several articles. It will only make matters worse to add more material.

As for your question to American Reform Jews - you've been talking to one. I grew up in the USA and lived there until I was thirty. The dean of the New York school of HUC buried both my grandparents and was a family friend. As a child our shelves were filled with books published by the HUC-JIR printing presses, sent regularly to my grandfather who served on the board. As an adult I spent several years teaching Hebrew school in the states. I have no problem with the term "progressive" even though I most naturally use the term "reform". I have deliberately left myself out of the discussion up to this point because it isn't relevant.

The only fact that is relevant is that all the congregations that you insist are so divided that they will take exception to being associated with one another have somehow seen enough common ground to join a common set of communal organizations, train their rabbis and communal leaders in the same institutions, and have chosen to call their umbrella organization "Progressive". It is a decision that I think we should respect.

Comment. Clearly the UK Liberals and UK Reform don't have a problem being associated with each other. But they do also represent different perspectives, which go deeper than just nuts-and-bolts organisation. So yes, they both are part of the wider Progressive or Reform movement worldwide, but their articles should also represent and value why they see themselves as distinctive too. Jheald 08:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't an article titled "Progressive Judaism in the UK" serve that purpose? One could compare and constrast the two halves of UK Judaism more effectively in a single article than in two separate articles. Egfrank 10:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

As for it explaining the movement to the orthodox. That is a reason for a redirect - not for obscuring the presence of a world progressive consensus under an article dedicated to the American movement.

Do you have another suggestion? Egfrank 06:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hebrew language at WP:GAR; could lose GA status

• Hebrew language at WP:GAR; could lose GA status. --Ling.Nut 08:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Age limit on Rabbincal ordination

What is the youngest age that one can graduate from the Yeshiva and gain the rabbinical ordination in orthodox Judaism? --Ghostexorcist 10:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no formal graduation from yeshiva. Rabbinical ordination is probably valid from the age of 13 (don't ask me for a source), but nowadays is rarely awarded to anyone younger than 20. JFW | T@lk 10:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Baal teshuva

Please see and join in at: talk:Baal teshuva#Should some of this article be split into Orthodox Jewish outreach? -- Avi 15:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This page is getting long

Would it be an idea to set up MiszaBot II to auto-archive sections once they haven't been added to for say a month, or six weeks? Jheald 09:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Topics

Who makes decision what is a jewish topic or not?

Why Gog and Magog is a Wiki jewish for example?

Gog and magog mentioned in Revelation ( christians) Quran (islam) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.12.132 (talk) 05:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

and Ezekiel 38-39. The WikiProject Judaism banner on a talk page doesn't really mean anything and it is nothing that anyone should get work up about. It does not give the wikiproject any greater say in the article, or prevent other wikiproject from also putting their banners there. Frankly I think the whole idea of wikiproject banners is stupid and doesn't serve any point. Some claim that it helps direct new users to the wikiproject. As a wikiproject is just a common place to talk about issues relating to many articles, don't really see why we need to direct people here any more than we need to direct them to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion. Jon513 18:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not just new users who benefit from wikibanners -- it's good for anyone who comes to a page, and wants to know where they might go to get a second opinion on it. Plus they're useful in the system, to make it more possible to track which pages of interest to a project have been changed recently. Jheald 12:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The world's northernmost synagogue

Would any of you be able to provide some input into this question? Thanks -- Arvind 13:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Kurzweil has no article

Hi - anybody care to start an article on Arthur Kurzweil? -- geneologist, scholar of Judaism, writer. Thanks. -- 201.19.77.39 14:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

How about you? Best, --Shirahadasha 01:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

the Word ritual

68.195.69.225 (talk · contribs) seems to believe that every Jewish holiday must have the word "ritual" in it, perferably in the introduction. I saw no value to his changes and reverted them. Certainly the sentence "Purim is a Jewish holiday" contains more information than "Purim is a Jewish ritual". Jon513 19:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Social justice needs mention of the Jewish tradition.

The article Social justice currently has nothing on social justice in the Jewish tradition. I do not consider myself competent to edit on this topic myself. Thank you. -- 201.19.77.39 09:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Life of Brian

Please see my recent sourced insertion at this article that was brusquely reverted. I can't be bothered with an edit war with someone who'll happily be rude. If anyone wishes to take this up, they're welcome. Given that the article (like most round here) is full of entirely unsourced material, the addition of material sourced from a Rabbi's blog, backed up with some primary source material doesn't seem outrageous to me, but I'm not prepared to argue the toss over this one. --Dweller 10:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are really poor sources for anything (WP:RS), unless the blogger is independently notable. I would not support the link you've inserted. JFW | T@lk 11:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I was rather hoping someone would help find a RS for this suggestion. However, given that the blog is supported by unimpeachable primary material, the concept could be included in a simple read and compare manner, without the use of the blog or any ORish claim. --Dweller 11:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You didn't get my point. Apart from this iconoclastic rabbi with his blog, has any other source drawn parallels between Life of Brian and a quote from the Talmud? You're stretching the meaning of WP:UNDUE as well. JFW | T@lk 20:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to know that too. I've heard so many mentions of the similarity in day to day conversation that I'd be surprised if there's no mention in RS. As a second-best, the similarity is so self-evident from a glance at the primary source, it makes commentary unnecessary. --Dweller 22:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

John Cleese a Talmud scholar? Interesting people you have day-to-day conversation with - people who know both Life of Brian and Talmud! JFW | T@lk 06:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Lol. Are you kidding? LOB is very popular with Jewish people, who generally find it very easy to laugh at themselves. --Dweller 07:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You missed my point. Those Jewish people who like LOB, are they actually knowledgeable in Talmud? I doubt it. And to get back to my original question: has anyone apart from this blogging rabbi made the connection LOB vs statement in Talmud and documented this in a reliable source that is not a blog? Just pointing out clever parallels in a blog is not the same as identifying a trend. I can point to various interesting parallels between the Talmud and popular culture, but that doesn't make them notable from the perspective of a general purpose encyclopedia. JFW | T@lk 09:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

On your first point, see Modern Orthodox. On your second, I agree (I have done consistently), I'm looking for a RS and would be surprised if there were none... see my first response to you in this thread. --Dweller 11:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Waiting patiently for a RS (i.e. not a blog). JFW | T@lk 13:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

How about Rabbi Jeremy Rosen (British rabbi, Modern Orthodox), writing in the webzine somethingjewish.co.uk on the topic "Alexander the great?" ([2]) --Dweller 13:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that an RS either. Who the heck is Jeremy Rosen? I think JFW is asking for a source written by a notable person. --Ghostexorcist 18:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

As it happens, I know who he is (he founded the Yakar synagogue/community in London, amongst other things) but actually it's irrelevant and I think you misunderstand RS - it's the journal that published him that's the issue. It's not a self-published blog, which understandably was criticised as not reliable. It's a web magazine that's published his article. --Dweller 19:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Dweller - I just took a look at the Jeremy Rosen blog - perhaps you may wish to take a closer look yourself. Based on the wording he is making a homelitic point that both Alexander the Great and the rabbis of the talmud understood the importance of teasing apart the benefits of technology from its more questionable values. I can't see anywhere that he is asserting that the Talmud was the inspiration for any part of the life of brian. -- User:egfrank —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree. All he's doing is mentioning a parallel between the two. (Incidentally, it's not a blog) --Dweller 14:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

B'nai Mitzvah does not define the term "B'nai Mitzvah"

The article B'nai Mitzvah does not clearly define the meaning of the term "B'nai Mitzvah". While I believe that it is implied in the text of the article, I'm not positive that my guess is right. Let's add a clear definition of the term for those who need it. Thanks. -- 201.19.77.39 15:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"B'nai Mitzvah" is not the best title, and is an attempt to combine bar mitzvah and bat mitzvah into a single term. "Bnai mitzvah" itself is not a commonly used term. "Bar mitzvah" and "bat mitzvah" are both defined in the intro. --Eliyak T·C 18:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that you and others have been working on this article -- Thanks! -- 201.19.77.39 12:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism sections in articles on Jewish Movements, including Reform Judaism

Hi! There is a proposal in Reform Judaism to remove the section on criticism of Reform Judaism, now relabeled relationship with other movements. I am bringing the matter to the attention of the WikiProject because I believe WP:NPOV requires all notable points of view and although it's normal for articles on a religious denomination to be largely edited by members of that denomination, nonetheless WP:NPOV has to be complied with. Best, --Shirahadasha 13:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

A clarification. Under discussion was the best way to handle the criticism section in that article and others. No one was disputing the need to address disagreements among streams of Judaism, nor even the importance of those disputes to either current events or the history of Judaism. However, these disputes are of a highly sensitive nature and evoke strong feelings on all sides. They should be handled with great care.

With all due respect, you might want to reconsider your words. Do you really mean "all notable points of view"? If so, what are you going to say when someone decides to add a criticism section to Judaism and claims that its OK to discuss the Protocols of Zion - it is certainly notable, though highly prejudicial. I think we need a policy here that isn't going to backfire on us. Egfrank 16:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

But indeed someone has. See the Criticism of Judaism, Anti-Judaism, and Anti-Zionism articles. The fact that they are separate articles and not sections of the Judaism and Zionism articles is due to their size, not policy. The principle quote in the criticism section of the Reform Judaism article is from Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, a famous historical figure in the debate and an appropriate reliable source. I believe the quote summarizes an honest difference of opinon in an appropriately scholarly fashion and encyclopedic tone. Comparing Hirsch's criticism of Reform Judaism to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is, in all candor, not well-taken. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I was not comparing your rewrite of the section to the protocols of Zion. I apologize if you took it that way. I was reacting to the assertion that notability alone was the only criteria for inclusion. As I'm sure you know from study of talmud, its very easy to run into problems when one looks at a single principle in isolation. Much of talmudic study involves the analysis of hiluks that refine and condition the interpretation of seeming general principles. And in the canon of wikipedia there are also multiple policies in tension. WP:NOTABILITY, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV are just three examples.

As for your rewrite, I think you did a pretty good job, but there is still a problem. Samson Hirsch is indeed famous and historical, but he is also responding to 19th century German reformers, not to the modern progressive movement in the USA, UK, or any where else. Do we have any way of knowing that he would feel the same way about modern progressive Judaism? I'm sure the case could be made (or not), but it would require significantly more research than is possible in a simple paragraph. The German reform movement is he criticizing included everything from those who reduced Judaism to a philosophical system and rejected circumcision to those who simply wanted more meaning symbols and language in worship. Hirsch specifically excludes differences in "divine service", so he may in fact have a different feelings about particular reform sub-movements or even modern Judaism.

I think you misunderstand what Hirsch intended here. The quote reflects a famous distinction, between matters that are controlled by Halakha and matters that are not. Not all aspects of the "divine service" involve Halakha. Hirsch was willing to consider bending on matters that didn't, as long as what he considered to be the obligations of Halakha themselves were acknowledged and maintained. There is a disagreement between contemporary Modern Orthodox Judaism and Haredi Judaism on whether Hirsch's approach represents a general philosophy applicable today, as Modern Orthodoxy generally holds, or whether it represented only an emergency response to the 19th century German situation not applicable to communities capable of maintaining every custom, as Hareidi Judaism generally holds. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I also feel that we still need to address the concerns I raised about how we are dealing with intermovement criticism. Namely, that placing criticisms on each page instead of in an article discussing intermovement criticisms makes it hard to place criticisms in context. Criticisms should either be placed next to the topic being discussed or in an article dedicated to that purpose. I seriously question whether we can do this issue justice by having general per-movement criticism sections.

In this respect theAnti-Zionism, Anti-Judaism, and Criticism of Judaism articles are good models to follow. I do not know if they came about organically or because of policy. However, I doubt that length was the only reason these were not sub-sections of Judaism. Normally, when that is the case there would be a section labeled "Criticism of Judaism" with a header saying "main article:..." but there isn't. I rather think these are separated out into their own article because it allows them to be dealt with in a more balanced fashion. Balance requires space. Consolidating opinions into a common location also makes it easier to compare, constrast, identify themes, place beliefs in context, and so on. Egfrank 21:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the section and labeled it Reform Judaism#Orthodox criticism. --Shirahadasha 14:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Baal teshuva & Baal teshuva movement & Orthodox Jewish outreach

Please see the centralized discussion about this at Talk:Baal teshuva#Should some of this article be split into Orthodox Jewish outreach? and add your views.

Until fairly recently, there was only one Baal teshuva article that was not well-defined about what its content matter should be, i.e. the conflict between defining the Halachik notion and whatever relates to teshuva and the status of baal teshuva as applied to every Jew, vs. how that label is applied to only a certain class of secular/assimilated Jews who become more religious. In order to clarify and clear up the long-standing confusion of content and purpose of the article it was shortened, and part of it were placed first into Orthodox Jewish outreach and now a new Baal teshuva movement article has been added into which material was placed dealing with the modern-day movement based on the frequent usage of that term was created focusing in the grassroots movement of Jews returning to Judaism. Another previous article helps to further clarify the over-lapping subject matter: Repentance in Judaism (which should logically hold all descriptions and explanations of teshuva and Baal teshuva) and the newer Orthodox Jewish outreach focuses exclusively on the efforts of Orthodox rabbis and organizations. A discussion is underway at Talk:Baal teshuva#Should some of this article be split into Orthodox Jewish outreach?, but more input would be appreciated on these key set of articles. Thank you and Good Moed! IZAK 18:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

To set the record straight: There was and is no discussion about putting anything into anything. there was never ever one dissenting user who has expressed a issue that Jewish outreach shouldn't have its own article, and there was never ever a discussion that the proper fields dealing with outreach must be in a separate article. As it stand right now the only discussion is how to name the collective phenomena of Jews returning to Jewish orthodox practice, should we title them as a movement which most users have already declared that it is more POV then the other option. Ahead went as user on his own boldness against this consensus and created the article movement. This is now the discussion.--יודל 18:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Good English again! Point number one, so many subjects have been dealt with in our debate so far that it's becoming pretty inclusive of lots of things and point number two is it's not about "we" it is about what is objectively out there and can be supported by reliable sources. IZAK 08:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Progressive Judaism

Want to suggest that a discussion here might be valuable. Would like to note that WikiProject Orthodox Judaism, of which I am a member, has been essentially inactive for many months; for months most entries on the talk page have been simply copies of entries made here. In addition, a group of people who had talked about forming a Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservative Judaism decided not to. Given WP:OJ's recent inactivity, I was wondering if it might be in the better interest of the community to make WP:OJ historical and consolidate everything here as opposed to splintering into a Wikiproject for every denomination. As another alternative, Wikipedia permits subprojects. (See for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible/Biblical criticism work group). Obviously people are free to make their own decisions, but I think it would benefit everyone to have an open discussion about what might be the best course of action and to consider some alternative views. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I absolute agree. I hate having to check two pages and having to decided which page is more appropriate when I want to post something. Jon513 13:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Egfrank (talk · contribs) corrected the title of this parargraph, which was originally "Reform Judaism".[3] Can you guys please make up your mind, or at least come to some form of consensus? The movement has been called "Reform" since its inception in 19th century Germany. The term "progressive" was clearly invented later.

With regards to WP:OJ, that WikiProject was always an attempt by the frummers not to have to deal with the non-Orthodox element. It is clearly defunct, at least in part because the most prolific editors from Orthodox background have remained with this present WikiProject. I see further fragmentation as an unwelcome distraction. I might question the legitimacy of certain branches of our religion, but we're still talking about essentially the same subject matter. The very last thing we need is a major edit war between our own Neturei Karta and them Reformers over a crucial Judaism-related article. Peaceful coexistence (preferably in the context of this WikiProject) is by far the most Wiki-friendly solution. JFW | T@lk 13:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak to the reasons for the Orthodox project has petered out as I am not a participant. I can however speak to the reasons for Wikipedia:WikiProject Progressive Judaism. No one wants fractured dialog - when User:A Sniper first proposed the project I was wary. However, it quickly became clear that we needed a place to collaborate and our user pages were just not the appropriate place for it. Both of us had the same feeling that the progressive/academic/historical-critical point of view is seriously underrepresented in the current project. There is a *lot* of work to do in bringing that material up to snuff - the confusion over terms is just one symptom, but there are many others and if participants care to hear them I will be happy to elaborate.

The second reason, quite frankly, is moral support. I think the orthodox editors may simply not be aware of how tiring it is to have what is common knowledge among the people you pray and study with suddenly be challenged as unjewish by one or more editors. Or how about the practice of adding "Orthodox criticism" sections to each and every movement article left of "Haredi". When I raised concern about that in a section above and in the Reform Judaism article I got absolutely *no* response. Add the fact that every complaint about those sections on Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism has been shouted down and met with cries of WP:NPOV or WP:Notability and you might possibly see why a newbie progressive editor is likely to walk away. The only reason I'm still here at all is that I have years of progressive-orthodox dialog behind me and I know these things eventually work out once everyone "gets" the idea we all care about God, Torah, and Israel even if we don't agree with the details of how to go about it.

As for the term progressive/liberal/reform Judaism - I agree it is confusing, especially if you are trying to be sensitive. Unfortunately, it is a necessary confusion. Over the last two centuries thinkers associated with the "progressive movement" have variously been called "reform", "liberal", "progressive".

Unfortunately, it is quite difficult to associate any particular meaning with at least two of those terms. In Germany the left was called reform and the right wing of the movement was called liberal. In the UK *liberal* meant left and *reform* meant right - exactly the opposite of Germany. As for the term "progressive" I do not know when it evolved, but about half of the regional organizations (including Germany and Israel) have chosen "progressive" to refer to themselves locally and collectively they also prefer that name. Its use also helps us avoids the appearence of taking sides when talking about countries such as the UK where "Liberal" and "Reform" still refer to separate organizations (both consider themselves "progressive"). Wikipedia is a global information resource, so User:A Sniper and I felt that we should honor that global preference by making the official name of the project "Progressive Judaism". However, in deference to the fact that those with a more local perspective may feel more comfortable with their local name, we also gave the project two aliases: Wikipedia:WikiProject Reform Judaism and Wikipedia:WikiProject Liberal Judaism.

If you are confused about which is the "right" term to use, (1) you will always be OK using the term "progressive Jew" (2) if you are in an area where one of the three terms is in common use, using the local name is also OK. Similarly, it is completely appropriate to use the term "Reform Judaism" when when writing about contemporary US or certain congregations in UK progressive Judaism. It is less appropriate when making statements about progressive Jews around the world or about the organizations, beliefs, and practices of the movement as a whole. Egfrank 17:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know Progressive Judaism was in any way allied to the Historical-Critical school. Thanks for setting me straight. I can speak for the situation in The Netherlands, where progressive communities call themselves "Liberal" along the board, and even their national organisation (Verbond voor Liberaal-Religieuze Joden in Nederland) uses "Liberal".

I didn't quite get your point about "Orthodox Criticism". If criticism is notable, then obviously this should be included. That does not mean that a blog post by someone with a black hat is automatically relevant. Reform Judaism developed as a breakaway from mainstream Judaism, causing a number of reactions. I would be interested to see not just Orthodox Criticism (e.g. "Eleh Divrei ha-Brith" on circumcision) but also reactions (such as the ban on religious weddings in synagogues in certain countries, a ban on putting the bimah in the front of the synagogue). Provided sufficient sources are provided, this is exactly what an encyclopedia is for. JFW | T@lk 19:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment on including "reactions" in criticism sections: I think a stand-alone article on the history of relations between Orthodox and Reform Judaism would be worth writing. My suggestion, however, is that criticism sections of articles on the denominations themselves focus on matters of belief and practice, apprising readers of the basic differences in key ideas and beliefs and the reasons for that disagreement. WP:NPOV requires only presenting both side's views on the topic at hand in a dispute; it does not require presenting every gram of dirt each side is able to dig up about the other. In encyclopedic discussions of political movements the intention is to focus on intellecual and cultural differences, and not to highlight every allegation every party hack made about the other candidate's mother. So here. The purpose is to shed light, not to amplify noise. There have been acts of violence between Orthodox and reform individuals and groups over the years, and in Europe both sides sought to get the government to outlaw the activities of the other, sometimes successfully. My intention is not to censor an appropriate article on such matters, but to keep articles on religious beliefs and practices focused on religious beliefs and practices. I recommend we remain focused on "views" in articles on general Jewish subjects. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason the "Orthodox criticism sections" are off putting lies in the question of "what is in dispute?" - The articles on the different movements simply exist to describe the movements. They aren't claiming that movement X is the right Judaism. Hence the only thing that can or should be in dispute is the definition of the movement itself or possibly the designation of the movement as Jewish.

Are the "Orthodox criticism" sections disputing the definition of the movement itself? The section in the Reform Judaism article certainly isn't. Rather it seems to exist as an opportunity to say "NOT ALL JEWS AGREE THIS IS JUDAISM" . We are including this as a Judaism article, but some of us don't really believe it should exist as such....movement X is a heretic offshoot that shouldn't really be called Judaism.

There is a fundamental imbalance here because Progressive Jews could never, ever reciprocate by adding similar "Progressive criticism" sections. Remember, we believe in pluralism as a part of our religious commitment to Klal Isreal.

But suppose Progressive or Conservative Jews did reciprocate. Is that really what we want? Will that really create a more reliable encyclopedia? In the name of WP:NPOV, do we really want each movement to go around slapping its "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval/Surgeon General Warning" on each movement article? The only place it can lead is to angry debates about who cares more about the tikkun olam/survival of the Jewish people/mitzvot/God/... Hardly the stuff of encyclopedias.

Perhaps you have to live in Israel to see how nasty it gets. The only thing that loses in the end is Torah -- literally. In the late 1990's on Shavvuot, I participated in an egalitarian minyan off to the side of the Kotel. Some may remember the news accounts - around the time of the fourth aliyah a large swarm of black hatted haredim surrounded us and began throwing milk bags and stones (hitting at least one child). As we headed out under police escort, an "enterprising" pair of Yeshiva students threw a large cut-off sprite bottle full of coffee grinds from the windows of Yeshivat Poret Yosef at those of us who were guarding the Torah. Only the mantel of the Torah prevented the scroll from being stained with coffee and hatred. Perhaps they only meant to hit us - but ultimately all Jews are inseparable from the Torah. Hit each other and we cannot help but hit the Torah too.

There has got to be a better way to deal with the fact that some movements don't consider other movements legimate. Egfrank 01:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the the only way Wikipedia can deal with a notable dispute is to report it, as neutrally as possible, without personal bitterness. I'm not sure Reform Judaism has no criticism of Orthodox Judaism. If nothing else, Orthodoxy's claim to be the sole legitimate form of Judaism appears to be disputed. Perhaps the Reform movement has reasons for disputing this that might be articulated in a criticism section of the Orthodox Judaism article. Finally, numerous articles currently simply say "Reform Judaism doesn't do X" somewhere near the end. They might better explain why Reform Judaism doesn't do X, perhaps even why it doesn't think X a good thing to do. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I would oppose sanitising critical views from Reform articles. If the criticism was made in a reliable source and widely publicised, then why is it POV to mention that? Of course physical attacks are not the answer, and please notify me if people make personal attacks here on Wikipedia just because you represent the Reform/Progressive POV - I will strike mercilessly.

I totally agree with Shirahadasha that articles presently do not adequately represent Reform/Progressive practices. Scrupulous sources and serious explanation (e.g. on Jewish services) are urgently required.

I gave some examples of historical Orthodox criticisms to Reform changes in practice. I cannot imagine why we should leave out Eleh Divrei ha-Brith, which was signed by most of the prominent rabbis of Germany in the early 19th century. JFW | T@lk 20:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Response to both User:Jfdwolff and User:Shirahadasha - I absolutely agree that we need to discuss the differences amongst the movements. I disagree with the way we have currently structured it. There is more than one way to skin the WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE cat. The current structure implicitly sactions the orthodox position that one movement is normative and others are subject to its judgement. I think we need a structure that acknowledges that there are two competing views of how the movements should be viewed by one another. As for Eleh Divrei ha-Brith - does that really belong in an article on contemporary progressive judaism, or rather in an article dedicated to the German Reform Movement and the conflicts it engendered?

I'd like for us to brainstorm some alternatives before we decide that the current structure is the only way to handle this issue. Egfrank 21:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)\

The original question here was the relative merits of separate WikiProjects vs. a single WikiProject Judaism. Perhaps discussion on whether and how to address interdenominational theological criticism deserves a separate track. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as a bit of an outsider, there are a few serious advantages to having all the Judaism groups be interrelated within the one Judaism project. A single banner, which would still allow for separate task force assessments, isn't that hard to create; several people have in fact done so. This reduces the amount of talk space page taken up by the banners, and several of these articles will likely be relevant to more than one Judaism project. Also, it can make contacting all the related projects easier. A simple message to this page, as opposed to all the separate Judaism project talk pages, is easier for all parties involved to see and reply to. Lastly, the single project name will also, generally, help foster a bit more cooperation than "dueling projects" tend to. I'm busy for a week or two, but at the end of that time I could try to create a single project banner for all the Judaism projects, like WP:MILHIST and several of the other bigger projects have. Would this be an acceptable measure to the rest of you? John Carter 23:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Batwoman a fictional Jew?

I am not an expert, but someone has put Batwoman into Category:Fictional Jews. Does anyone know if she was ever a "rebbetzin"? If not, will the person who is 100% sure take that category out of her article. Thanks, IZAK 09:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It says a later writer in the Batwoman series fleshed out her background and made her Jewish.--Ghostexorcist 10:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Following the trends I guess, nowadays everyone (or almost everyone) wants to be seen as "Jewish" -- but when I was a kid, she looked to me like the perfect drop-dead gorgeous "shiksa" in the comics. Also, if a "later writer" transforms a character and then tells things that we did not assume for a long time, does that mean that all the earlier assumptions must be withdrawn, or are we allowed to first "I Dream of Jeannie" as one thing and then later be told that she was something else?! Are we allowed to ask, for example, was she born Jewish, like Yentl or did someone convert her, like? IZAK 05:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Same for the following, are they really "fictional Jews" or is this all the work of pranksters or not?:

• Baby Bear (Sesame Street) (where does it say he's fictionally "Jewish"?)
• Jake Berenson (is he a "sci-fi" fictional Jew? Prove it!)
• Bessie Glass (article says she was of Irish birth)
• Betty Boop (article not sure if she had "orthodox" parents)
• Billy (Billy and Mandy) (article says nothing about Jewishness)
• Max Bialystock (no mention of his religion or ethnicity in the article)
• & Leo Bloom (where does it say he's a fictional Jew?)
  • See The Producers (1968 film)#Reception: "broad ethnic humour" ... "two Jewish men conspiring" -- Jheald 09:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Phil D'Amato (is he really a fictional Jew?)
• Alan Eppes (can't make heads or tales of this, is he fictionally Jewish or not?)
• Charlie Eppes (can't figure this one out either)
• Don Eppes (ditto)
  • Tough one. I'm almost certain that there's been no explicit mention of their religion. At the end of an episode of Numb3rs whose plot revolved around a painting stolen by the Nazis from a Jewish family, Alan (the father) was telling Charlie and Don (the sons) about relatives who died during the Holocaust. I got the distinct impression that this was the first time they had discussed the matter; I think Alan may have said so, that it was too painful to discuss. I can't remember if there's been anything else that might have hinted at their religion. Jewish or not Jewish? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 17:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
    • And as we have been told many times, not only Jews were the victims of the Holocaust. Maybe the Eppes are a gay or gypsy or ethnic Russian family, groups targeted for genocide by the Nazis. This is just "Holocaust theology" gone wrong, then. IZAK 04:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
      • No need to get your panties in a knot. I was just describing the only thing I can remember in the show that suggested that they might be Jewish. Three Jewish actors sitting around talking about relatives who died in the Holocaust; maybe that's why somebody put them in the category. If it bothers you so much, remove them from the category. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Hi Malik: Nothing is in my panties at all cause I don't wear 'em. But my concern is that this has now become a fairly well-populated category and any time anyone thinks that they have "spotted" a Jewish fictional character they put him/her/it into Category:Fictional Jews, so that perhaps the time has come to impose a little more discipline into this phenomon and that it not be abused for any reason in any way. Maybe some people may find something about a character being called Jewish as offensive, and while creators of characters can do things to get attention and increase ticket sales and viewership, here at Wikipedia, editors and users are expected to use more caution in the process of compiling a serious encyclopedia. The reason I have listed these names here, is precisely for the reasons I gave about Batwoman above, that I am not an expert in all and sundry fictional characters and only people who have watched them in movies and TV or read about them can really help to make the final decision/s if the Category:Fictional Jews has been appropriately applied or if it has been to loosely used and even abused. Thanks, IZAK 05:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry for my tone. I understand. I wasn't trying to say that they are Jews, just suggesting why somebody might have put them in the category. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 06:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Filburt is a fictional Jew?
• Doris Finsecker (doesn't mention anything about fictional Jewishness or otherwise)
• Flacco is a fictional Jew?
• Nat Ginzburg (does he admit to being Jewish?)
• Jeremy Goldstein (what is his fictional Jewishness like?)
• Nora Hanen (is she definitely a fictional Jew?}
• Eugene Horowitz (but where does it say in the article that he's "Jewish"?)
• Jim Levenstein (ditto)
  • It doesn't mention it in the article, but American Wedding does say he is Jewish (which I'm surprised wasn't added into the article). --Ghostexorcist 10:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
    • So is it not the responsibility of the article's creator to make this connection and insert it into the article? IZAK 05:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Rachel Kominski (what makes her Jewish?)
• Nora Lewin (no mention of being a Jewish character)
• Josh Lyman (is he mentioned as being Jewish?) - In the character description. --Ghostexorcist 10:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Julie Mayer (Jewish bio info needed)
• Karl Mayer (ditto)
• Queer Duck (a fictional Jew?) - It says he is Jewish in the article. --Ghostexorcist 10:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for looking into this. I didn't see it. IZAK 10:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Yetta Rosenberg (no mention of her Jewishness)
• Adam Schiff (Law & Order) (ditto)
  • A classic Jewish New Yorker, practically a stereotype, but I don't know if his religion was ever explicitly mentioned. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 17:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Hmm, what is a "classic Jewish New Yorker" nowadays? This is thin ice to tread on. Is Mayor Mike Bloomberg also a "classic Jewish New Yorker"? He's actually from Boston, so does that make him a "classic Jewish Bostonian" too? In any any, how can a Wikipedia encyclopedia category be based on a prejudiced POV stereotype? Doesn't that go against many of Wikipedia's core principles and the way it functions? Unless someone can come up with a statement from one of the series' creators or actors or from a reliable (respectable?) review in the media, categorization based on such flimsy and biased views should not part of encyclopedia articles. IZAK 05:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC) IZAK 05:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I didn't say that the article should be based on a stereotype, I was just describing the character. A Jewish actor portraying a character who seems Jewish, it's not hard to understand why somebody put him in the category. Again, if it bothers you so much, remove him from the category. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, what does being a Jewish actor have to do with being a fictional Jewish character? Do you know that supposedly three quaters of Hollywood's actors are "Jewish actors" see Category:Jewish actors, but that is never connected with anything Jewish. Many antisemitic movies have been made with non-Jews playing the roles of Jews, so what does that prove?, that there are no such animals as "typical Jewish actors"! Also there is a big difference between "seeming Jewish" and being Jewish -- and here we have some examples of how innuendo bordering on "poetic license" masquerades as "fact" because either someone is Jewish or they are not, and there can be a debate about definitions and criteria, but at no time can there be an assumption or statement, and in this case a categorizarion, based on something "seeming" to be what it may or may not be. And again, the reason I placed these names here is because I do not know enough about what these characters are all about, but what I can tell, is that many of them have been placed into Category:Fictional Jews without the article carrying some sort of information about this. IZAK 06:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
          • (1) Again, I'm not saying that the character is Jewish, I'm just suggesting why somebody might think so. (2) I know that neither this blog nor this book review are WP:RS, but evidently quite a few people think Adam Schiff is Jewish. I also found mentions on BBS's and fan sites, but nothing reliable. Yet. (The search is complicated by the fact that actor Steven Hill is an Orthodox Jew, so "Adam Schiff" and Jewish gets a lot of hits.) The fact that his character left the show to work for a Holocaust foundation (I know, I know) doesn't help matters. I'll keep digging. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 06:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Arthur Spooner (really a Jew?)
• The Stoppables (Jewish?) - Same. --Ghostexorcist 10:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, thanks. IZAK 10:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Unfabulous (are all these kids Jewish?)
• Kevin Walker (Brothers & Sisters) (is a Jew?)
• Justin Walker (ditto)
• Kitty Walker (what about her?, she's part of this family, no mention of Jewishness in the article)
• Thomas Walker (Brothers & Sisters) (if these guys are all Jewish, somewhere it must say so)
• Nora Walker (same problem, no mention in article of Jewishness)
• Sarah Whedon (Jewish in article?)
• Michele Weinberger (where does it mention her Jewishness?) - character's info box. --Ghostexorcist 10:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Eli Zabitz (no mention of fictional Jewishness)

Please look these over and if you can confirm the "fictional Jewishness" of any of these characters, place a <u> </u> through them (and enter it into the body of the article somehow.) Thank you, IZAK 10:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Question. Does the category limit entries to only those of Jewish religious belief, or does it also include "ethnic" Jews? It may be that some of the characters are the latter, but not the former. If it is limited only to "religious" views, having some sort of comment at the top of the category stating that might not be a bad idea. John Carter 17:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Is Baby Bear (Sesame Street) ethnically Ashkenazic or Sephardic? --Shirahadasha 19:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ashkenaz. His original family name is Baer, after his Polish grandfather whose full Hebrew name was Yissachar Dov Ber. JFW | T@lk 20:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, uh, um, uh...er...OK...I'll say it...er, uh, have you got a reliable source? --Shirahadasha 01:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

In answer to "Question. Does the category limit entries to only those of Jewish religious belief, or does it also include "ethnic" Jews?" perhaps, in this case of "fictional Jews" we can assume that even the merest hint of being "Jewish" or having a Jewish sounding name or "looking Jewish" or "doing something Jewish", like saying Kadish or cursing in Yiddish, seems to magically turn any cartoon character, sitcom and soap-opera derelict, or movie character into being what their creators and by extension the audience "make believe" into a "Jew/ess" glaring at you onscreen. So Perhaps, getting down to a "solution" and "answer" to the question, if there can even be the intelligent thought of one, is to ask that strict guidelines must be imposed for determining Who is a fictional Jew?, or even better, What is a fictional Jew?, (as in the real life question of Who is a Jew?) or do we simply let the whole thing go, and just says that when it comes to fictional Jews, there are "no rules" and anyone can make up anything that is remotely connected to being a Jew or Jewish in reality that either does or does not get the agreement of most of the world's six billion or so people who do not have the foggiest notion of what a Jew is or is not, and that when it comes to Category:Fictional Jews it is governed by WP:Ignore all rules. How crazy (or "normal") is that? IZAK 04:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously we rarely have a full fictional background to every character (we can't check a fictional ketuba). As viewers (or readers) we have to deal with a relatively small amount of information about the characters. I think that when the author the work gives a strong indication that the character is Jewish, without any indication that he is not Jewish, I think that enough to be a fictional Jew. Saying Kadish is enough - saying Yiddish is not. Looking "Jewish" is not enough, wearing a kipa is. Having a Jewish name is not enough, having the title rabbi is. Also if character is explicitly portrayed as Jewish, even if he does not fit the definition of "who is a Jew?" he is still a fictional Jew (Because the author was clearly trying to portray a Jew). Jon513 09:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jon513: Too many "ifs" and too many grey zones. You are knowledgeable about Judaism so you are able to make some decent distinctions, but if one looks at all the doubtful "fictional Jews" here, one would be hard-pressed to come up with any "definitive" answer to say who is and who is not fictionally Jewish. IZAK 10:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Just one opinion here. There will be several cases in which a character, even a significant character, is never explored to any great degree. Major supporting characters on TV comedies come to mind. In cases like that, I would think that if one or more of the comparatively few "big scenes" a character gets is seemingly indicative of the character being a Jew, such as having the character wear a kipa, then that would be sufficient basis to say that character is Jewish, with perhaps a note to the effect of "seen as wearing a kipa", as the writers seem to be going out of their way to establish the idea. If the character is of apparently or explicitly Jewish descent or partial descent, I would include them as well until and unless different lists for ethnic and religious Jews are developed. And, of course, unless/until different lists for religious and ethnic/secular Jews are developed, anyone seen as practicing Judaism would qualify for inclusion. I think the same basic standards are applied for fictional characters of other creeds as well. John Carter 14:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, for my two cents, if characters like Max Bialystock & Leo Bloom aren't verifiably Jewish, then the Lubavitcher Rebbe isn't verifiably Jewish either.

Which reminds me off topic; I saw a guy with a tattoo eating in a nonkosher pizza place yesterday; the thing is, he was wearing a yarmulke. I can't explain. Gzuckier 16:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This appears, unless I'm completely off-base, to be an extension of some editors' pathological obsession with classifying everyone with one ancestral Jewish hair (where's Cookie Monster? Everyone KNOWS Jews (well at least the Ashkenazim among you) are obsessed with the consumption of sugar, so surely Cookie Monster is Jewish. [After all, everyone knows Jews live in trash cans, if I remember my Sesame Street correctly.] El tiempo ha venido para destruir cada lista de judíos, las listas de los judíos vivientes, igual como las de judíos imaginarios. Tomer^talk 08:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

What is "Isra'iliyat Salaf"?

Hello: Is there any article or information that explains what an "Isra'iliyat Salaf" is so that Category:Isra'iliyat Salaf makes sense to those who have no idea what it means and can be "in on the secret", and why the articles that are in it are there? Thank you. IZAK 06:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see Isra'iliyat and Salaf. --Shuki 06:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but why is there no explanation, and no direction to search individaul words? Who knows if they mean the same thing in combination? For example, if one were to look up Nationalism and then Socialism could one ever dream that one result could be Nazism (meaning "National Socialism")? Same thing here, you have to be an expert Arabic linguist and an impartial Islamic scholar to know if the term "Isra'iliyat Salaf" comes out right and not as a distorted form of a combination of two separate words. I hope you see what I mean. IZAK 07:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism in not "Jewish" outreach

Why did Yidisheryid (talk · contribs) first include Messianic Judaism into Jewish outreach [4] with the self-justification: "added 4th group of jews who claim that they are jews and do outreach as their main mision as a jewish caouse." (If I claim that I am a millionare, does that make me into one? Saying something does not make it so), and then delete it? He did the same at {{JewishOutreach}}, adding Messianic Judaism [5] and then deleting it. What does this mean? It would be totally outrageous to claim that by converting a Jew to Christianity that it's a type of formal "Jewish outreach" in any way shape size or form. IZAK 07:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that he realized that he made a mistake. Jon513 09:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. The jury is out... IZAK 10:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It should be made clear that this discussion was raised by a user more then 24 hours after this edit was reverted. Disrupting wikipedia requires sometimes more then 10 days blockage.--יודל 13:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Pointing out that another person is potentially disrupting Wikipedia, as, for example, by erroneously calling Messianic Judaism a form of Jewish outreach, does not constitute disruption in and of itself. Your edit clearly, and with good reason, I daresay, is cause for the raising of eyebrows. The rationale you used for removing Messianic Judaism, in fact, has nothing to do with reality (in fact many Christians do regard Messianic Judaism as "genuine" Judaism, "purer than rabbinic Judaism", also Messianic "Judaism" does not engage in outreach, its largest bodies of followers engage in subterfuge and deception--something a great many of their detractors, a great Christians included, have condemned) nor is it relevant to the subject of Jewish outreach, since whether or not Christians consider Messianic Jews to be following Judaism has nothing to do with whether or not it should be included in "Jewish outreach". If you insist on "more then [sic] 10 days blockage", I'll be happy to oblige, if you really want to be blocked that long. Otherwise, I recommend hard cheeses. Tomer^talk 15:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted my edit in less then 15 minutes with the exect same wording, then all of you to use this against me is showing who is really disrupting wikiupedia. and i do not believe a blockage after arbitration or a blockage for 24 hours from an admin does compare. I ask you all to consider that just like reform call themselves Jews i thought the Mesianics call themselves Jews, i was mistaken and i was very open about it to use my mistake long after i corrected myself, to prove some point is disrupting wikipedia by all means. and if ten days does not do the magic we can use longer terms, i was blocked for 24 hours and right away felt that i was wrong i was proud to see my disruption in a matter of minutes and i do not believe i should have been blocked more then 2 hours.--יודל 15:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Were you blocked at all for this incident?
2. In most cases, the Reform are Jews, regardless of their complete disdain of being bound by halakha.
3. The vast majority of those who associate themselves with "Messianic Judaism" are not, by their own admission, Jews.
4. You were right to remove the link, just as you were wrong to put it there in the first place... where the problem comes in, however, is in two areas, and this is what led to what you erroneously imagined gave you grounds to raise a charge of disruption:
   1. Your stated rationales, both for inclusion, and then for removal were irrelevant and incorrect.
   2. More significantly, you have a record of disruption in precisely this area of interest and in this manner of editing.
5. Nothing about IZAK's raising the question about these edits constitutes disruption...all he did was to raise awareness that your old editing habits have not been fully remedied.
6. If you are seriously forwarding the ludicrous notion that IZAK should be sanctioned with "more then [sic] 10 days [sic] blockage", I submit to you that you clearly do not understand why you have been blocked previously, and that it's not unlikely that you will find yourself in that condition again.
7. The word "then" is a temporal adverb. In almost every case where you use it, the word you're looking for is "than". Please purchase and make use of a better English dictionary.

Thank you, Tomer^talk 21:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Not yet, but that does not say that i should not take notice when this effort is happening.
2. I agree and thats why it took me 15 minutes to get this point that although allot of Reform aren't Jews we still consider them Jews becaouse as you say they are indeed mostly Jews.
3. Yes indeed and that was intially my mistake i thought that Messianics are indeed mostly Jews, and i cam to recognize that 15 minutes learning can change life long perceptions.
4. I will not address the Disruption charge since i do not want to attack nobody, my case is made very clear, and never will i or did i want somebody blocked.
   1. I believe they are and were indeed very relevant and correct.
   2. My Blockage was due to disrupting wikipedia, i don't believe, i should have been blocked 24 hours since i identified my mistake within 2 hours, it was 3 users decisions out of a whole bunch who commented there, so it was far as a consensus reached decision, i learnt my lesson, and if somebody finds where i was guilty again of this i will b3e the first one to block myself.
5. Not been fully remedied is a matter of opinion other users have expressed to Izak that i have indeed learned and changed my old bad habit look at the second comment that was not from me.
6. i do fully understand why i was blocked and at that same token i fully understand why others were blocked for 10 days.
7. I will purchase whatever you like. Thanks for the kind comment--יודל 22:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Missing and stub articles - Help, please?

The following articles related to Jewish biblical interpretation appear to be missing or severely incomplete. Can anyone help me find more complete articles?

• Sadia Gaon
  • -> Saadia Gaon Jheald 14:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC) Thanks. Egfrank 15:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Mikraot Gedolot - says next to nothing about modern critical editions (e.g. Torat Hayim, Rav Kook Press) and doesn't even bother to list the commentators included in either traditinal or modern critical Mikraot Gedolot.
• Perush - the closest I can find is Pesher and Perushim. Neither article has much to do with the general topic of medieval and modern Jewish biblical exegesis. Pesher seems focused second temple period exegesis and says nothing about medieval exegesis. Perushim describes a group of followers of the Vilna Gaon.
• Peshat and Drash - this is a key concept in Jewish exegisis and the subject of much debate up to the present day, yet Peshat is nothing more than a stub and Drash simply leads back to Midrash.

Thanks in advance, Egfrank 10:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, there certainly are big gaps. Not sure what you've seen. For instance, there's Pardes (Jewish exegesis) and Rabbinical literature (aka Jewish Biblical exegesis). Hopefully, some better nuggets out there. Otherwise, happy gap-filling (so to speak). HG | Talk 23:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirects needed for names of medieval rabbis?

While trying to wikify a list of medieval biblical commentators I noticed that the names seem to be using an inconsistant transliteration strategy. Often the first name is Anglicized and the remaining use a sephardic or traditional transliteration: e.g. Abraham Ibn Ezra rather than Avraham Ibn Ezra. Might we want to consider redirects for a variety of translations (and if so, which ones?) - it might help avoid unnecessary red links. Egfrank 10:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

IMO, at the very least any variation that's in the Jewish Encyclopedia (1906) (nb the JE project list), Encyclopedia Judaica (1972), Britannica (1911 or current), or gets a substantial number of hits on Google should get a #redirect .

Where names have traditional Anglicisations - eg Abraham, Judah, etc. - those should be the principal article titles, especially when they are the forms found in the references above. Jheald 14:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Varieties of Hebrew

See related subject Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English - for handling differences between American and British English, and other national varieties.

Hi Jheald: Your concerns do not have an "absolute" conclusion, because the issue you raise goes back to what "brand" of Hebrew pronounciation should be used in articles with Hebrew titles or names in them. There are users who would perfer only "pure" English names (e.g. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and not Avraham Yitzchak Yaakov [with variations, such as Abram, Izaak, Jakob Avrohom, Yitschok, Yaacov]) and then there is the debate between those who want to use current English versus scholarly English (Hasidism vs. hasidism) and they vs. those who use words based on modern Israeli Hebrew (Beth din vs. Bet or Beit din) or the debate between Sefardi usage vs Ashkenazi usage and the Ashkenazi usage is further split when editors insist on writing the name of Jewish subjects "as they call themselves" such as "Avrohom, Yitzchok, Yaakov, Moishe, Aharon, [Aaron or Aron], Yoel", and so on. The core debate is unresolved and seems will remain so, see the old discussions about Hebrew usage at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Hebrew) (with its three archives of discussion about the very issues you raise: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Hebrew)/Archive 1; Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Hebrew)/Archive 2; Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Hebrew)/Archive 3. I guess at the end of the day, because Wikipedia editors come from so may reliable backgrounds with authentic traditions then all must be given credence and ultimately there should be a context for any usage, so that it would not make sense to apply Hasidic usage to modern Israeli Hebrew or to force archaic scholarly Hebrew on Sefardic usage, or to use Israeli Hebrew transliterations for Haredi Judaism topics where the editors and authors have generally followed one convention (presumably the one they were taught in established schools). This also takes us back to Wikipedia's generally accepted rule/s about English usage that both American English and British English usage are legitimate and should not be corrected or modified in articles when one style has been more or less applied, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English:

"The English Wikipedia has no general preference for a major national variety of the language; none is more correct than the others, and users are asked to take into account that the differences between the varieties are superficial. Cultural clashes over spelling and grammar are avoided by using four simple guidelines.

Consistency within articles

Each article consistently uses the same conventions of spelling and grammar (e.g., British, Canadian); for example, center and centre are not to be used in the same article. The exceptions are:

• quotations (the original variety is retained);
• titles (the original spelling is used, for example United States Department of Defense and Australian Defence Force); and
• explicit comparisons of varieties of English.

Strong national ties to a topic

An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation. For example:

• American Civil War—(American English)
• Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings—(British English)
• Australian Defence Force—(Australian English)
• European Union institutions—(British English)
• Montreal—(Canadian English)

Retaining the existing variety

If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic. In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic. Where an article that is not a stub shows no signs of which variety it is written in, the first person to make an edit that disambiguates the variety is equivalent to the first major contributor.

Opportunities for commonality

Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English.

• In choosing words or expressions, especially for article titles, there may be value in making choices that avoid varying spellings, where possible. In extreme cases of conflicting names, a common substitute (such as fixed-wing aircraft) is favored over national varieties (fixed-wing aeroplanes [British English], and fixed-wing airplanes [American English]).
• If a variable spelling appears in an article name, redirect pages are made to accommodate the other variants, as with Artefact and Artifact, so that they can always be found in searches and linked to from either spelling.
• Sensitivity to terms that may be used differently between different varieties of English allows for wider readability; this may include glossing terms and providing alternate terms where confusion may arise. Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve well the purposes of an international encyclopedia.

Articles such as English plural and American and British English differences provide information on the differences between the major varieties of the language."

Thank you, IZAK 03:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Varieties of Yiddish dialects

Main article: Yiddish dialects

The same problems relating to finding a "standardized form" of Hebrew/Yiddish can be found enumerated and discussed at Yiddish dialects as it impacts on the above discussions. Thank you, IZAK 07:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Practical implications

Thank you, IZAK for explaining the complexity of the problem. The situation gets even worse if one adds in multiple systems of transliteration for sephardic pronounciation and traditional academic transliterations (e.g. the german preference for J as a transliteration for yod). However, it still doesn't answer my question because we can't possibly put in redirects for all these possible variants.

The current situation leaves someone guessing at which of the 20 or so spellings is actually being used and makes wikifying a Jewish article very time consuming. I'm wondering if we can pick one (or two) transliteration standards and just make sure that those always lead to an article? Or if we have one, make the link to it more prominent. I don't think it matters if the standard names are merely redirects or the main article. I think the issue is having a consistent rule for guessing what will be a valid link.

One proposal:

• follow let the creator decide for the main title (as done for English, Yiddish)
• document a selected transliteration scheme in the manual of style
• make sure every topic has either a main title or redirect using one of the standard transliteration schemes for modern Israeli pronounciation so that there is a consistent way to guess at a working link request that any article that is named using a different scheme be given a redirect with the standardized transliteration.

Egfrank 07:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Egfrank: I cannot imagine it would be that simple. From my experience, the editors who make the greatest contributions will not follow such instructions and will continue contributing and redirecting based on their way of pronouncing Hebrew/Yiddish. So since in recent years there have been many Haredi and Hasidic editors who contributed a lot of material, they have always tended to resist and defy any standardization and indeed have turned the clock back when they see names such as "Joel ____" for a rabbi and they redirect to "Yoel ____" (some might even go so far as to call it "Yoil" as they have changed many a "Moshe" to "Moishe") -- but I am not criticizing them really, I am saying that one needs to come to terms that a manuel of style will never be acceptd by everyone as binding policy. They will fight it and undo what it says (that is if they even bother to read it), it is like tampering with their religious principles which is tied in with their belief in God. So you may as well be talking to God as far they are concerned, about changing and enforcing one or two styles. Same thing with Israeli editors, they will always object to a way of writing Hebrew words that does not match modern Hebrew transliterations and pronounciations. Myabe you can back off a little and focus on something else? IZAK 09:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

All very good and wise points... this isn't really a problem that can be overlooked. An article that can't be found might as well not exist. I think the answer lies in wikipedia's cooperative and evolutionary nature - sure Yossele MegaHassid may feel pretty strongly about his rav's pronounciation... but then we have Yaeli from Israel who comes along and adds the redirects Yossele couldn't bear to add himself. And presto we have some consistency - Yossele finds the article under the name his rav taught him. Yaeli and the rest of us find the article using the standard. As time progresses and more and more articles can be found using the standard name. But it all starts with a standard that Yaeli can use when she's feeling a bit wiki-gnomish. Egfrank 11:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Manual of Style

I've spent some time this morning expanding the discussion of WP:NPOV and articles involving biblical text in our project's manual of style. I've tried to take into account multiple interpretative traditions, but I think it would be a good thing if many voices from many streams of Judaism are involved in this expansion. Egfrank 10:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, see above. IZAK 03:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi - what part of above? - there's lots there! Egfrank 07:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, the parts above about "Varieties of Hebrew and Yiddish" because the language issues and differences are also based upon serious divides in the premises and the Weltanschaungs (I am afraid of the words "points of view" but they do apply) of all editors who invarioubly come at things from multiple positions. It is best not to try too hard to squeeze evrything and everyone into a "generic Hebrew" or "generic Judaism" on Wikipedia for the simple reason that no such thing exists in the real world, and such efforts are bound to fail as much as the efforts to introduce "Esperanto" as a "world language" fails to reflect the realities of the inherent differences to be found in the human condition.IZAK 09:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Abir (martial art)

I think this article is realy strange. Probably you should ask you if it's not a hoax, please take a loock on this link.--Kimdime69 20:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Kimdime: Thank you for bringing this up. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abir (martial art). Thank you, IZAK 12:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Midreshet lindenbaum speedily deleted?

I just happened to notice a bot which dewikified Midreshet lindenbaum because it had been speedily deleted. Isn't this a rather important study center for women? It is pretty well known in Israel among the women's yeshivot and has a number of references across Wikipedia. Anybody know anything about this delete? Egfrank 08:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• You are correct. It should not have been speed deleted. Let's take it up with the admin who did it, see User talk:Swatjester#Request you reintstate article. I found out who did it by clicking on Midreshet Lindenbaum (with a capital "L") and looking at the summary of what happened on that page (not the history page) and you can read for yourself who did it. Any WP:PROD (a quick deletion) can be contested, see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Contesting a proposed deletion, and Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Proposed deletions: "Articles deleted under this procedure (using the {{prod}} tag) may be undeleted, without further discussion, on a reasonable request. Any administrator can be asked to do this (or perform this action themselves)..." Thanks for noticing this. IZAK 09:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I undeleted it. This was probably a mistake; the administrator who deleted it was correct in noting that it neither asserted notability nor provided sources and hence was elegible for speedy deletion under WP:CSD A7. However, it appears that if people are willing to improve the article things will be left here. Best, ~~---

Weird original research on Nephilim

Since the Nephilim article falls under this project, I thought I might bring this to your attention. A new user recently started adding original research to the article:

From the main article (which I deleted)

“ It may be that the Elohim created the Nephlim by taking some semen from a male Anunnaki and using artificial insemination. And those genes still resurface occasionally in the homo sapiens population due to some interbreeding by various groups on the earth and this giantism remaining as recessive genes. ”

A snippet from the talk page (which I deleted because of it's forum-like quality)

“ It seems possible to me, that the Elohim may have stole some semen from the Anunnaki and used that to create the Nephilim so that they could live on the earth, as the pre-Olmec people did which they had transported to earth to mine gold for them. The pre-Olmecs out competing the Neanderthals by mating with everything they possibly could including monkeys, which led people to believe that mankind was descended from monkeys when they really mean that homo sapiens was a cross breed between these pre-Olmec super breeders, and Neanderthal Man. Neanderthal here before the arrival of the Elohim. ”

User: Rick S33555, who posted the info, claims this picture is scientific proof of an Elohim head on the moon (this is apparently a creature separate from the name of God). He also claims that there was a war between the Elohim and the Anunnaki with missiles! (see this edit) He further claims all of this info is backed up by scholarly papers written by people with PhD's, but never provides citations. Will somebody from here please join in on the discussion? --Ghostexorcist 12:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Draft him for Uncyclopedia. This sounds like a good satire piece. If there actually exists such a book we can leave it in the popular culture section but not in the main.Wolf2191 16:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)