Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism

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)

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)

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)

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?" ([1]) --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)

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".[2] 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)

Hello All. This is my first posting in awhile. I only want to add support for Egfrank in the efforts to explain the progressive project and the reason it exists. As for myself, I am motivated by the need to clarify, with accurate references, the historical perspectives of the classical Reformers - Israel Jacobson, et al: philosophy, theology, politics; why they matter and what they had to say. As for Orthodox criticisms included in the Reform page, I could offer so many negative quotes from the Reformers about the Orthodox that it could be a page of its own...but is there a point to it? In some ways comparing the orthodox mindset with that of the progressive is trying to contrast sawdust and sand. From a distance both might have similar characteristics, but they are fundamentally alien entities - in my opinion, anyway. The progressive movement offers 150 years of distinct Jewish thought, even if on this very page it is insinuated by users as being foreign to Judaism, which is hopefully offensive to the majority. Best wishes, A Sniper 18:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• I fully agree with User:Shirahadasha; User:Jon513 and User:JFW that splitting up Judaism projects based on the Jewish denominations has bever worked over the long run on Wikipedia because they tend to die out once the initiators leave or become less active, and they also seem to be avoided by those who may feel that they are being forced into a "domain" that is not free of a certain POV whereas the Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism, with over 200 members, is all inclusive, non-judgmental, and editors do not feel that they have to join or be pressured by any POV within the project or that any "higher-ups" of that project will over-ride them. IZAK 07:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Progressive Judaism isn't just a POV - it is an intellectual and organizational tradition within in Judaism. A significant and notable body of scholarly and academic material exists on this topic. The project was formed to make sure that the material relating to Progressive Judaism is accurately represented and reported upon within Wikipedia using the highest academic standards possible. This is quite different from a POV pushing exercise. The project takes no position on the ultimate truth of the progressive position or any other.

You have expressed a rather significant interest in the topic to date (or rather its non-existence). I invite you to become an active member of the project. You will be most welcome to express your views and sources. Kol tuv, Egfrank 07:44, 28 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)
            • On Friday's episode of Numb3rs, Charlie Eppes confirmed that he's Jewish. (His girlfriend is nervous about him meeting her father. "Is it because I'm Jewish?" "No, it's because you're not Indian.") I assume we can conclude that his brother and father are also Jewish. Is this something that should be mentioned in their articles? It clearly isn't an important factor in describing their characters. Any suggestions? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:41, 29 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 [3] 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 [4] 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)

• Hi again Egfrank: There is no "standard" because what you call "standard" may be a serious deviation from Judaism's traditions as someone's Rav may have correctly taught them. Orthodox editors will not buy into an "evolution" of naming of Hebrew names into Israeli ones, they will attack them and run in horror to either change them or complain. So far there has been a cease-fire, do not try to start a civil war here, PLEASE. The Israeli articles use Israeli sounding Hebrew transliteration. And articles about most Rabbis, Haredim and Hasidism will often incorporate their Hebrew/Yidish sounding names. There is no use fighting this. Try to work on fixing up articles according to your stated interests about Reform topics and adding information there before you contemplate getting other (Orthodox) editors backs up for no reason. I was not referring to redircts, they are minor issues, I was talking about how articles with Hebrew names get bounced around when names are changed by each set of editors coming from different points of view and then that leads to whole new sets of redirects that no-one, least of all the creators of the articles anticipated. For example, in my over four years on Wikipedia, I think the Baal Shem Tov has had his name changed at least five or more times in the article's lead name. This is a little too much and such behavior needs to be stabilized and the way one needs to do it, from my experience, is to allow for a variety of possible pronounciations and transliterations in topic headings from the get-go which would also take away the focus from trivial superficial activities like arguing over how to name the Jews on Wikipedia to actually filling articles and biographies with real content rather than quible if someone is to be named "Moses" or "Moshe" or "Mosheh" or "Moishe" or "Meishe" as an example in the name of an article heading. IZAK 14:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If you aren't talking about redirects then I think we are actually in agreement. I think a standard for the actual article names would be a bad idea, impossible to enforce, etc. for all the reasons you have stated above. And it is entirely unnecessary given the ability to create redirects. By "standard" I merely meant a goal for how we find articles. We ought to be able to say somewhere: "if you can't find what you are looking for, try using X transliteration system (see ...)".

Really, I'm only concerned with the problem of finding articles. Even the progressive articles need to reference rabbis of the mishnah, talmud, gaonic, and all later periods - we may understand our textual traditional differently but we all rely on the same sources. Kol tuv, Egfrank 16:01, 11 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 everything 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)

• Very poor Afd. Blogs are not reliable sources and certainly not as counter sources either. --Shuki 18:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I never said it was a source, just a way to awake skepticism.--Kimdime69 03:57, 12 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 the article that existed at the time of deletion 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, --Shirahadasha 17:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

Weirdness at Shalom...

Someone has added some of the most ridiculous sounding "etymology" I'v ever read at shalom#Etymology. Y'all might want to take a look... Tomer^talk 21:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You noticed the Shalim article too, right? John Carter 21:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The proliferation of nonsense seem to know no bounds. Tomer^talk 02:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any source for this but..

Genesis 14:8 "And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine; and he was priest of God the Most High."

Samuel David Luzzatto says he was a pagan (ומלכי צדק היה כהן לאל עליון שהיה אצלם גדול משאר אלוהות, כמו שהיה יופיטר אצל היונים והרומיים) and it may be that his city Shalem was named after his god shalim. Obviously this is all OR but it is a possibility. (BTW I didn't make those edits.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolf2191 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Luzzatto is of rather dubious respectability, on this subject, just as on most others. Chazal identify Melchizedek as Shem, certainly not a pagan (if he were, why would Avraham Avinu have accepted refreshments from him? why would he have given him a tenth of all he had? especially if, as Ramban says, it was a precursor to giving maaser to the Levim?)... Tomer^talk 03:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, the Melchizedek article is in serious need of work as well. It appears to have been heavily edited with a strongly Evangelical POV... Tomer^talk 03:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, Luzzatto's speculation is irrelevant to the subject at hand, namely, the etymology of the word "Shalom". Whether the name of Jerusalem might possibly have been derived from a Canaanite god whose name is a cognate (false cognate, I daresay) is of little importance in a discussion of the Hebrew word "shalom". Tomer^talk 04:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've gone and been bold and removed the entire section. In its present form it is beyond redemption. Tomer^talk 05:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, the text says explicitly Melchizedek was no pagan. It says what kind of priest he was kohen l'el elyon — היה כהן לאל עליון . Even Muslims would not interpret this as paganism, they'd say this was Allah. That's were I'd look for a source that would be accepted as NPOV, btw. ;) Alastair Haines 09:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

True enough, but there are those who say that that name for Hashem is an adoption of an older pagan idea of a "god of the highlands". When dealing with people who are bent on writing God out of the Bible, all sorts of weird ideas crop up and are immediately latched onto as "indisputable fact". Tomer^talk 02:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The generic name el precedes haShem's revelation to Moshe, but the tetragrammaton, as far as I know, is unique. The awful etymology that brough the word Jehovah into English, does have the redeeming feature that it distinguishes one and only one God, from the generic term god.

If contributors at Wiki provide unpublished speculations, it is right and proper to remove them. If they provide speculations that are published. We need to be contributing more solid evidence, so readers can see for themselves how speculative a particular point of view is. I'm keen to work hard to google decent sources, rather than censor people by deletion. It is hard work though! Give the readers all the facts, and the facts have a way of speaking for themselves. ;) Alastair Haines 03:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on the points you make, however I don't believe that removing a speculative etymology about the origin of the name of Jerusalem which really has no bearing on the origin of the word "shalom", constitutes "censorship". It's possible that the Ugaritic god Shalim's name was derived from the same root (I can imagine a flowery translation along the lines of "the fullness of the day" = "evening" => Shalim), but just because there was a Ugaritic god named Shalim or even a cognate Canaanite god "Shalom", whose name is speculated to have been the name adopted for the city Melkhitzedheq called home, does not have any bearing on the origin of the Hebrew word "shalom", any more than the German word de:Wand ("wall") has anything to do with the origin of the English word "wand", or German de:Sinn ("sense") has anything to do with the origin of English "sin". Tomer^talk 05:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

First, I find it offensive that you refer to Luzzatto as of "dubious" respectability. He was one of the foremost scholars of 19th century Wissenschaft. His "respectability" is evidenced by the recent conference in honour of his bicentennial including a memorial volume printed by Magnes. Sencond, I see no reason to believe that MalkiTsedek was not a henothist (See [5] that "it is generally uncontroversial that many of the Iron Age religions found in the land of Israel were henotheistic in practice.") It is unclear (in Chazal as well) whether Abraham gave or recieved the tithe.

The linguistic relationshp between Ugaritic and Hebrew is widely accepted. The German word Vant (as it is pronounced) indeed has no relationship to the English Wand, as the German Zinn has nothing to do with the English Sin but then the pronounciations are markedly different. In any event, I did not add the section and I agree with its removal but I dislike the way in which you phrased your disagreement. הוי מתונים בדיןWolf2191 17:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Why should you find it offensive that I regard Luzzatto as of dubious respectability, especially with respect to this subject? Unless you are Luzzatto yourself, I think you're internalizing my remark in a way that is, frankly, inappropriate. As to whether or not Melchizedek was or was not a henotheist, that kind of speculation is interesting perhaps, but completely irrelevant to the subject at hand (to wit, the etymology of the word "shalom").

Thanks for letting me know all about the pronunciation of German. The German word "Zinn", you are correct, has nothing to do with the English word "sin", but then again I was talking about the German word "Sinn", not "Zinn", which is something else entirely (and also unrelated). My point was just because something looks like a cognate doesn't always mean it is. Tomer^talk 21:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, a notable source. From Encyclopedia Judaica (2007): " It seems that the original name was Irusalem, and the meaning of the two words composing it is "to found" ("yarah") and the name of the West Semitic god Shulmanu, or Shalim. The god may have been considered the patron of the city, which had contained a sanctuary in his honor. The popular later midrashic explanation of the name Jerusalem as "foundation of peace (shalom)" is associated with the poetic appellations given to the city."Wolf2191 17:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Still no definitive connection between Shalim (or Shulmanu) and the word "shalom". And still no concrete connection between the origin of the name for Jerusalem and the etymology of "shalom". Not even from Luzzatto. Tomer^talk 21:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Relationships between Jewish religious movements

There are currently several articles including the above, Jewish denominations, Schisms among the Jews, and criticism sections in each denominational article that address theological differences and organizational antagonisms in a somewhat scattered and overlapping way. Given this, I have come ot agree with others who have suggested that perhaps this material might better be consolidated into one article with only brief summaries or links in the others. Best,--Shirahadasha 03:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I am in favour of a merge. Most of them are POV vehicles of contributors who have long departed from Wikipedia (e.g. the famous RK). I think this can all be captured in one article, and I hereby nominate Shirahadasha to merge them all. Heh. JFW | T@lk 16:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

In principle, it sounds like a useful idea. However, there's a real risk that this would simply be a magnet for every editors' impressions about current movement relationships. Instead, it should be grounded on terminology -- started with an article title -- and analysis drawn from high quality sources, preferably with a structure from academic studies of the movements. My guess is that we would end up with one main article about Orthodoxy's relations with the non-Orthodox (aka "liberal") movements, and then remaining content within each movement (e.g., Conservative re: Reconstructionist, etc.). The main article might begin with the dual emergence of Orthodoxy and Reform in the late 18th Century, a big piece on 19th C Europe, and then sections such as what you all want on the subsequent American scene. Thanks. HG | Talk 18:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently working through Michael Meyer's book on the history of modern Jewish reform movements (Response to Modernity) and will be moving onto other sources when I finish that one. I think we can find ample material on this matter to avoid a set of opinion pieces. Egfrank 18:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

On reflection, I believe it would be useful to distinguish discussion of differences in ideas -- that, each side's intellectual POV about the other -- from discussion of behavior. The first topic is a topic in Judaism; the second, a topic in Jewish history. Integrating the two as the only presentation would create a result that might be a little bit like integrating discussion of the history of Richard Dawkins's social snafus with discussion of his ideas on the evolution or the atheism articles. Whether one thinks Richard Dawkins a nice person or not isn't necessarily relevant to whether his ideas are worth consideration; combining the two could be considered a original research synthesis. Clearly, atheists' intellectual critique of theism and vice versa is not the same subject as the history of the relationship between theists and atheists. Same here. Best. --Shirahadasha 23:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

There are many contemporary representations of Orthodox perspectives that would serve as reliable sources. It seems to me that we are, ultimately, reporting opinions. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Gee, you're sounding a bit cynical here. Besides Meyer, there's of course Jacob Katz and many others in various disciplines (Feiner, Ferziger, Ellenson, Bacon, Heilman, etc etc). I think they cover both arenas (history of relationship, intellectual/religious critique) without relying on WP editors to give their opinions of the primary sources. Cheer up! HG | Talk 00:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC) (oops, marcheshvan, what was I think?!)

Bible

A proposal has been made on Talk:Bible to split the current Bible article into two separate articles, Hebrew Bible and Christian Bible, with Bible becoming a redirect to Bible (disambiguation). Best, --Shirahadasha 05:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion has proceeded and proposals have been made to restructure and rewrite the Bible article. Please provide input into this discussion at Talk:Bible. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe someone can help

The scholar and gentleman Steven Goldberg of New York was generous enough to reply to an email I sent and to provide me with a portrait to put up at Wiki. Unfortunately, I didn't think to get him to sign a Gnu License in triplicate, witnessed by a JP, and delivered by registered mail, so naturally the image was removed for fear of breaking copyright.

I'm a little shy of troubling Professor Goldberg again. But I was just wondering if a long shot might work. Perhaps someone in this project has some family or social contact with the good Professor. Please drop a note at my user page if you can help. If I don't hear from anyone in a few weeks I'll shoot off the email anyway. Shalom. Alastair Haines 21:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't need it to be witness in triplicate (I assume that was a joke). Read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. The main thing is to make sure that he understand what an open license means and that he owns the copyright (the person who took the picture - not the person who the picture is of - owns the copyright). He must understand that not only can wikipedia use it, but anyone can use it for any reason also, even sell it and even modify it. Simple forward your letters (both the request and the answer - preferable together) to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org" where it is archived. If your question and answer are already clear ( he know that permission means that 1. Modification, 2. Redistribution, 3. Use for any purpose, including commercial purposes) and he says he owns the copyright you can simple forward the emails to wikipedia now. Otherwise you have to email him again. If you need help on how to phrase it read Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. Jon513 22:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Stations list

This article is identified as under the aegis of this project so I thought I'd bring its current condition to the your attention. There has been a big-time POV push there, and it badly needs a large platoon of sensible editors to drag it back to a reasonable state. Something tells me the editor responsible for the POV push is loaded for bear should it come to an edit war. For example, he recently called a {{unreferenced}} tag vandalism. (The tag was perfectly reasonable despite the large number of "references" given; all of them are either of dubious relevance to the controversial claims or unreliable.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

In what way are the edits by Rktect (talk · contribs) controversial? The {{unreferenced}} tag was added by a different editor on 7 June 2007 by another editor (diff), at the time when the article had no sources (as was the habit of its creator, FDuffy (talk · contribs)).

I see Rktect has been adding to the talkpage, so he may be amenable to discussion. I suggest you start by chipping away at the things that are demonstrably wrong. If Rktect reverts with no good reason, the article may need to get protected until you can discuss the problems sensibly on the talkpage without an edit war getting in the way.

Let us know how it goes. JFW | T@lk 09:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to cite one instance -- Locating Ramesses at Thebes isn't controversial? I guess not; it's just plain wrong, and no one but Rktect himself would argue for it. (The consensus location is the archaeological site of Pi-Rameses.) Ditto with the rest of this, including his definite location of the Crossing of the Red Sea at the Gulf of Aqaba. There is no "chipping away" at this; he's constructed a thoroughly integrated fantasy version of the scholarly consensus on the subject that either needs to be be rewritten wholesale or not at all, including an entire array of related fantasy articles such as Red Sea - Exodus station. I've been at Wikipedia long enough to smell edit wars before they happen -- religious fanaticism is a sure harbinger of one -- and I have too much on my plate to deal with one at the moment. I was hoping, as this project had laid claim to the article, that there'd be at least several people here who cared enough to do something about it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have the expertise to address the factual problems. If you think articles are truly "fantasy", send them to AFD. They will then get the treatment that they deserve. If you have compelling evidence that the Rktect version of stations list is original research, replace it by something better, while simultaneously conducting dialogue with Rktect on the talk page (Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle). If your arguments go unanswered or an edit war erupts, we can always get the article locked.

You are certainly entitled to our help, but being relatively incognisant of the "weird theories" that must be "out there" I will need more information on the problems you describe. JFW | T@lk 00:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Do we need a "Rav" article as well as a "Rabbi article?

We already have a Rabbi article and a Rebbe article, and even a Tzadik article, but do we need a Rav article that is really a linguistic duplication of everything that could fit into the main Rabbi article. What are your views? Discussion at Talk:Rav#Rav means Rabbi in Hebrew. Thank you, IZAK 10:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Two articles in need of expertise

1. The newly created Jews and Judaism in Thailand could use work. I should know—I created it.
2. Jews of San Nicandro has a lot of commented out text (mostly stuff I dumped in there in case the articles I was reading should be deleted before their information could be incorporated into the text)...but also the Hebrew WP article on this community contains images and information that should be incorporated into the English WP article.

(Just in case anyone's looking for something to do... Tomer^talk 10:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC) )

Attn required in article on antisemitic website

Input is needed on the article Dalit Voice. Users whitewashing the antisemitic website want to remove the cat Category:Antisemitic publications from the article. Specifically, conflict exists between this version [6] and this version[7]. A glance at the talk page shows a propensity of the article to attract fanatics, so extra pairs of eyes would serve the article well. Yitzhak Hudas 11:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

My edits are the ones that the above user is talking about. I believe that this user is a sockpuppet of the prolific sockpuppeteer User:Hkelkar. I take strong exception to the accusation of "whitewashing", which has no place in Wikipedia. I first came across this article through participation in the Wikification WikiProject. I'm no expert on Indian politics but it's clear that the publication it deals with is associated with some extreme-minority points of view, some of which are to my reading antisemitic. That's only my reading though, and the article needs to follow WP policies and just describe the views of the publication in neutral terms, quoting only reliable sources. It would indeed be very good to get more editors involved, which is why I just tagged it for an expert in Indian politics. Since there is also a dimension of antisemitism, I'm going to leave a message on the Antisemitism talk page too. I'm losing patience in edit-warring over the article and certainly have no wish to WP:Own it. Itsmejudith 11:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh and of course I am emphatically NOT involved with whitewashing the page on antisemitism. Itsmejudith 11:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Judith - any magazine that praises Hitler is almost by definition an anti-semitic publication - I really don't see how it could be otherwise. The minute one crosses the line from ideology to endorsement of subjugation or extermination campaigns and those who promote them(be it the extermination of Jews, Hutus or Darfurians), one has crossed the line from justice to hate. Best Egfrank 12:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

In the state I looked at it the article provides sufficient documentation that the publication is an anti-semitic one to justify the category. However, as long as things stay this way in the meanwhile, I don't see a problem with giving things a few days to see if an expert can be found to review the whole article. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The situation seems to have resolved itself - appropriate citations have been added and the categories Category:Antisemitic publications and category:Holocaust denial have been reintroduced. Egfrank 19:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Criteria for deleting rabbis

Please see the current AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein where the question of deleting the biographies of rabbis is being raised. Thank you, IZAK 17:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Application of Category:English Jews

I'm by no means an expert, so I may be missing some nuance of definition or application, but is there any good reason to include in the various Category:Jews categories people with non-Jewish mothers who don't identify as Jewish? (Much less having any notability in regard to Jewish identity or Judaism, or being a professing Jew, or anything that'd otherwise make it into the article, but-of-course.) It appears to me that such people are not, by self-definition, by Liberal/Reform definition, and by Orthodox definition, which happen to agree, in such cases -- how to categorise people for whom those criteria disagree, I'll leave for another day's work. There's some especially enthusiastic such tagging (and re-tagging...) going on at Natasha Kaplinsky and Sharon Osbourne, I can't help but notice. If someone would have a look, I'd be obliged. Alai 21:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Alai: You have hit the nail on the head on this subject and I agree with you. There is no end to the types of bickering -- and the potential for abuse and chaos -- that this kind of ill-conceived categorization brings up. The questions you raise have come up many times in the past, and suffice it to say that Wikipedia's criteria are not those of any known Jewish denomination, let alone Halacha. You will not find unanimity here nor anywhere about who should on a list or category of Jews on Wikipedia. In fact I have long proposed that such categories and lists should be abolished altogether, see User:IZAK/Deleting lists and categories of Jews. Thank you, IZAK 11:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Owch -- and here was me hoping against hope for a no-muss/no-fuss resolution. Oh well. (At least in these cases: swap around the father and mother, and of course there's immediately a conflict between the different definitions.) Wikipedia seems to have an absolute mania for ethnic/religious categories, often which correlate not at all with the content of the article text: personally I tend to get a "why am I being told this?" feeling when I read the regulation six such cats at the bottom of an article that hasn't even touched on the data then alluded to. Perhaps in this case, the editor in question is really looking for a Category:People of Jewish descent type of category -- or would that just be an even larger can of worms? Alai 06:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Messianism:New Covenant

I seem to be sparring pretty one-on-one with an anonymous editor over whether the Jewish Messianism article ought, on the point "Jews will [in the Messianic Age] know the Torah without study" include a reference and link to the New Covenant. Some other editors weighing in to help achieve a consensus would be appreciated. Savant1984 04:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for input: Notability of rabbis

Please see this at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Religious leaders: "There are sections listing criteria for politicians, athletes, entertainers, artists, but nothing geared toward measuring notability of religious leaders. The existing criteria fall short in that there are religious leaders who, by common sense, would seem notable by virtue of being the head/leader of a notable religious group, yet who would fail criteria such as "Commercial endorsements of demonstrably notable products". What criteria do others suggest for measuring notability of religious leaders, and do others agree with me that a section specifically addressing religious leaders is warranted? --MPerel 16:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)"

Agreed there, thank you, IZAK 11:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (religious figures) and join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (religious figures) on whether to have such a guideline and how to word it. Best, --Shirahadasha 13:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I just took a look at it - Shirahadashah, who made the decision that the proposal was rejected? Is this something that can be reopened? If so, what is the procedure? It seems to me there were entirely too few people involved in the discussion. At first glance the policy makes sense. Whether it should be folded into WP:BIO or stand alone is perhaps a separate question, but at the moment it exists in neither form.

The policy certainly fits my definition of who counts as religiously notable. The only small changes I would make have to do with the definitions of religious writings - I'm not sure as they stand they would include sources like midrash, targum, talmud, tosephta, medieval commentaries, folklore, or modern theological, philosophical, or middrashic reflection. Any mention or study of a figure in any of these sources would make the person notable in the eyes of Jews, even if never explicitly mentioned in the written Torah. So maybe I would replace "scripture" and "religious narrative" with "sources notable in the eyes of a religious community".

As for the objections on the talk page - I didn't understand them. Concordances and catelogs of saints and biblical figures regularly mention the names of figures who only appear once. And the number of saintly legends, folk tales, midrash, and literature that develop around figures mentioned once makes the claim that Uzzaiah should be excluded just because he is a minor biblical figure rather silly (just IMHO). The claim that policies should develop after the fact makes also little sense, especially when we have users like SwatJester running around and saying that no policy=no notability=ok to delete. Confused, Egfrank 14:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I see this tag has been added. Because I wrote the proposal, I don't think I can interfere here and I think you should talk with another administrator about how to proceed if you would like to rewrite and/or ressurrect it and proceed further. The individual who placed the tag was User:Kevin Murray, and you might want to drop him a note. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Shira, I am also concerned that the {{rejected}} template has been added to the Wikipedia:Notability (religious figures) page which makes it seems that this is already a closed subject when in fact the "opposition" here is actually cutting off legitimate debate and making it appear to be "illegitimate" hastily. I have put together a few opening remarks but I was afraid to post it until such time as we can get the {{rejected}} template removed so that discussion can progress freely for quite a time until there is broad consensus that the debate should close. This matter should be allowed to be brought to all the faith-based Wikiprojects and it should not be messed with by a couple of editors with a professed secular POV only. Thanks a lot for all your efforts! IZAK 17:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree with you Izak and am preparing a note for User:Kevin Murray's page. You are welcome to join me. I'm not as familiar with the administrator community - perhaps you can bring it up there? Egfrank 17:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Egfrank: Don't worry at all about admins, they are just ordinary Wikipedians who have access to a few more buttons. In fact an appeal from a sincere fresh User may hold more water than grumbles from me. But I will certainly follow up. Thanks again, IZAK 17:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added a somewhat lengthy note on User:Kevin Murray's talk page. I'd like to give him a chance to response before I appeal to an administrator. Yikes! I should have thought of that before I suggested we divide the contact effort! If you haven't yet contacted an administrator, you might want to wait too. It is always better when someone decides on their own to reverse something. Egfrank 20:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not doing anything about this till I hear more from you and others here, so do not worry. IZAK 21:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I already just removed the rejected tag before I even saw this. I felt it was premature and there was no consensus on anything because the discussion had barely even started. At any rate, let's discuss, invite interested parties, and come up with something. --MPerel 05:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Jewish history of Wales & N. Ireland needed

The series of articles on the History of the Jews in Europe is complete. All the European countries have articles, even if they are stubs for now. However there are still two more: History of the Jews in Wales and History of the Jews in Northern Ireland (see related articles History of the Jews in England and History of the Jews in Scotland) that are listed as countries in template {{|Europe topic|History of the Jews in}} that require someone to add information and start the article. If you are able to, your efforts would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, IZAK 13:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Bolshevism & The Jewish Bolshevism & Żydokomuna

Very troubling developments at Jewish Bolshevism & The Jewish Bolshevism & Żydokomuna. Why three articles about the same antisemitic and hateful subject? Maybe it's time to look into this a little deeper. Thank you, IZAK 17:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Bolshevism was a very odd article. Its opening is about an epithet and antisemitic booklet, but the article is also about (genuine) Jewish Bolsheviks. It used to have sections about Jewish revolutionary anti-Bolsheviks in the nascent Soviet Union and the Bund, but they were recently deleted.

Ludvikus, who is responsible for The Jewish Bolshevism and has been heavily involved with both that and Jewish Bolshevism, has a knack for creating multiple articles about the same subject. He has created a dozen or more articles about various editions of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. He's convinced that each and every one is extremely important. Take a look at Template:"The Protocols".

His heart is in the right place, but it's hard to reason with him. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 3#Category:Notable or notorious antisemites. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 20:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Malik, thanks for the info. Sounds weiiiiiiird! Twenty articles about editions of the Protocols as if it was the "Bible" or something...oh yeah it is the "Bible"...of the antisemites. This will need to be explored. Thanks again, IZAK 21:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Protocols of Zion (imprints). Thank you, IZAK 09:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jewish Bolshevism. Thanks, IZAK 10:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Did You Know... Siyum HaShas

The article Siyum HaShas had been expanded, and was selected for an imminent Did You Know... feature on the Wikipedia front page. Alansohn 17:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Bans on ritual slaughter edits by anon

There's an anon who's been editing Bans on ritual slaughter recently, and is trying to get more material about Jewish law into the article. The problem is that the anon doesn't understand Wikipedia, doesn't understand the formatting system, hasn't been able to figure out how to register a Wikipedia account, and doesn't write well. He'll make a dozen edits in a row and leave the article in a mess. Then someone adds a "cleanup" tag, then he gets reverted, and then he complains he's being mistreated. He even complains he's being censored by the anti-vandal bots; some of his edits were so turgid they were reverted by a bot. ("You retain erronous information, refuse edits from professionals in the field, and accuse people of being vandals based on automatic computer programs. Sort of a model for a nightmare totalitarian state.") I can barely figure out what he's trying to say. He seems to be wound up about some event in Bavaria around 1900 or so. If someone could give him some guidance, or get him hooked up with an appropriate Wikipedia project, he might become more productive, or more readable, or at least less annoying. See Talk:Bans on ritual slaughter for details. Thanks. --John Nagle 17:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Digging into legislative histories to make claims about why legislation was enacted would seem likely to be original research. --Shirahadasha 20:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi! The article seems to be riddled with information sourced form partisan websites of advocacy groups. The article listed "United States" in their "active bans" list and that content seemed to consist of an WP:ESSAY indicating why it should be banned in the United States. I believe the entire article requires re-writing. I expect there is a substantial amount of reliably sourced information opposing ritual slaughter, but the article seemed like a demonstration of WP:NOT#SOAP. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I've created a Request for comments on the article at Talk:Bans on ritual slaughter#Request for comments. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Who is a Jew?#Khazars

Please help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.193.233.66 (talk) 05:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Triennial Torah reading

Not much (anything) written about this in Torah reading or Parsha, although it is apparently a mainstay of Conservative Judaism.[8] Anyone else think it should have its own article including the origin/history and modern usage? Should it just be added into the existing articles? Kaisershatner 15:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC) See also:[9]. Am I just missing this info in the existing articles? Kaisershatner 15:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest starting with adding content to one of these articles with a brief mention and a link in the other. I would suggest creating a new article only if the amount of content and sourcing proves to be substantial. I understand Conservative Judaism is divided about its usage. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Triennial Torah reading has a lot of material. I don't have time to research a write up, but the basic outline includes:

• Ancient times: Alexandrian Jews (c. 300-700) I think had mixture of synagogues - some with one year and some with triennial cycles. For a lengthy and detailed discussion see either Elbogan or Idelsohn. I think some of the Eretz Israel Jewish communities were also on a three year cycle at that time, but I forget the details.
• Modern times: Progressive synagogues often go on a three year cycle - this lets them read through the portion in a leisurely way rather than the speed reading that is sometimes done by synagogues on a one year cycle. I don't know about conservative practice.

Kol tuv, Egfrank 22:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Triennial Torah reading I have heard is still pretty common in Sephardi communities. Tomer^talk 23:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

See this JE article. Tomer^talk 02:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Kaisershatner for taking this on. Tomer^talk 05:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hackjob underway at Bnei Menashe

Help would be appreciated. Tomer^talk 23:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Category merge?

What is the difference between Category:Medieval rabbis & Category:Rishonim? Both pages have a link at the top which goes to the same page. Surely these should be merged? Chesdovi 11:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Alexander Lukashenko‎

I am disturbed by the recent comments made by the President of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko‎. Chesdovi 15:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Climate_change_denial

I noticed that the article Climate_change_denial is quite oddly named. After reading the talk page it became clear that some people are actually trying to equate those who don't agree with global warming with Holocaust deniers. This offends me greatly, I think it is horrible that people could equate such horrors with the debate on global warming. Please contribute to the debate on the talk page whether you agree with me or not, so some sort of compromise can be reached. (A compromise I would like to see the article renamed, and a mention of media use of "Climate change denial" in the article.) 64.230.7.46 17:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There are those in the algor cult who actually believe the two are analogous. Tomer^talk 19:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Algor cult. LOL. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 20:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You're offend by the statement "Several commentators have compared climate change denial with holocaust denial,[8][17][18][19] whereas others have decried those comparisons as inappropriate.[20][21][22][23][24]". How is this offense? It seem pretty clear that this is true with it being well sourced (I think 9 footnotes are enough for anyone!). In any event this is well outside the scope of this wikiproject. Jon513 16:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, Jon, the objection raised, especially worded in the way it is, is incredibly germane to this WikiProject. Your interpretation of the objection certainly takes it outside the scope, but your interpretation is not germane to the objection, nor to this WikiProject. In other words, if I were a judge, I'd say "overruled" with respect to your remarks here on this subject. Tomer^talk 07:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

First, I'm afraid this is going to be one of those discussions that I earnestly believe can be mostly settled by a few simplifying remarks only to find those remarks expand and complicate the discussion, but here goes.

Let me begin by entreating the editor who began this section to help us all facilitate communication by registering a user name. I had a quite a time determining whether you had raised any of your concerns on the page in question as well as here, but eventually determined that you did, although that suggestion doesn't seem to be going anywhere there. There are ways of formally proposing a name change, which you may wish to pursue.

Although you may be offended by the fact that some people are trying to equate deniers of climate change with Holocaust deniers, the fact is that there are folks who do equate them and others who decry those comparisons as inappropriate. This seems well documented in the article and a fact worth documenting there.

If you are interested in improving Wikipedia by recommending changes to the article in question, please be as specific as possible regarding what changes you advocate. --Steven J. Anderson 11:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not very experienced with wikipedia, so I'm not quite sure of how to go about making a proposal of that magnitude. I've read a couple of the wikipedia articles but also noticed that the article has allready gone through some sort of vote. I'm afraid of breaking the rules by instituting a vote immediately after one was completed, so I decided to comment here so people who know more about wikipedia could make some sort of proposal (or however it works) without stepping on any toes. I also decided this would be a good place to comment to ensure I wasn't just being a "wet blanket", if no one else is offended by it I will accept that I am overreacting to a non-issue. :) a solution I would propose would be to have the information contained in the article moved to a section within the "Global Warming Criticism" article or something of the sort. 64.230.7.46 23:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying here that the rhetorical comparison between "global warming denial" and Holocaust denial, a comparison favored by followers of Algorism, is not offensive. The comparison made by the PETA fanatics, many of them proponents of Rudolf Hess's diet (a connection I'm making, but can actually cite with reliable sources, many PETA whackos might find objectionable), is equally objectionable: their unspeakably offensive assertion that the consumption of meat is somehow comparable to the Holocaust. The thing is, the article is not saying that rational people who understand that the "global warming" hysteria is exactly that, it's saying that the whackos who believe in Algorism make this analogy, regardless of how offensive and morally and intellectually indefensible it is. Tomer^talk 08:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Tefillin

I feel that Tefillin has now reached a point where it can be promoted from B class to GA class. I have added the GA nom tag to the talk page. Yossiea ^(talk) 18:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisting Ashkenazi intelligence as a separate vote

In a sweeping nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (history), the Ashkenazi intelligence article was not listed as part of an original group in the AfD until a later user mentioned the article and then the nominator decided to add it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (history)#One more? Ashkenazi intelligence. Unfortunately, by that time the nomination had already attracted a lot of negative attention with ten delete votes already having been cast making it essentially impossible for those only concerned with the Ashkenazi intelligence subject to be heard or noticed, and among the votes that are still coming in afterwards it is not clear if they understood what the serious tinkering additions by the nominator were all about, or if he was even right to do so. Futhermore, being "Ashkenazi" is not a "race" by any definition. The Ashkenazim are a cultural and historical group of Jews, not really even an ethnicity, consisting of a variety of Jews with a common religious and historical culture originating mainly from France, Germany, Poland, Lithuania, and Russia, so that Ashkenazi Jews are a recognized and respectable group, not a "race" in any way, so it is a mistake to match them up or compare them to any "racial" articles. For the sake of clarity the Ashkenazi intelligence should be removed from this nomination due to the confusion and the non-orderly and out of sequence manner in which it was included. The Ashkenazi intelligence article survived an AfD in February, 2007, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi intelligence. Based on the incorrect manner and negative timing that the Ashkenazi intelligence was included in the general vote about "Race and intelligence" it must be withdrawn from this AfD. If anyone wishs to have a new nomination, they can go ahead, but it definitely should not have been lumped with a set of articles not connected to it in content or spirit. Your input and intervention is requested. Thank you, IZAK 06:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

SEE: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Relisting Ashkenazi intelligence as a separate vote: "I think that pages should only be grouped together on XfD if all the following criteria are met: (1) There is a single place to discuss all the pages. (2) It is unlikely that any user will have diferent opinions about the pages. (3) They were all listed within an hour of when the discussion page was created. As the third criteria clearly wasn't met, I think that lumping it in here was the wrong thing to do. Od Mishehu 08:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)" Thank you, IZAK 19:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• The request was granted, see new listing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi intelligence (2nd). Thank you, IZAK 21:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Law, ritual and ethics categories

Greetings. Does anybody else find the "Jewish law and rituals" category problematic? Numerous laws aren't ritual. Many rituals have little or no law. Plus, it's not a common or natural-sounding name. How about splitting into "Jewish law" and "Jewish ritual"? Of course, some articles may get both, but that's how categories are helpful!

In addition, there's a category of "Jewish ethical law" which also seems awkward and uncommon. Again, how about a distinct category for "Jewish ethics" (again, may include bezillion items unrelated to law).

Forgive me if this has been hashed out previously (please give me the discussion diff). Anyway, I'd be glad to help re-categorize, esp if there's a way to quasi-automate it. Thanks. HG | Talk 13:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Jewish practice seems like a possibile alternate name. It seems like an entirely reasonable division, and I would not support completely dividing the category.

Category:Jewish ethical law is my fault, I'm afraid. It was part of an attempt to diffuse Category:Jewish law and rituals, and deals with religious ethical requirements, not simply ideals and ideas. I'm not sure what a better name would be. I'm not sure that the category should stay as it is, either. --Eliyak T·C 03:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

While "Jewish practice" is fine for a Jewish audience, I notice that the overarching Religion category is "Religious behavior and experience". "Practice" is a bit ill-defined nowadays, since legal and scholarly usages can be divergent. I do appreciate that ethics is often halakhically regulated. My suggestion is to offer "Jewish law" and "Jewish ethics" as tags, which can be applied based on how a given topic is actually described in its article. (Ditto for the Jewish "ritual" or "practice" tag.) Input from anyone else? HG | Talk 04:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "practise" being ill-defined. I don't know anyone who has qualms about seeing a doctor who is "practicing" medicine, for instance. I think "religious practice" is similarly understood. The idea for "Category:Jewish practice" basically came from Category:Sikh practices and Category:Buddhist practices.

The main issue is that all mitzvot have "law," i.e. halakha, aspects. For mitzvot, law and ritual go together. Minhagim, though, I would think are mainly "ritual." But minhagim might fit better in a Category:Jewish customs (which noone, I hope, will think involves import taxes). --Eliyak T·C 06:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think "Jewish Law" fits bet. I an not quite sure what a ritual is. Jon513 10:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yo, Jon, from my end "ritual" is easy, see Ritual. Law is much harder to nail down, see 2nd footnote ;-) HG | Talk 20:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

"Jewish Law" is a fine translation of 'Halacha'. Ritual seems to be completely contained in halacha. (what ritual is not based on halacha?). There are however Jewish laws that are not in anyway a ritual. Jon513 16:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Jon513, think of all the Reform and feminist ritual that is not based on halakhah. See the work of Ivan Marcus or Harvey Goldberg. Even stuff that has halakhic seeds, like Bar Mitzvah, is hardly halakhah in its American instantiation. For more traditionalist rituals that aren't grounded in halakhah (though halakhah eventually tends to digest and colonize it), see Daniel Sperber's multi-vol work. HG | Talk 17:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of things which are not strictly halacha (Kipa, Bar mitzvah celebration, tu b'shevat seder) that are nevertheless found to some extent in halachic works and can be related to in a "halahic" way. I cannot think of any feminist of reform ritual that is not based at all in halacha. For example they may do something different on a passover seder, but that can still be included in the article Passover seder. I cannot think of any new holiday, or ritual that is not connected to an existent article which is at all "halachic". Jon513 22:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the basic question here is whether we want to have a set of categories that make navigation within an internal Jewish framework easier, or a set of categories that facilitate mapping Judaism into a comparative-religion framework through which outsiders see Judaism in comparison to other religions. The fact that Jews call the basis of what they do "law" and "custom" may be of no concern from a comparative behavioral perspective; if one wishes to discuss how Jews understand their own Judaism internally it may be of great concern. My suggestion is that WikiProject Judaism work with internal categories, and let experts on comparative religion focus on comparative categories. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Either way, "law" and "ethics" work well internally and externally as distinct categories (with some overlapping items). Regarding "ritual" -- you're forgetting one big advantage, if we use a comparative, scholarly term, then we don't have to fight over the competing internal categories. Anyway, my point was to divide Category:Jewish law and rituals, if you all want to explore an alternative to the "rituals" side, I'm game. (Custom won't work, btw. Minhag is describes the source of the rule or behavior. Ritual or ceremonial or liturgical etc -- these describe the type of rule or action.) Does anybody object to splitting up "law" from "ritual", regardless of what the latter is called? Thanks! HG | Talk 08:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Nominations of Texas Jews articles for deletion

See:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Simon
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam H. Toubin
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Levin (Businessman)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon family
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Simon (Businessman)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Cohen Community House
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Kessler
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosa Levin Toubin
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Theatre
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Freda

Hi Izak. My intention in nominating those articles for deletion was not to pick a fight or to delete valuable information. Someone posted notices questioning the notablity of these articles on the WikiProject Texas page so I took a look at them. I am a member of WikiProject Biography too, and I'm a big proponent of WP:Verify and reliable sources, and meeting WP:Notability. I honestly don't see how you can argue that the articles in question meet any of those guidelines. Most of the sources cited are geocities or earthlink user webpages, which are not considered reliable, and those valid sources (articles, Handbook of Texas), barely mention the subjects. If you really think that the sources are reliable, then make those arguments at the AFDs rather than blanketly stating that they are okay. Otherwise, if you can find reliable sources that discuss the importance of these people, then please incorporate them into the articles and see if you can convince others that the subjects are notable. Being a member of a minority religion or being a locally successful businessman (or both) doesn't make one notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Karanacs 19:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Dear Karanacs: Thank you for contacting me. I respect your expertise about Texas. I am not an expert on either Texas or about Jewish history in Texas. I also agree with all the principles you cite, however, I do not agree with the way you went about applying them in this situation. Please let us be very clear, in no way am I advocating that "being Jewish and being from Texas" or from anywhere is what makes such people notable by Wikipedia's standards. Futhermore, quibbling about reliable and verifiable sources and their acceptability is part of the give and take of life as a Wikipedian and these matters can usually be resolved. In one of the votes, I have summed up where I think you went awry here, and I shall repeat it here: So then the correct thing for you to have done was to (a) contact the editor/s of the articles you had questions and doubts about and (b) to try and work on combining them into more unified topics, and only as a last resort, (c) requested that they be merged into the History of the Galveston Jewish Community and History of the Brenham Jewish Community. Since these are non-controversial topics it should have been a fairly straightforward thing to do. Thank you very much for your sincere efforts, IZAK 20:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The editor was contacted about the notability questions and simply stated that the articles were important to Jewish history. I then googled each of the topics, and could find no reliable sources about them; therefore, they appear to fail the notability criteria. After that I prod'd most of the articles, and (s)he again repeated that they were important to Jewish history, and refused to discuss on the talk pages why that was when I asked for clarification. Most of the articles don't even attempt to establish that they are important in the local Jewish history, they just mention that the person was Jewish . Because articles that can't establish notablity don't belong on Wikipedia in any form (even if all of the information on the Toubins and the Simons were compiled into a single article, it could not estabilish notability), I brought them to AFD. I'm trying to WP:AGF, but I feel that some of your comments on the pages are implying that I brought the nominations in bad faith. It is the responsibility of the editor of the articles to establish notability, and (s)he refused to do so after being given several opportunities. Karanacs 20:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Hi Karanacs: I only came upon these articles when they were posted on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism, as have a few other editors, so it was impossible to know why all of a sudden someone had nominated for deletion an entire group of articles, which in turn raised some concern about why this had come about. I see that you were following the path that you felt was best and correct. But there may have been, and perhaps still are, a few other avenues to be followed. One is that you could have posted requests for clarification and help with your editorial dispute at both Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jewish history and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. The latter project is the most active and there are always a few excellent active editors there, some of whom are admins, who have both the technical and policy expertise as well as some insight into such topics. I am thinking of editors/admins such as TShilo12 (talk · contribs) Shirahadasha (talk · contribs) and User MPerel (talk · contribs) -- but I know, it would be hard for you to know this. The main point being is that there are other experienced and reliable editors familiar with Jews and Judaism topics of all sorts who can offer editorial assiatance to resolve disputes. It is still not too late to seek help from them and others like them. Thanks for giving this thought. IZAK 21:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I understand that these individuals may well prove to have historical importance and serve as good topics for future history papers on Texas or Texas Jewish history. The difficulty is whether this type of research currently exists. Wikipedia isn't intended to be the first place to publish new historical research, so if there hasn't been any previous historical work discussing these individuals and assessing their historical significance, Wikipedia may not be the place to publish their biographies. If some of them have already been covered by previous research, you could help us all by pointing this out. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Concerning the Rabbi Kessler article and questioning the reliability of its sources: One of the sources of information regarding him is on the Texas Jewish Historical Society website, who maintain their website at geocities.com. By their nature, non profits have limited monetary and man-power resources, so you will often only find many smaller state and regional non-profits maintain their websites "in house" and the cheapest way possible. This may be via hosting services such as mac.com, geocities.com address etc..etc... Some of the opponents of the article maintain that geocities.com is not reliable. While I do not debate many "personal" and "unprofessional" sites are maintained on the server, such a broad generalization as "its on geocities.com so it can't be worth anything" is a terrible mis-judgement. You can't tell a book by its cover, you can't tell a website by its URL. There are newspaper sources on Kessler and I am working on obtaining their online versions.

--- In regards to the Henry Cohen Community House article: I feel that at this time, with the available information currently on hand, the Henry Cohen Community House - HCCH - article should be merged into the Congregation B'nai Israel - CBI -article or History of the Galveston Jewish Community - HGJC - article...or maybe even both. Perhaps a redirect from the Community House article to CBI or HGJC is an order. If in the future, more information is gathered on the HCCH then a stand alone article may be warranted.

--- In regards to the way the deletions were handled: When such a large number of articles with at least some informational value, that are also interconnected, are questioned, I find it in poor judgement and poor etiquette to immediately mass-label them all for deletion. A more prudent and constructive route would be suggesting merging some of the related articles or a request that attempts be made to the articles expansion/additional sources. If, in time, they are not substantially improved, then the deletion route should be taken. Wiki has alternatives to deletion for a reason. AND by immediately mass labeling them all for deletion, it puts everyone on the defensive -- especially since these particular articles are about highly sensitive subjects (religion oriented). Nsaum75 22:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Nsaum75: One of the issues here also seems to be WP:BITE (short for Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers) which the nominator of these articles was perhaps not too careful to fulfil. IZAK 05:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • As has been pointed out, the person who created these articles has previously had articles deleted for being about non-notable people, so by now he should understand the requirements for notability. I made a good-faith effort to first engage the author and then to try to improve the articles on my own. The author refused to provide clarification and I was unable to find any information beyond what was already in the articles, which were sourced to either unreliable sources, was self-published material, or mentioned the individual only in passing. With the possible exception of the article on Rabbi Kessler, I still don't see what informational value is in the biographies, nor has anyone been able to point out any value to the information beyond the generic "they are important to Jewish history". Rather than debate the process for the deletion, it might be best to take an objective look at the articles in light of wikipedia's guidelins and decide whether a) the information is actually worth keeping and b) where it should go. Then, using wikipedia policies, make your case at the AFDs. Karanacs 14:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the input IZAK. I appreciate your explaination, sincere attempts to constructively resolve the situation and support in attempting to improve the articles to an acceptable standard. I was not an editor for most of the articles in question, but I do take a keen interest in what they represent as a whole (In fact, I was not aware of many of them until I saw the large list of related items proposed for deletion). But, regardless, whether editing an "online encyclopedia" or editing "real-life" book material, the way this situation was originally handled shows poor editing skills and judgement. Valuable and informative articles and literature come through collaboration, research and constructive criticism/critique. Bypassing alternative avenues (merging etc) which could lead to improvement and labeling something for deletion because its not "within standards" in its current state, does not serve anyone well and takes away from the value of the project as a whole. At the very least, if we cannot improve something ourselves, we should attempt to find someone who can. That said, no one is perfect, least of all myself. As with the material we are editing, we too can always be improved, if only we allow it. Again, thanks for your input and attempts to approach this situation from well thought out and collective process. Nsaum75 06:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Hi Nsaum: In response to someone saying that it is now up to me to improve the articles [10] at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Levin (Businessman), this is what I stated [11]: "Hi Sdedo, while I do appreciate what you are saying, please understand that I am not the creator of these articles, they are outside the scope of my current work on Wikipedia. However as a neutral third party between the folks in Texas who are fighting this out, I am reluctant to come down hard on such articles, because in my years on Wikipedia I have seen many articles start out like these, even smaller as stubs, and then they can grow or be combined into larger articles, which happens all the time. So in my view, these are good "starter" articles, which could have been tagged as such or with requests for better citations and sources. Seems that the nominator was not considering WP:BITE and that User Bhaktivinode (talk · contribs), whose first edit was on 21 March 2007 [12] and who happens to know a lot about Texas' history and is willing to write it up for Wikipedia, should have been given more mentoring and time to get his/her act together instead of being hit over the head with multiple AfDs to "teach him/her a lesson". There is a lesson for all of us here, I hope. IZAK 06:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)" Sincerely, IZAK 07:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Of course we don't want to go around biting the newcomers, but this is not the first round of deletions for this editor, either. In similar fashion to some other cases you can ask me about, we have an editor closely affiliated with a particular set of topics and zealous about promoting them. It doesn't help to let them keep creating many articles if they are mostly or even largely unnotable. The editor should be apprised as soon as possible of the fact that they're writing material that will eventually be deleted. This way they can either concentrate on sticking to WP:N or they can, if they choose, leave the project. But it helps no one for them to keep on blissfully creating unnotable material. Apparently this particular editor wishes to create a history of Jewish religion and culture in Texas in the early part of the 20th century. But something like History of the Brenham Jewish Community just doesn't seem even possibly notable in Wikipedia terms. Every single city on Earth could rate half-a-dozen articles on religious or cultural minorities if that were the case. I understand the motivation; my own great-great-grandfather wrote a history of his family, city, and church, and it's a fascinating artifact, but it's in not a single university library. This is really something that belongs on Wikibooks, and I will happily help this editor transfer material there. But it fails WP:N pretty hard. --Dhartung | Talk 06:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi Dhartung: Thanks for your input, but I do not agree with your last conclusion. Please see Category:Histories of cities in the United States, would you propose to put all of those and their many sub-categories, into "Wikibooks" as well? So what does an article about the History of the Brenham Jewish Community have to do with "Wikibooks" of all things when it is not even a book or claims to be such. So far, the growth of articles in Category:Jewish history has been fairly orderly and disciplined, and History of the Brenham Jewish Community (which could be renamed to History of the Jews in Brenham, Texas) fits nicely into Category:Jewish American history by place which is itself a sub-category of Category:Jews and Judaism in the United States by city. So your concerns and suggestions do not fit the scale or scope of these relatively small articles. IZAK 07:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This is all pretty simple. These articles do not meet the wiki criteria for notability, and should be deleted. WP:BITE is a separate concern and should be addressed on usertalk pages. If anyone feels that the original creators would be dissuaded from contributing further, I suggest contacting them on their pages and explaining how the system works. Sdedeo (tips) 19:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Another editor might have tagged these articles with Template:Notability and Template:Texas-stub, but the bottom line is that these don't appear to be notable subjects (with the exception of Temple Freda) and Karanacs was in the right to nominate them for deletion the way she did. Any editor who is concerned that valuable information about Texas Jewish history may be lost with the deletion of these articles would be wise to copy these articles to user subpages. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 19:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion Malik: I have filed all the articles pending a final outcome at Talk:History of the Brenham Jewish Community and Talk:History of the Galveston Jewish Community so that nothing will be lost no matter what the final verdict is. Thanks, IZAK 03:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hebrew calendar

This article needs an overhaul; it was WP:FARCd. However, I'm posting here to note that it doesn't mention anywhere in the article what today's Hebrew date is. Shouldn't that be in there, and isn't there a way to autocalc this, much in the way that {{torahportion}} updates according to the week? I just think it's silly to have a huge article about the calendar and not have a little box somewhere telling us what the date is. Good idea or bad one, and anyone actually know how to do it? Kaisershatner 14:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

"Bukharan Jews" vs. "Bukharian Jews"

In case anyone is even vaguely interested or even remotely knowledgeable about the subject, I have gotten myself entangled in a discussion at Talk:Bukharan Jews#.22Bukharan.22 vs .22Bukharian.22 over the correct English ethnonym. This is the culmination of a slow and subtle edit war that places POV over RS, and has been ongoing for approximately 2 years. Input from some cooler heads would be very welcome (at least by me). Tomer^talk 05:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Tomer, I added my views, see [13] Thanks as always, IZAK 09:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, I have now worked on a filled the new Category:Bukharan Jews. Thanks, IZAK 08:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Concern about duplicating Reform and Progressive labels

Centralized discussion:

Hi Egfrank: Looking at your recent expansion of articles and categories relating to Progressive Judaism creates a number of serious problems of duplication and redundancies. You seem to be conducting a solo editorial campaign of revisionism that creates a false impression that "Progressive Judaism" somehow has nothing to do with Reform Judaism. You are creating articles and categories that is artificially distancing the notions of "Reform" from "Progressivism" from each other which may violate WP:NOR, when they are essentially one and the same thing. For example, you created Category:Progressive Jewish communal organizations, Category:Progressive Jewish higher education, Category:Progressive Jewish thinkers with articles in them that pertain to Reform Judaism more than anything else. What is this "heirarchy" all about? What is the common or universal scholarly standing of Progressive Judaism vis-a-vis Reform Judaism and vice versa? If they are one and the same thing then they should not get separate articles or categories but should be merged. Is it something like the the split within Haredi Judaism where you have Hasidic Judaism as a sub-group yet distinctly different? Just look at these examples of what you did: The Central Conference of American Rabbis is the arch-Reform rabbinical body, yet you have on your own placed them in Category:Progressive Jewish communal organizations, when surely that should have been Category:Reform Judaism communal organizations? -- By the way, the term Reform Judaism is preferable to "Reform Jewish" since "Judaism" refers to the religion whereas "Jewish" may also mean the ethnicity alone, excluding the religion.) You put the main Reform Judaism institution of Hebrew Union College into Category:Progressive Jewish higher education, should that not have been Category:Reform Judaism higher education instead? You then place Moses Mendelssohn into Category:Progressive Jewish thinkers, which is actually quite nebulous because the term "Progressive" could have so many connotations in light of the Haskalah milieu Mendelssohn lived in and was responding to. In any case who decided to make him into a "Progressive" now?, certainly it is not what he called himself and by dint of history and all mainstream scholarship he is regarded as the main "Father of Reform Judaism" almost universally. Thus this last category should have been Category:Reform Judaism thinkers. Unless this mix-up can be clarified, I will ask that the Progressive Judaism article be merged into the main Reform Judaism article, and that the categories be renamed as I have noted above. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerest good wishes and Shabbat Shalom, IZAK 08:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I replied on my talk, feel free to copy our category thread here. I agree w/Izak about problem w/Progressive "Jewish" vs. "Judaism" nomenclature. I'm also mildly concerned not to overdo the "Progressive" usage. Doesn't this dovetail with a terminology struggle/debate internally? It's important to keep in mind that we want to use the most common names, not necessarily the latest. While Progressive may have traction outside US and UK, it's the US and UK ("Reform" and "Liberal") that set the dominant and mainstream usage still, I think. The US and UK are making efforts to mainstream the term 'Progressive' but they still have a ways to go, esp for dealing with historical aspects, which are crucial to Wikipedia. Kol tuv, HG | Talk 17:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Egfrank: You seem not to grasp that the purpose of categorization is to create greater clarity and organization of topics and the system should not be used to artificially create categories and groups that do not exist, except in some people's minds and imaginations. For example, would anyone argue that Category:Nazism should be "categorized" under "both" Category:Nationalism "and" Category:Socialism , since after all, Nazism is a contraction for "National Socialist German Workers' Party"? Definitely not! because Category:Nazism is not what some fairy-minded "thinkers" may say it is, but rather it is correctly and accurately categorized under clearer categories like Category:Racism Category:Fascism. So the idea with utilizing categories is not to cloud and obscure subjects but to clarify and specify. Thanks again, IZAK 08:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course I understand that the purpose of classification is to create greater clarity. Could you please explain what your specific objection to this category is? Do you object to the need to identify a list of thinkers that have influenced progressive Judaism? Egfrank 12:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Simply put though, my response minus citations, boils down to two points:

• I am merely reporting what is in the literature, not inventing my own revisions
• This isn't an issue of debate or mainstreaming. The terms "reform" and "liberal" have specific regional and historical meanings. The term "progressive" is an umbrella term that is used when one wants to refer to commonalities that transcend either region or history.

1. US and UK Reform Judaism is merely a part of a world wide movement that includes 42 countries with local organizations that are variously named "liberal", "reform", "progressive" and "reconstructionist". The world-wide movement has chosen for itself the name progressive, not "reform". Particularly noteworthy is the fact that both Israel and Germany have chosen for themselves the name "Progressive" for their local names. These communities may be small in number, but they are historically and spiritually significant for the world wide movement. To ignore the preferred name in an area of historical or spiritual significance is a violation of both WP:Notability and WP:UNDUE.To name things pertaining to the world wide movement based on the popular name in 2 of 42 countries is a form of systemic bias.
2. Part vs. whole. Because organizations that call themselves liberal and reconstructionist also self-identify as "progressive" we cannot simply replace the term "progressive" with "reform". For a full list of congregational organizations happy to call themselves "progressive", please see the website for the World Union for Progressive Judaism. You can also check the links to regional organizations provided in the Progressive Judaism article.
3. The term "progressive" is the normative term when refering to the worldwide movement. For example,
   • The international association of liberal/reform/reconstructionist/progressive congregations is called the World Union for Progressive Judaism.
   • Michael Meyer, in his book Response to Modernity, uses the term "Reform" to discuss specific regional organizations that called themselves Reform (Germany, UK, US). However, when discussing Jewish reform in a worldwide context he switches to the term "progressive Judaism". For details please see Chapter 9, An International Movement.
4. The term "progressive" is a semantic necessity when comparing certain regions. The following excerpt from an article in the weekly teen torah newsletter of the Union for Reform Judaism illustrates the point. In an article titled, What is Progressive Judaism in Great Britain all about? What is it like to be Jewish in Great Britain? How is it different from being Jewish in North America?, the author explains to US Reform teens: Progressive Judaism in Britain is a very vague term, because in Britain, we have two progressive movements: Liberal Judaism and Reform Judaism. Liberal Judaism is most similar to what you all know to be Reform Judaism in North America. However, Liberal Judaism represents only a little over 1% of the Jewish community of Britain. Reform Judaism in Britain is still progressive at its core, but is slightly more traditional in its values and practice. An example of this difference is that British Reform Judaism currently does not accept patrilineal descent to define who is a Jew, while Liberal Judaism does.Ģ Reform Judaism is quite a lot larger than Liberal Judaism, having about an 18% stake in British Jewry. There are 280,000 Jews in Britain.

In naming articles I have followed mainstream academic and organizational usage: global=progressive, local=preferred local name. Thus:

• Category:Progressive Jewish communal organizations: since there is one list for all organizations worldwide, the category is titled Progressive, not reform.
• Category:Progressive Jewish higher education: since there is one list for all organizations worldwide, the category is titled Progressive not reform.

If you need more citations I'm happy to help. Egfrank 22:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

(OT) Small fact check. There's no way UK Reform is 18x the size of UK Liberal. A digit has got lost in the above. I don't have exact refs to hand, but the ratio is usually put at about 3:2, which would make UK Liberal about 12% if the Reform number is right. Jheald 11:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for being absent. I have been in the midst of correcting papers and exams, plus my daughter's Shabbat School, etc. Anyway, as co-creator (or whatever is appropriate) of this category, I merely want to reiterate what my perspective was, and remains: a place for dialogue about the international progressive movement within Judaism and those Jewish founders, thinkers, religionists, theologians, philosophers and so forth who brought it into existence from the Enlightenment and Jewish Emancipation. This began with a casual perusal of many of the current pages on general topics within Jews & Judaism, and found that they either were tilted in a big way towards the traditionalist perspective or had almost nothing about the progressives.

My first motive was to keep this within the family of Reform Judaism, i.e. all about German classical and North American Reform, but Egfrank rightly posed that it should start out in an expanded way, and I agreed. Progressive is not meant as an attack on non-progressives (read: traditionalists), no more than the traditionalist explanations of everything Jewish isn't meant as an attack on progressive views on the same topics ;) However, progressive is certainly an accepted, descriptive word a) pertaining to the Jewish philosophers of the latter eighteenth century, and their religious reforming successors of the next century, so often attacked in traditionalist material; b) to denote all of the liberal/non-traditionalist branches of Judaism that exist internationally; and c) to explain the rationale behind the liberal views on Judaism, Jews, culture, relationships with other religions, etc. With a lack of credible information and sources about progressive Judaism and Jews, if nothing more this is a forum for sharing ideas, challenging ourselves, and moving the vital links and references from our own heads and libraries into the Wiki world.

I wish you all a fine week. A Sniper 22:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

To reach understanding, we need to separate out the disputed question. (1) Generally, what is the categorizing relationship of Progressive, Reform and Liberal. I agree that Whole, Part (mostly US), Part (mostly UK) works. (2) To what extent should categories be named by the Whole or by a Part? I think this is a judgment call. Personally, I think "Progressive" is a younger upstart and much less common name, even if theoretically broader. So, even if all "Reform Rabbis" could be logically recategorized as "Rabbis of Progressive Judaism", I think that would be a poor call. Let's clarify the criteria for naming categories, e.g. commonality, so we can help label Egfrank's (and others') constructive efforts. (3) Part of the thread above deals with the question of how we might write about verifiably influential thinkers for Progressive Judaism. Currently, that discussion is here. Thanks. HG | Talk 08:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Some questions: Is it appropriate to call a rabbi, cantor or communal leader in the UK liberal or Dutch movement "Reform"? Both local organizations call themselves liberal, not reform. Is it appropriate to call a rabbi, cantor or communal leader in Germany, Israel, or Russia reform? All three countries call their local movements progressive, not reform. And all of the above, liberal, reform, and progressive consider themselves "progressive" even though they differ in the name used locally. For support of this statement, please see citations given above.

Also I'm wondering if you have some citations on the development of the term progressive Judaism and its disputed status as a mainstream word. I think we need more here than personal assertions. Egfrank 10:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

On rabbis. In articles, I'd call them as they generally (not by individual idiosyncrasy) call themselves in their country, Liberal or Reform or Progressive. In categories, I'd keep "Reform Rabbis" for now, until Progressive is used more extensively for Geiger Holdheim etc. Of course, categories specifically about a "Liberal" (e.g. UK) dataset might use Liberal. HG | Talk 11:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

As regards Gieger, It seems we have some problem of historicity here. Geiger influenced all organizations that call themselves progressive these days. Thus if "influence" is a measure he could be called progressive, reform, or liberal or all of the above. However, if organization is the measure, he cannot be properly called any of these. The organizational entity "Reform" postdates Geiger and he himself was opposed to organizational splits and wanted to reform from within. The same would go for Moses Mendelsohn - even though many consider him the "father of Reform", "Reform" as an organization and even a movement post dates him. Also his own actual position more closely ressemble the current position of modern orthodoxy (really!) than anything called progressive. He embraced social change and considered a very limited accommodation to science when he could find halakhic precedent, but by and large he opposed any change to the ritual practice of Judaism. (source: Michael Meyer, Response to Modernity)

My question was posed concerning "modern rabbis" though not ancient history. I see several problems with splitting rabbis into categories labeled by "reform" and "liberal". UK Liberal is on the left (left traditional). On the other hand Dutch liberal judaism is on the right (more traditional). They are comfortable being lumped together with each other under the banner of "progressive judaism" because this implies a minimal amount of common principles (c.f. Progressive Judaism). On the other hand grouping them together in a category called Category:Liberal Judaism would truely be a category in vein. Their only commonality would be the name and the fact that they were progressive. A mere coincindence of name does not make a valid category. Furthermore if the unifying factor among them is the fact that they both subscribe to a developmental approach to Judaism, shouldn't we name the category after their commonality, "Progressive Judaiam" rather than the mere coincidence of names? Egfrank 12:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

In terms of Progressive not the mainstream term, I base it partly on the article showing nomenclature in the big Reform population centers: "... the terms "liberal" and "reform" Judaism have strong historical and regional associations, particularly to the US and UK. Outside of the US and UK, many congregations prefer the more inclusive term, 'progressive'." Also, it's my assertion based on reading mainstream academic literature and media but I can back it up w/strong evidence (Google Scholar hits 10:1 "Reform Judaism":"Progressive Judaism", JSTOR 12:1, Google web 7:1, Nexis even last 2 years is 5:1 obviously more previous years). Further, based on population, isn't US "Reform Judaism" disproportionately large? This is relevant because otherwise you might strengthen your argument by pleading for "Progressive" as a self-identifying name. Thanks. HG | Talk 11:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Frequency of use may only indicate the relative frequency with which people talk about their local movements vs. the common concerns of the world wide movement. The contention here is that "progressive" is appropriate when discussion world-wide commonality. Liberal/reform/progressive etc is appropriate when discussing the progressive movement within a particular historical or regional context. It is completely appropriate to say the pre-World War II German Liberal movement opposed the radical nature of the German Reform Movement because in this particular place in time and history those were the names used. On the other hand, if one wants to compare the impact of Samuel Holdheim world wide, one is more understandable if one says something like this: The radical position of Samuel Holdheim was largely rejected by progressive communities outside of the US Reform movement and the UK liberal movement. In this case the word "progressive" provides a clear and succinct way of distinguishing the general reaction from the reaction in a specific region.

To resolve this question I think we need something more than nose counts. They can't really tell us the semantic context. Can you actually provide an academic citation that rejects the use of the term "progressive" when discussing matters in common to reform, liberal, and progressive congregations around the world? Perhaps, you might be able to find an article discussing the history of the term "progressive". When there are real academic disputes about terminology, they can be relatively easy to find. Almost every serious book will begin with a discussion of terminology. That is the kind of thing I'm looking for. Egfrank 12:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Gee whiz, Eg, do you want to know why I can't "provide an academic citation" about the history of 'progressive'? In JSTOR, there are zero (0) articles found via "history of Progressive Judaism" versus quite a few about Reform. In Google scholar, I only picked up history of Progressive from Rabbi John Rayner. In other words, the "serious" scholarship that discusses terminology, as you say, will itself be grounded mainly in "Reform" nomenclature. I don't think any academic has studied the terminology to address Wikipedia's criteria; however, I'm afraid the burden of proof for verifiability of "Progressive" as the mainstream term is on your shoulders. From what little I know of you, I really respect you thinking and your positive enthusiasm. You can add a great deal to a weak area of Wikipedia. I'd urge you not to drain your energy and time by pushing too hard on "Progressive" within meta-wikipedia (e.g., project, category, etc). Instead, work on the articles and the content. Once those are in place, you'll be in much stronger ground, and gained alot of internal respect (assuming you don't look like you're simply trying to prove a point), and then you can approach the meta questions in a new light. With a friendly tone of voice, emphatically serious and respectfully, HG | Talk 15:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the good will. HG the question isn't one of frequency - it is of context: what is the correct term to use when discussing the world wide movement rather than the movement in a particular location in time and history. As for providing positive support. I have done that. For example, I provided a cite (above) from one of the leading scholars in the history of the reform movement. As you have observed, he does use the term "reform judaism" liberally in his work and I suspect that whoever cateloged his work probably did it under reform. However, in the chapter where he discusses international expansion, he switches to the term "progressive". Michael Meyer is probably one of the leading academics in the field. So now it is up to someone else to make the case that the term is non-normative. Its not impossible. Just because Meyer is considered one of the leading historians of progressive Judaism, doesn't mean he got everything right. However, when a major historian uses a term in a disputed fashion, there are usually many other historians that will jump on them. As far as I can tell that hasn't happened.

Also at issue is the very existence of an article titled Progressive Judaism and separate from Reform Judaism. Are you saying then that you are uncomfortable with the categories but are OK with separate articles for Progressive Judaism, Reform Judaism and Liberal Judaism? Egfrank 16:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Eg, as you may have noticed, it can be a pain in the tuches to add categories, at least for a non-techie like me. You need to know the wiki formatting and you need to have the exact category name handy. I suppose that's one reason to go for simple and familiar names to as many wikipedians as possible. Anyway, I recognize that we'll need those 3 separate articles, and maybe many spin-offs (history, beliefs, orgs, people, etc). I'd much prefer a single category to cover the whole spread, I'm not going to fall on my sword if it's not "Reform Judaism" (though of course I'm right on that! ;-0) but I certainly don't want to have to double or triple categorize each Prog/Ref/Liberal article. BTW, another way to restate my view is that the int'l-integration efforts are still much smaller than the resources, scholarship and discourse on the national level Reform/Liberal movements. Progressive might be technically correct and the future of the movement(s), but I still don't think it's the common or mainstream lingo. Sorry if I missed it, has anybody AfD'd Progressive Judaism? I don't see IZAK or anybody arguing against the article, only the meta pages (project, categories). Regardless, I'm so confident the article is defensible that frankly, Frank (rofl), I ask that you don't waste your time defending the Article -- let any opponent bring an AfD and other editors will do the defensive work for you. Thanks! HG | Talk 16:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

actually User:IZAK did request (above and below) that the Progressive Judaism article be merged onto the Reform article and done away with. Thanks for the reminder to let other users do the work, however, this discussion I wasn't actually convinced there were other users who would do the work. Egfrank 16:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

pain in the tuches. If there are three names for X, there is no need to assign an article to three separate categories. The standard way of handling naming problems like this is to chose one category as the main category and use soft redirects on the alternate names. I'm happy to show anyone interested how to handled the technical details of this solution. Egfrank 16:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, See here for the listing for "progressive judaism" from the HUC jerusalem library. It found 847 sources. The combined US catelog (see http://library.cn.huc.edu:8000/cgi-bin/gw/chameleon) turned up 20 thousand books using the search term "aw:progressive+aw:judaism". Perhaps now you can see why I am a little puzzled by the idea that this term is not mainstream. I certainly can see an argument for giving articles two names: one with a soft redirect to the other. I can't see an argument for declaring that the term "progressive judaism" is a disputed specialist term known only to a few readers, is non-notable, and does not belong in wikipedia. Kol tuv, Egfrank 16:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

By mainstream, I'm alluding to the wikipedia usage, contrasting with a significant minority. Basically, I think most major and reliable sources continue to use Reform (including arguably the big US movement), whereas 'Progressive' is used less. Even the J'lem library, which presumably is switching to Progressive, has more listings under Reform. A "significant minority" is certainly notable and belongs in Wikipedia. But it feels more ideological than encyclopedic (i.e., WP-policy) to try to rename the Reform articles into Progressive ones (or to set up too many overlapping Progressive versions). Anyway, I basically sense that we should keep Reform Judaism as the main article, with Progressive Judaism as a companion piece (even though it subsumes Reform Judaism logically, at least per the Progressive Judaism pov). Likewise, the overarching category should be Reform. Someday this might change, but it should be in response to a shift in public (verifiable) discourse. Best, HG | Talk 21:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with you,HG. Why should the overarching category be reform? How would the reconstructionists or humanists take to that? For they certainly categorize themselves as being within progressive Judaism, but they wouldn't want to be lumped in under Reform. Similarly, I don't know one UK Liberal/Progressive (same thing, same organization) who would want to be categorized as Reform, considering the term means something completely different in their country (as it does not trace its history to the German classical reformers but instead to a simple split in a London congregation). Why does the World Union of Progressive Judaism exist as an umbrella organization to all of the denominations and groups who are progressive if it is all just Reform? because the term progressive is the net, and Reform is one of the fish. A Sniper 16:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It's all a question of basic Wikipedia policy regarding notability and sources. Sometimes the fish is bigger than the umbrella, what more can I say? Maybe the US Democratic party belongs to some intl federation of democratic policies, but we don't write and categorize everything by that umbrella. Some umbrellas are more significant, some aren't. Maybe the EU will swallow France, hasn't yet but the EU is doing well. WUPJ is doing well to, but there's a different betw getting USA Reform to sign up and another thing to absorb it, both organizationally and esp in the public discourse that Wikipedia relies upon. I'd like some experienced WP folks besides you, me, Izak and Egfrank to chime in here. We're starting to go in circles on this. Respectfully disagreed with (but not disagreeable?), HG | Talk 22:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I am really puzzled. 20 thousand books in an academic library more than establishes notability. The undisputed usage by a major expert in the field and an international orgainzation more than establishes a nuanced mainstream academic usage that switches between the terms "progressive" and "reform" depending on whether the international or local perspective is wanted. The name of the World Union for Progressive Judaism (established in 1926) is ample evidence of organizational mainstream usage. A citation from a teen magazine published by the US Reform movement more than establish popular mainstream nuanced usage. Magazines directed at teens aren't in the habit of making themselves incomprehensible to their readers. You have had more than one person explain to you that "reform" is absolutely appropriate for a specific historical or regional context and that "progressive" is more appropriate in a world wide context, but you insist that absolute number counts are more important than contextual analysis. I don't understand why.

As for WP:UNDUE it could actually be used the other way. The historical origin (German) and the spiritual center of the progressive moment (Israel) both prefer the name progressive. Why do they count less than then more numerous US movement, especially when that movement itself uses the term progressive even when talking to teens? The use of numbers alone and the frequent statement that only US and UK usage counts gives at least the appearance of geographic systemic bias, something that wikipedia is not exactly in favor of. I don't think any of us want systemic bias here. At the very least there is an appearence of systemic bias in the claim that "Reform" should be the normative term because there are more US progressive Jews than any other and they use the term reform.

Many have expressed interest in making this project more welcoming. I don't see how this project is going to feel welcoming to a dutch liberal, german progressive, isreali progressive or UK liberal jew who is told he or she has to use "reform" as the umbrella term for progressive Judaism.

I don't know how to make those who want to make "reform" the umbrella term, exactly how sensitive those of us outside the USA are to being told that US Reform is the norm and for that reason we are not "allowed" to use the progressive Judaism in categories that include non-US groups. People outside the US really do not like having the US be pushed upon them as the norm. This is especially true in the world progressive movement, because the US movement has made some very important decisions that just aren't accepted by other progressive Jews. I don't think you really appreciate how wearing it is to explain to people over and over that Israeli progressive Jews are not US reform Jews - we use different amounts of hebrew, we observe more customs, we have different opinions about intermarriage, rabbinic authority and patrilineal descent. And perhaps you have never heard a liberal Jew give you a lecture about why they are not reform - I got an earful the first time I made that mistake and I'm not likely to make it again. But if you don't believe me, I'm sure User:Jheald would be happy to explain to you how much UK liberal and UK reform Jews like being confused with each other.

:grin: Which significantly reflects an earful I once got from a UK Reform rabbi's wife that she wasn't a UK Liberal.  :-) Jheald 03:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

But there is another issue I need to raise and I am trying to raise this as delicately as possible, but it must be addressed. The only people I have ever heard object to the term "progressive" are orthodox Jews. Are those of you who dislike the term "progressive" as an umbrella term really, really, really certain this isn't just that in your orthodox circles you are more familiar and comfortable with the term "Reform"? This is a very smart and well educated group of people who should understand that I and User:A Sniper have more than established mainstream usage, and no one else by User:A Sniper and I are the only ones insisting that the term "progressive" be used in contexts requiring an umbrella term. Is this really about reason, or is it about personal familiarity? We all have communities of dialog where certain terms are more common than others.

The plain truth is this discussion should not be happening at all. There should be no question about the legitimacy of the term "progressive" for either categories or article titles. There should be no question that "progressive" is the proper umbrella term. When I discussed what was going on with Wikipedia at a gathering of progressive rabbis and organizational leaders on Shabbat I was met with incredulity. In more than one case I had to repeat two or three times what was going on. On the idea that I was POV pushing or giving undue weight to a non-mainstream term, I was told by more than one person (with a smile), "congratulations, but you're about 100 years too late".

There is no need for this acrimony. Wikipedia has a technical solution to avoid POV forks when there is more than one mainstream term. We should use it. Kol tuv, Egfrank 03:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, the issue isn't notability. Nobody disagrees, I think, that Progressive Judaism is notable for an article and perhaps multiple articles, dealing with such contexts as WUPJ, Israel Progressives, etc. Rather, isn't the question about relative notability? For this, it is necessary to look at the sources. It's not about your personal circles or your speculations about mine. By every measure, "Reform Judaism" dwarfs "Progressive Judaism" in the sources. I've already mentioned Google, Google Scholar, Nexis (i.e., major news media), JSTOR. Now I've checked the Harvard Library, British Library and WorldCat. "Progressive Judaism" is notable, but its usage is minor compared to "Reform Judaism." The point is that readers and writers are using "Reform" much more, in general, so I would expect Wikipedia to do the same.

Your point about systematic bias is relevant, but the solution is not what you might expect. Wikipedia doesn't make editorial decisions to eliminate the real world bias within the world of mainstream discourse. Instead, bias is countered by ensuring that (significant) minority views and topics (etc) get adequately weighted covered. (If I recall correctly, the emphasis is on article creation.) So, maybe the mainstream press and academia are biased against the usage of "Progressive" but our role isn't to overcome this bias. (I felt more awkward explaining this to Palestinian and Hawaiian native activists than you, but if it's true for them it's more true for the bias experienced by Israeli (etc) Progressive Jews.)

Maybe the best way to proceed would be to articulate the question(s) clearly and set up an RfC to get some outside opinions. Or maybe some more veteran editors in Judaism can weigh in. Perhaps some questions would be: (1) Should articles describing the history of change-agents (aka progressive liberal reformers) like Geiger and Holdheim be described in terms of "Reform Judaism" or "Progressive Judaism?" (2) Should the WP category of "Reform" or "Progressive" Judaism apply to Geiger et al.? I am curious to see what criteria and policies veteran editors would apply to decide such questions. Yours truly, HG | Talk 04:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well now that you raise the issue of Geiger - not so easy to classify him. Didn't actually approve of separatist movements. Can be called a reformer, but not necessarily a "Reform Jew". Holdheim on the other hand was very much into the idea of a separatist movement and he belonged to an organization that labelled itself Reform. He can be called a German Reform Jew without a doubt. He is also a German progressive Jew because German Reform is one of many progressive movements. Back to part and whole issue. So either would be appropriate, but German Reform would be more precise. Which should be used would depend on context. If one were speaking broad generalities about all progressive movements, "progressive" would be acceptable usage. If one were talking specifically about the history of the German progressive movement, German Reform would be more appropriate. Again, there is no one answer and in situations where multiple academically respectable terms exist, the normal practice within Wikipedia and within the real academic world is to just accept multiple names an not enforce uniformity. We have technical tools to deal with any POV fork problems. However, I'd also observe that among the current set of active editors on these topics there is a fairly good understanding of the nuances and how to use them correctly. Most of the complaints seem to be coming from people who don't have an active reading interest in this field and find the ground shifting under their familiar terminology. Egfrank 06:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Egfrank: I find this quote of yours most revealing: "The plain truth is this discussion should not be happening at all. There should be no question about the legitimacy of the term "progressive" for either categories or article titles. There should be no question that "progressive" is the proper umbrella term." When an editor comes on board Wikipedia they cannot assume that their POV will be granted and accepted lock-stock-and-barrel without opposition -- everyone has had and still does have other views to take into consideration. Many editors here wish to examine and explore questions which may seem to be settled in your mind but are far from so on Wikipedia, or in the world at large for that matter. So please keep an open mind, be patient, assume good faith, and try to help us deal with the discussion/s at hand. Thanks so much, IZAK 04:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

IZAK it is not a question of my POV - it is a question of a feeling of disjoint reality between the academics and Jewish professionals I know on one hand and the conversation I am hearing in Wikipedia on the other. The term "progressive" developed precisely to avoid POV issues within the non-orthodox, non-conservative community. Now you are asking me not to use that term and instead use "reform", a term that has loaded significance in that community. I am in an impossible situation. Egfrank 06:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with User:HG. We seem to be at an impass here. I have placed a request for feedback at the project for countering systemic bias - see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/open_tasks#WikiProject_Judaism_needs_help_- geographical_bias_concerns. Best, 09:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Deep Concern

I am deeply concerned about User:IZAK's unilateral decision to delete (not just copy) the above discussion from the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Progressive Judaism page. Deleting material from a project page merely because one disagrees with the existence of the project is beyond comprehension. Egfrank 08:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. IZAK is a long-time and dedicated leader on WP:Judaism. To be sure, he may himself disagree with the project. Still, I'd assume good faith here. He's moving discussion here because it's a question somewhat external to (i.e. about) the Progressive Judaism project and because IZAK knows more people read this page. Your two-way conversation is getting a bit heated, so -- if you don't mind my saying so -- maybe you'll both benefit from listening to more outside input and maybe you'll appreciate more of each other's concerns. My 2 cents. HG | Talk 08:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. That makes 4¢. Tomer^talk 08:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I do assume good faith. My concern is not about User:IZAK but rather the action itself. Good intentions or not, deleting material is very different from moving. User:IZAK had many other options for insuring wider participation in the discussion of whether or not Progressive Judaism is original research:

• he could have posted a notice here about an important discussion going on inside another project (this is the normal procedure)
• he could have proposed moving the discussion and waited for a response
• he could have placed a note at the end of the discussion (without removal) announcing that he will continue the discussion on this page.

Even well respected editors can make mistakes. I beg you to consider the issue at hand not the reputation of the editors. Egfrank 08:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Didn't he post a note about the move, w/the links? In other settings, I've seen reasonable concern expressed about people not posting q's in multiple forums (fora), so it's necessary to delete the old when moving a discussion. (Also, it's not like deleting from a User Talk page. You're an enthusiastic and knowledgeable person, so people started commenting on your personal page. You wisely moved stuff, since it was spreading on different user Talk pages, to a project page. IZAK moved it to a different, broader Project page.) Look, I do think IZAK deserves a certain kavod here. If you really have a concern about his conduct, raise it on his User Page and then go thru dispute channels. Rather than defend IZAK on process, I'd rather have fun arguing against him on the substantive questions! ;--> HG | Talk 08:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm compelled to agree with HG here. I see no evidence of malicious intent nor improper conduct on IZAK's part here. Moving a discussion may annoy someone, or even "someones", but in the interest of discussing subject matter that extends beyond the article where the discussion began, and avoiding parallel discussions elsewhere, it is better that the content be moved to a more central location. Nothing in IZAK's decision to do so serves, in any conceivable way, to squelch or redirect the discussion. Instead, it serves to foster greater consensus on subject matter that extends beyond the talkpage[s] where the discussion first began. I therefore award 0 points to Egfrank, 1 point to HG, and 1 point to IZAK. Counsel may proceed with cross-examination. Tomer^talk 08:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, this was my response to User:Egfrank's concerns [14] and I do wish he would stop trying to split up the discussions and dragging users over to his Progressive Judaism project, it's still too raw and has only two registered users, he is one of them, and its founder : "Hi Egfrank: It was I that initiated this discussion on your talk page [15] because I wanted to have a one-on-one talk with you seeking clarification of significant changes you have been making in the Reform Judaism versus Progressive Judaism arena. Nothing more. I just wanted to get some information from you and see where that would go. However, it was your unilateral decision to then move the discussion here, when many editors oppose the need of this Progressive Judaism Wikiproject which you have unilaterally created basically on your own in spite of pleadings not to do so from editors in the older WP:JUDAISM. You even changed the name of the topic I posted, a Concern about duplicating Reform and Progressive labels to "Is Progressive Judaism OR?" and you decided to move the discussion that I had initiated to a new project that basically only you are involved with (with only one other marginal contributor.) So in order to centralize the discussion so that those Judaic editors who are most active and who already had related discussions with you on this topic should be involved and not confused by having to run from one Wikiproject to another like chickens without heads, it made sense to move the talk to the main NPOV WP:JUDAISM because yours may be tainted by a POV even though you may not mean it that way. See Wikipedia:Content forking and WP:MULTI: "Centralized discussion:...If you find a fragmented discussion, it may be desirable to move all posts to one of the locations, removing them from the other locations and adding a link." Again, my goal now is to include the best and most active Judaic editors on Wikipedia, without driving them to distraction and inducing frustration in trying to cope with these complex issues. Hope this helps, IZAK 08:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)" Where do we go from here? Thanks, IZAK 09:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

IZAK - if you are going to copy a response, it might be a good idea to copy both sides of the dialog. Just a suggestion. You have my permission if that was your concern... Egfrank 09:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Egfrank: Since you directed your "Deep Concern" to me here and a few others asked for follow-up (just proving my point by the way, that they are not even bothering to look at the Progressive Judaism WikiProject), I posted only what I had replied to you. Feel free to post whatever you stated here again. No problem. But as I have stated on your Progressive Judaism Wikiproject, I will no longer post any comments on that page in order to avoid these confusing types of run-arounds. Let's keep the discussions centralized over here for the sake of everyone's sanity and to save all kinds of miscommunications. Also, please do not post little notes on the Progressive Wikiproject page that you "propose to do so-and-so and if no-one says anything then it's hey-ho-away-we-go" because that is no way to conduct business when so many other Judaic editors who have no interest in visiting the Progressive project are involved. Thanks for your understanding, IZAK 09:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Response to all: I repeat the concern is not User:IZAK or a deletion after discussion. The concern is deletion without prior discussion. I don't want anyone sactioning anyone else here. I want an understanding that we should respect project boundaries and discuss things before deleting material.

There is absolutely no disagreement on my part that the "Is progressive Judaism OR" discussion needs to be brought to a wider audience. As for the specific solution, that should have been discussed prior to taking action. There is more than one thing to consider here: in particular the large number of different but interrelated discussions that need to take place on the arrangement of material relating to progressive judaism.

My preference to have them grouped together where their impact on each other can be more easily studied and followed over time. That is merely a preference, albeit a strong one. My deep concern comes from the fact that the pros and cons of where to place the actual discussion were never explored before action was taken. Egfrank 09:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, granted. You have grounds for a gripe. Without prejudice, overruled. I agree IZAK could have opened a discussion there to move the discussion, but cannot see how that discussion could have gone anywhere but in full agreement with his desire to move the discussion to an area where it could receive wider attention. Can we agree to go forward with the discussion where it is now? Tomer^talk 09:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I am more than happy to have the discussion here. There is no long term damage to the integrity of the either project - when the discussion is closed and archived it can surely be archived under both projects if continuity and history is at issue.

However, please do not characterize my concern as a gripe. There is an underlying issue of respect for different opinions. We have to look at the project culture that made it possible for a responsible and well meaning editor such as User:IZAK to believe that it would be OK just to move the discussion without discussion. That is a culture all of us have created. Egfrank 10:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Tomer. We should not be like Henry Kissinger did with the North Vietnamese who wasted lots of time negotiating the shape of the table on which to hold the talks...let's hold the talks already without beating around the bush. The bottom line is, why does Egfrank go around creating duplicate articles and categories for Reform and Progressive Judaism if it's only a question of semantics and not content or even form, as I see it? See by the way, WP:POVFORK. I am re-asking my questions to him again:

Hi Egfrank: Looking at your recent expansion of articles and categories relating to Progressive Judaism creates a number of serious problems of duplication and redundancies. You seem to be conducting a solo editorial campaign of revisionism that creates a false impression that "Progressive Judaism" somehow has nothing to do with Reform Judaism. You are creating articles and categories that is artificially distancing the notions of "Reform" from "Progressivism" from each other which may violate WP:NOR, when they are essentially one and the same thing. For example, you created Category:Progressive Jewish communal organizations, Category:Progressive Jewish higher education, Category:Progressive Jewish thinkers with articles in them that pertain to Reform Judaism more than anything else. What is this "heirarchy" all about? What is the common or universal scholarly standing of Progressive Judaism vis-a-vis Reform Judaism and vice versa? If they are one and the same thing then they should not get separate articles or categories but should be merged. Is it something like the the split within Haredi Judaism where you have Hasidic Judaism as a sub-group yet distinctly different? Just look at these examples of what you did: The Central Conference of American Rabbis is the arch-Reform rabbinical body, yet you have on your own placed them in Category:Progressive Jewish communal organizations, when surely that should have been Category:Reform Judaism communal organizations? -- By the way, the term Reform Judaism is preferable to "Reform Jewish" since "Judaism" refers to the religion whereas "Jewish" may also mean the ethnicity alone, excluding the religion.) You put the main Reform Judaism institution of Hebrew Union College into Category:Progressive Jewish higher education, should that not have been Category:Reform Judaism higher education instead? You then place Moses Mendelssohn into Category:Progressive Jewish thinkers, which is actually quite nebulous because the term "Progressive" could have so many connotations in light of the Haskalah milieu Mendelssohn lived in and was responding to. In any case who decided to make him into a "Progressive" now?, certainly it is not what he called himself and by dint of history and all mainstream scholarship he is regarded as the main "Father of Reform Judaism" almost universally. Thus this last category should have been Category:Reform Judaism thinkers. Unless this mix-up can be clarified, I will ask that the Progressive Judaism article be merged into the main Reform Judaism article, and that the categories be renamed as I have noted above.

Can we get some real answers please? Thanks for everyone's efforts. IZAK 10:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I was rather saddened by having the information above re-posted in a big box. It seemed more an attack on Egfrank than anything else.

Anyway, the fact remains that North American Reform is but one element to what is described internationally as Progressive Judaism. Although everything that is called Progressive DOES NOT fit in to Reform Judaism (religiously, historically), Reform is a part of international Progressive - this is why there exists an international umbrella organization - see World Union for Progressive Judaism (http://wupj.org/). It would be right to classify Central Conference of American Rabbis as BOTH Category:Progressive Jewish communal organizations AND Category:Reform Judaism communal organizations. By the way, only a handful of Reform consider Mendelsohn the father of the movement - this title has been variously bestowed in books and sermons on Israel Jacobson and Abraham Geiger, to name but a couple. More widely Mendelsohn is considered a progressive Jewish philosopher, derided by traditionalists of his day and some modern writers as a conduit to Christianity.

I therefore don't find much validity to the above personal attack, basically due to the fact that merging Progressive into Reform is inaccurate. By the way, 'attack' isn't too strong a word since the inference is that only Egfrank is making these additions and changes, and he is not alone. A Sniper 12:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no "personal attack" on a request for clarification. Getting answers helps, shedding tears does not. Thanks, IZAK 03:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

IZAK, please understand this is not about where we have the discussion, nor is it even about you personally. It is about how the decision was made. See above my response to User:TShilo12. Egfrank 10:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Egfrank: I'm not sure what "decision" you are talking about, there have been so many lately. I am not insulted in any way, and I hope neither are you. Editors who wish to explicate the Progressive views and build articles and categories on it, cannot assume that everyone follows or adheres to their base-line knowledge and premises. You need to pay attention to explaining the differences and similarities between Reform Judaism and Progressive Judaism more aggressively and clearly, rather than create the impression that you are performing a "creeping annexation" of the Reform Judaism topics and categories by those who prefer the "Progressive" label and POV for whatever reason/s. Most people familiar with Jewish life know what Reform Judaism is in the United States, and do not use and know very little how the Progressive Judaism label is used in the United Kingdom or how it applies to Jews in the USA. This is somewhat akin to Conservative Judaism renaming itself Masorti Judaism in Israel or "Egalitarian Judaism" but it's still a case of six-of-one-and-a-half-a-dozen-of-the-other no matter which way you slice it. So then this scenario of how Reform Judaism versus Progressive Judaism comes across is that ther is not any meat-and-bones to the points, just that in this place they "call themselves" or "are called" Reform and some place else the exact same organizations are called Progressive. There are still no real differences that you have presented so far. Thanks again, IZAK 03:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Do we really have to explain it ten times that North American Reform (of which I am an adherent, by the way, so that you can see this isn't just Egfrank's opinion) is but one segment within the umbrella of international Progressive Judaism, which also includes US Reconstructionist and Humanist Judaism, UK Liberal & Reform (two separate denominations), European Progressive (Danish, German, Dutch, etc.) and Israeli Progressive? All come under the banner Progressive, as evidenced by the creation of the World Union of Progressive Judaism in 1926 (www.wupj.org). If you go to the WUPJ site, you'll find a listing of ALL the world's denominations under the Progressive Judaism banner, some of whom would never call themselves reform and actually have no historical link to the classical Reform of Germany or the North American version. This isn't a matter of subjectivity, but merely a fact. Orthodox is a term that can mean many different strains within it (Haredi, Modern, Chasidic, etc.), yet I don't hear anyone moaning about its use. Best,A Sniper 22:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

A. Sniper: Indeed I have stated that Orthodoxy is split into no more than four essential and identifiable groupings of Haredi, Modern, Hasidic and Religious Zionist and I have asked how Progressive and Reform Judaism compare to this and that it be clearly stated and explained in articles. But the problem with the "Progressive" label that is coming across on Wikipedia, and which you exhibit right here, is that it (i.e. the label "Progressive") is claimed to be both another name for Reform and at the same time a label that includes other movements not called Reform. This needs to be worked on and clarified, especially since there is a long-standing scholarly understanding (expressed by a number of editors above) that the Reform and the Progressives are primarily just two-sides-of the same coin and not separate streams, and the rest is minor information. Do they have different Halachik codes? Is one more or less "frummer" than the other, etc? That is one of the huge problems I have with the Progressive Judaism article which reads as if it is even inclusive of much of Orthodoxy (something Egfrank tried to do with Rabbi Soloveitchik) and hence the problem of making a fatal logical mistake here is that: "If Progressive = Reform" and "Progressive = Orthodox" then does that mean that "Reform = Orthodox"??? Ludicrous, right? This would then be a totally nonsensical "conclusion" for a so-called "syllogism" because, without going into undue explanations, Reform does not equal Orthodoxy and Orthodoxy does not equal Progressivism as understood here or by most scholars. So we will have to get an intellectual and practical grip on things and tighten up the arguments and categories in order to avoid appearing silly based on flawed conclusions. IZAK 04:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

IZAK it is a question of part vs. whole. "Reform" refers to a part of something larger called "progressive". But see below for details. As for Rabbi Solevetich - he is quoted by reform/liberal/progressive Jews - he has influenced them all - the man is brilliant and smart people are heard no matter what their "label". Every one knows his relationship to orthodoxy. His influence on conservative and progressive Jews doesn't lesson in any way that relationship. Rather it should be something to be proud of.

Progressive is a broad tent - partly because it contains so many views (see below). The definition you complain about is not mine. You may not like that progressive has laid claim to something you consider orthodox as well, but that is a dispute with progressive Judaism, not me. There is no OR here - just exposure to ideas you haven't yet seen. If you don't believe me, I'm more than happy to give you a very long reading list.

I think part of the problem here is that we want to see big differences when in fact we are all trying towards the same goal in different ways. What is really the problem here is that these definitions "orthodox", "progressive" are breaking down barriers that have made each one into an "other". In reality we have a continuum of openness to science, modern philosophy, etc. with haridi jews at one extreme, modern orthodox somewhere in the middle and a huge array of progressive movements fading into a radical universalistic humanistic and secular Judaism on the other. That's what makes these definitions so hard. Egfrank 05:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Regional Differences between progressive movements

IZAK, the reason why this material is not fleshed out is because it takes time to gather citations and assess multiple viewpoints. And seriously these kind of challenges take time away from the actual work of filling in the details.

But if you'll allow uncited claims, I'll give you a few examples of differences to get you started:

• patrilineal descent: US reform, UK liberals - yes. Most everybody else: too divisive, no way. And very strong feelings about being confused with anyone who does.
• gay marriage: US reform, UK liberals - yes, and anything else would be a violation of our obligations to mutual respect and dignity. Everywhere else - at best divided, in some cases actively hostile.
• intermarriage/rabbinic authority:
  • US rabbinic assembly says no. US congregations say yes. US rabbinic assembly doesn't really have much authority and since congregations wont hire rabbis who refuse to perform intermarriages, de facto the US movement accepts intermarriage without conversion.
  • Israel: Rabbis who perform intermarriages risk getting kicked out the israeli rabbinic association so intermarriage doesn't happen
  • elsewhere: not sure, but maybe User:Jheald can tell us about how UK Liberals and UK reform handle this.

UK secular statute law only licenses rabbis to perform marriages where both parties are Jewish. Rabbis can't marry a Jew to a non-Jew even if they wanted to. But blessing ceremonies (without a chuppah) in shul after a secular marriage in a register office are common, both in UK Liberal and UK Reform shuls. I think attitudes vary from congregation to congregation, rabbi to rabbi. But in general I think UK Liberal shuls are often very welcoming-in of non-Jewish partners. UK Reform may be more of a "broad church" of views. One data point: the former UK Tory political leader Michael Howard was made to feel very unwelcome in his United Synagogue (ie Modern Orthodox) congregation when he wanted to marry a non-Jew. But he was welcomed in by the rabbis of the Liberal Jewish Synagogue at St John's Wood (despite certain differences on his human rights legislation), and can be found dutifully attending there every Yom Kippur. Jheald 11:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• ritual observance:
  • US: everything goes from nothing to totally shomer shabbat, shomer kashrut in a traditional sense. However, the majority of US reform Jews believe rather strongly that religion is a matter of ethics or philosophy and not practice. Yom Kippur - people drive to shul without a blink. Some congregations require kosher food at communal gatherings. Some don't. Tish b'av, Sukkot barely observed except by the most committed. Washing hands is unknown. Birkat hamazon only gets said in shul gatherings and summer camps.
  • Israel: much more traditional. at least some level of kashrut and shabbat observance is the norm though s in the US it varies from person to person. Never seen a communal gathering that had non kosher food. No one drives here on Yom Kippur except the totally secular. All hagim observed as religious holidays. Many people wash hands before meals and say birchat hamazon after at least for Shabbat meals. -- BTW an aside on observance levels: when I first went to grad school in the UK, I was invited to a shabbat meal with an orthodox family. Their rabbi was also there. Before the meal, both he and I got up to wash - the family did not. Started quite a conversation as they tried to understand why I (progressive Jew) was doing machmir things like their rabbi and I tried to understand why they weren't washing their hands when "everybody does it". Ah well. I guess perceptions of what's "ultra-religious" are regional among the orthodox too).
• history:
  • Germany: disagreements over the level of require observance split the German reform movement into a Reform and Liberal faction at the close of the 19th century. In pre world war II, Germany, liberal judaism was a conservative response to the radical reformers. Both considered themselves progressive. Post world war II, the german movement put aside their differences and united under the banner of Union Progressiver Juden.
  • US: followers of the radical universalist German reformer Samuel Holdheim
  • UK: there are debates about where UK progressive judaism comes from. Meyers holds they got it from the Germans. I've read another author (name forgotton) who argues it arose naturally from within in response to certain issues and predjudices unique to the UK environment. It two split into a more observant (Reform) and less observant (Liberal) faction. Note, IZAK, that in the UK the meaning of "Reform" and "Liberal" are exactly the opposite as in Germany. This is one reason why is it very confusing when someone tries to conflate all things progressive onto the word "reform". Reform UK was still refusing to ordain women when the US Reform movement was debating gay marriage. I'm sure as an orthodox Jew you can appreciate why a UK Reform might not want to be lumped in with the US Reform and why they might only be willing to consider common cause if a neutral term is available. The distancing that you saw between "reform" and "progressive" isn't entirely wrong, but it isn't my invention either. The non-US movements very much want some distance from the US. Your insistance that non-US groups should be called reform rather than progressive is about as offensive to some as expecting "Dati Leumi" to be lumped under the umbrella of "Degel haTorah"

• • Israel: the first congregation was formed in 1958. European progressive and american reconstruction Judaism were apparently the primary influences, though I don't have good sources on this.

Best, Egfrank 05:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Differentiating between Reform and Progressive Judaism

Discussion moved here from User talk:IZAK#Clarification by request of User:Egfrank. (Edited to conform to this topic. Here goes):

If you feel that way, I recommend you put that comment on the talk page of the article. As I said, I'm not a fan of discussing articles on user pages. I'll be happy to respond over there. BTW, before making claims of original research, you might want to check sources or read up on the subject. I'm happy to recommend sources. I don't at all get the impression this falls in your area of expertise (no offence meant - you probably know lots of stuff about certain parts of the talmud I've never met even in bikkiut). Egfrank 04:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• ...thanks for offering to help with a reading list, but sometimes the fresh perspective of an outsider, who is well-informed about Judaism, can help you break away from your preconceived notions on what you hold most dear. I have had to defend the views of Judaism against all sorts of attackers but it has never bothered me to learn from them. And I am not calling you an "attacker" I regard you as a friend, just that quite honestly, as you may have seen, I have not done anything yet, just asked questions, so that I can get a better idea behind your reasoning and why you created the new Progressive categories that seemed to be mirroring the Reform ones. Finally, you may wish to know that my interests go well beyond the Talmud, as you will find out, and I am always happy to learn as long as what I am being taught makes sense and is not illogical. Unfortunately, a lot of what I read on the Progressive Judaism page is nonsense (no offense) as it makes it sound that the Progressives are upholding a great Torah and rabbinic "tradition" when it is just a movement to rationalize why pork can be eaten by Jews, that God probably did not give the Torah to Mosheh and that the mitzvot do not have to be observed by Jews. Just a few small things. Let's keep perspective and not fall prey to believing our own propaganda, something I repeat to myself every day, and I highly recommend it to you as well. Be well, IZAK 05:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

IZAK, "just a movement to rationalize why pork can be eaten by Jews"? Do you really believe that? Are you willing to discuss this in open court on the wiki project judaism page? I would like to do that. I think it would be a very healthy discussion. Thanks. 08:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egfrank (talk • contribs)

Egfrank: I am not ready to make a "federal case" out of it yet over there, but I think I am getting there... User's talk pages are more open and less formal. We can speak in generalities. If I wanted to say that on that page I would. I am still trying to feel you out -- without getting a long-winded research-paper as a response. So tell me the truth, do the Reform and Progressive movements forbid the eating of pork and is there any difference between their policies on the eating of pork by Jews? Just a simple question, that may illustrate a point that they are not the heirs to Judaism's heritage as the main Progressive Judaism article portrays them to be. A question that will reveal either the nonsense or wisdom of the Progressives. IZAK 08:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I do not want to subject you to too much agony. I can sense your discomfort. So let me simplify matters. It is well known that Reform Judaism does not believe that the Torah was given to Moses at Mt. Sinai by God. Thus, to them, the mitzvot are not divine and were just man-made social rules in response to various situations of ancient times. There may have been a time that eating certain foods was unhealthy. But now, that there is good hygene, and that the Torah's commandments are regarded as concocted by mere mortal men in any case, the dietary laws do not apply, except perhaps as quint "customs" if so desired (like eating a latke or two on Hanuka), but there is no obligation by Reform Jews to keep the Torah's ancient dietery laws. That includes the prohibition against eating pork, which for Reform no longer applies. Thus no Reform Jew is obligated to not eat pork, and indeed many a Reform rabbi enjoys a hearty breakfast of bacon and eggs with her non-Jewish partner. Have I missed anything here? Tell me, please! So now, having clarified that, and not expecting a denial from you, can you please tell me what is the "official" policy about Jews eating or not eating pork by Progressive Judaism that differs in any way from what Reform, teaches, practices and does without any apologies? Thanks so much, IZAK 08:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I very much want that conversation over there. I do not feel safe having it on a user page. best, Egfrank 08:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank-you IZAK for moving the discussion here. Egfrank 09:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Before we begin the discussion, I would like to make sure I understand your position. You believe that reform/liberal/progrssive/whatever Judaism is:

• just a movement to rationalize why pork can be eaten by Jews.
• just a movement to rationalize that God probably did not give the Torah to Mosheh
• just a movement to rationalize that mizvot do not have to be observed by Jews.
• is being falsely characterized as upholding a great Torah and rabbinic "tradition"

Do I have this right? Egfrank 09:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No. None of the above as regarding "just" (why and where did you latch on to the "just" word I wonder?) Do not draw the wrong conclusions. It's more complicated and complex obviously. Oh come on. I am choosing a few basic issues as an "acid test" by way of examples to illustrate my argument. Or am not allowed to do that? IZAK 09:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'm willing to agree these are acid tests. Can you explain the more complex view? I think it would help me and others respond more coherently. The word "just" came from your response above (here at the beginning of the first line). It would help if you could clarify what you did mean by the word "just" when you used it up there. Also what did you mean by "rationalize"? Egfrank 09:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, now I see it, but before I dwell on what I said, let me repeat that I was not asking you to agree that these are acid tests, I was asking if it is true that Reform Judaism permits Jews to eat pork, since it does not believe in the divine origin of the Torah and therefore Reform does not view the mitzvot as given by God to Moses to be observed by the Jewish people forevermore, thus: (now comes my quote:) "Unfortunately, a lot of what I read on the Progressive Judaism page is nonsense (no offense) as it makes it sound that the Progressives are upholding a great Torah and rabbinic "tradition" when it is just a movement to rationalize why pork can be eaten by Jews, that God probably did not give the Torah to Mosheh and that the mitzvot do not have to be observed by Jews." Meaning that at the end of the day, after all the great philosophies have been expounded by all the great thinkers and pontificators, simply put, a Reform Jew will eat a pork chop with no qualms because Reform Judaism permits it, and my question to you is, is the Progressive view any different to Reform's reformed view of classical Judaism? (To me it seems there is no difference. -- Sure some individuals keep kashrut if they want to, but it's not required by Reform or Progressivism.) No need to make this more complicated than it is. As I said, I was not looking for term-paper type responses from you and I was not intending on giving any myself at this point. IZAK 10:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of frustrating you, I want to quote the description of a leading theologian in the reform/progressive movement, Eugene Borowitz. He is a professor emeritus at HUC in New York. This discussion is not really about my opinion of Reform/Progressive Judaism or even yours (both of which would be POV and OR), but rather its opinion of itself. The following is from the introduction to his book: Renewing the Covenant: A Theology for the Postmodern Jew:

It seems to me that Jewish spirituality has been decisively molded by six momentous folk experiences: Covenant, Settlement, Rabbinism, Diaspora, Emancipation, and post-Holocaust disillusionment....The first and most formative experience in the development of Jewish spirituality was entering into the Covenant...Judaism revolves around the Covenant experience of choice, promise, demand, redemption, and mission. Our liturgy reviews it every day, our calendar follows it each year. Believing Jews live in the reality of the Covenant.

The second phase in the growth of the Hebrew spirit occurred in the land of Israel. Between 1250 and 500 BCE a family become a nation experienced settlement, kingdom, the establishment of the Temple, social division and decline, prophecy, the loss of ten tribes, the conquest of Judah and destruction of the Temple, exile, and most startlingly, a return to the land and rebuilding of the Temple.... These events and writings greatly amplified the Covenant, reaching a climax in visions of a Messianic Day when all humankind, lead by the people of Israel, would finally serve God fully and freely.

The third decisive stage in Jewish religiosity began when, some centuries after most of the biblical books were composed, our people created the religious life described and advanced by the writings of the "rabbis".... In the classic rabbinic texts, law, halakhah, intertwines with spiritual teaching, aggadah, together creating a religious way that seeks sanctity through educated participation and characterizes all succeeding Judaism.

Our Diaspora existence of the net thirteen centuries engendered the fourth step in our growth...In the face of hostility we created rich patterns of family and community life to sanctify our inner existence...We began to systematize Judaism in legal codes and philosophic structures while also developing the speculative mysticism called Kabbalah.

...Emancipation revolutionized Jewish spirituality, for whenever Jews were permitted to modernity, they did so avidly, and uncomplainingly accepted its accompanying secularization...In sum, non-Orthodox American Jewish spirtuality, in ways typical of every modernized Jewry, now sought human fulfillment through Western culture rather than through the Written and Oral Law....

The sixth period in Jewish spirituality resulted, as many have suggested, from Hilter's murder of six million Jews and the existence of the State of Israel. Once Jews could confront the Holocaust in its own satanic fullness and see it as the terrifying symbol of humankind's demonic energies, they identified Western culture as a fraud....The slow but steady growth of this consciousness has been the basis of the surprising emergence of an explicitly religious concern in postmodern Jewishness; against the predictions of the pundits, God again claims our attention.... The bulk of our community now finds itself spiritually situated halfway between uncritical modernity and undemocratized traditionalism. We are searching for a new understanding of the transcendent ground of our ethical and ethnic commitment; we have made a postmodern turn to our people's millennial Covenant. (pp. 1-6).

I see something more here than someone who is just rationalizing his decision to eat/not eat pork. Do you? Again, if reform/progressive Judaism is something more that the three litmus tests you proposed, how would you characterize it? Egfrank 10:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Honestly I don't care what he says. You have not answered my question. I know about all these grandiose rationalizers, no doubt he probably had bacon and eggs for breakfast too as he was preparing for that speech. This is the clincher: "In sum, non-Orthodox American Jewish spirtuality, in ways typical of every modernized Jewry, now sought human fulfillment through Western culture rather than through the Written and Oral Law...We are searching for a new understanding of the transcendent ground of our ethical and ethnic commitment; we have made a postmodern turn to our people's millennial Covenant" a verbatim quote that confirms Borowitz is an apostate Jew according to Judaism. I have asked a few times that you not post term paper length answers with lengthy quotes from writers in them. Stick to the discussion points between us. I have asked you to tell me if Progressives are any different in the way Reform allows its adherents to eat pork and you have not answered me. Instead you throw up Borowitz's sayings as if quoting from Mao's little red book that have no bearing or validity in terms of normative Judaism. So therefore I am assuming that the answer is that there is absolutely no difference in their rejection of the divine origins of the Torah and the obligation of Jews to keep the mitzvot. I am also very disturbed when I read that you are biased and that you intend to disintegrate the Reform Judaism article merely to rename the whole subject as Progressive Judaism, see User:Egfrank/Workroom#Progressive Judaism: "Reform Judaism - too long - try to split into subarticles and then eventually into disamb page that points to articles and organizations that have refered to themselves as "Reform Jews" and "Liberal Judaism - short, but should also probably be a disambig page - there are a lot of countries where the prefered term is "Liberal" - the name isn't the exclusive property of UK judaism. Also it is the name of a book by Eugene Borowitz" --- So it seems that you are planning to totally destroy any real semblance of Reform Judaism articles so that only "Progressive Judaism" should rule the roost. By the way, in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/open tasks#WikiProject Judaism needs help - geographical bias concerns you admit about yourself in a "Statement of my own bias: I am one of the editors in favor of the use of the term "progressive". I am also an active progressive Jew born in Uganda, raised in the US and living in Israel. So I may not be representing the other position fairly." So that there are serious WP:COI, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV issues here that you cannot avoid. By any chance do you work for the World Union for Progressive Judaism in Israel? This is getting rather personalized from your end and you may have to explain how you can continue with all this wholesale vast changes. You can rest assured that I am in no way connected with Reform Judaism, and I speak as a concerned Wikipedia editor trying to assume and practice WP:AGF and WP:NPOV. Thanks again, IZAK 11:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Tomb of Daniel and Daniel's Tomb

There are two articles that need to be reconciled: Tomb of Daniel and Daniel's Tomb that involve questions about whether it's in Iran or Iraq as well. Please help, IZAK 09:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Additional Progressive Judaism topics under discussion

There are a variety of topics under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Progressive Judaism. They might be of particular interest to some of the members of the wider judaism project. All are invited to attend. I personally have no personal objection to moving those discussions to this page if there is sufficent general interest. However, despite my vocalness I am not the only member of that project. Given that fact, I do ask that the decision be discussed first with time permitted for other members of the project being given time to respond.  :-). Egfrank 11:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Tikkun Olam

I just looked at the Tikkun Olam article. It is so sad. It is just a little stub of a thing. It ought to be overflowing and pushing the limits of WP:LENGTH. Tikkun Olam is hardly a small topic for Jews - in fact, I think some would argue that the Jewish commitment to tikkun olam is the Jewish shining star. So I'd like to make a pitch, that this week we all go out and learn at least one itty bitty notable thing that can beef up this article. Kol tuv, Egfrank 21:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Ghetto

Could someone please read this article to see if the way Jewish ghettos are described is sensible? I noticed some comments on the talk page about describing Jewish neighborhoods as "ghettos" in the wrong context being potentially incorrect and offensive. I'm trying to make improvements myself, but I could use some help. futurebird 23:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)