This is a big job. But to start, please see how the article about the First Temple/[[Solomon's Temple]] can be improved by inserting into it more Jewishly relevant material about it's destruction that incorporates the timely themes of [[Seventeenth of Tammuz]]; [[The Three Weeks]]; [[The Nine Days]]; [[Tisha B'Av]]. Thanks, [[User:IZAK|IZAK]] ([[User talk:IZAK|talk]]) 06:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
This is a big job. But to start, please see how the article about the First Temple/[[Solomon's Temple]] can be improved by inserting into it more Jewishly relevant material about it's destruction that incorporates the timely themes of [[Seventeenth of Tammuz]]; [[The Three Weeks]]; [[The Nine Days]]; [[Tisha B'Av]]. Thanks, [[User:IZAK|IZAK]] ([[User talk:IZAK|talk]]) 06:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
: I think the First Temple is better known as Solomon's Temple in English. That explains the name and why First Temple redirects to it. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 07:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Malik Shabazz, but in addition think that by default articles should follow modern Hebrew pronunciation, unless directly related to subjects where the Ashkenazi pronunciation is obviously relevant. Debresser (talk) 11:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not every bio of a Jew should, necessarily, be part of WPJudaism. This is an old debate. Should every bio of a Christian person be part of WPChristianity? No. -shirulashem(talk)20:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because the simple fact of a persons belief or ethnicity doesn't mean anything he does is related to that. I wonder how this isn't obvious. Debresser (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Debresser — a person isn't a sum of unrelated parts. It is possible that a person could be a bundle of contradictions but we should leave that to the reader to decide. You are talking about "beliefs," but approximately fifty-percent of Jews are nonobservant. It seems unlikely that a nonobservant Jew is going to be espousing "beliefs." And what you are saying sounds like the end result could be that the (approximately) 50% of Jews who are nonobservant would, by dint of their nonobservance, be ruled out of possible inclusion in the WikiProject Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 03:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair question. I guess my argument was similar to WP:OTHERCRAP. Let me try again. I think that inclusion in WP:Judaism should be similar to inclusion in the categories related to Judaism. I fully agree with WP:BLPCAT where it states, "Categories regarding religious beliefs ... should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief ... in question; and the subject's beliefs ... are relevant to his notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." Albeit that's applicable to categorization, I think it should apply here too. -shirulashem(talk)21:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Debresser — the "said guideline" refers to "beliefs." What of nonobservant Jews? Are only observant Jews eligible for inclusion in "Wikiproject Judaism?" Consider the following: if a nonobservant Jew states explicitly that he is Jewish, wouldn't he or she be eligible for inclusion in "Wikiproject Judaism?" The only part of that "guideline" applicable to the question raised by Jayjg is the stipulation that the "subject's beliefs" be a part of their notability. Also, as Shirulashem points out, those are guidelines for placement in "Categories." It is not clear that those guidelines apply to "projects" such as the WikiProject Judaism. I think if an individual has an article on them and if they are Jewish, they should be included in the "Wikiproject Judaism." Bus stop (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please link to that so I can see it in its context? Where are you finding the "similar guideline for ethnicity, sexual orientation" that you are referring to? Bus stop (talk) 03:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about placement in categories. The question concerns the placement into Wikiproject Judaism. If someone is a Jew, and they have an article on Wikipedia, then I think an argument can be made that they should be included in Wikiproject Judaism. My reasoning would be that the person is the embodiment of Judaism. If they are a nonobservant Jews, as 50% of all Jewish people are, approximately, then obviously they cannot be noted for their "beliefs." Nevertheless, they are Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 06:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I misspoke. It wouldn't be correct to say that a person who claims to be an atheist is the embodiment of Judaism. But, if the person is a Jew, then it is axiomatic that he embodies Judaism. I don't know whether Andy Bloch is or is not Jewish. The question is whether he is Jewish or not. But if we determine that he is Jewish, it would not matter if he were additionally an atheist. If he is Jewish I think he should be included in the WikiProject Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the argument in favor or against inclusion in a WikiProject should be even more stringent than for inclusion in a category, so I find that guideline very relevant in outlining the intent of Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't the guideline relevant to this issue (it is the guideline relevant to placement in categories), so you are expressing your opinion. Bus stop (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An example: Woody Allen seems fine in this WikiProject as his work touches on Jewish identity. He's not included just because he's Jewish.WikiProject Atheism has claimed him too and it seems his statements of agnosticism or atheism have been white-washed out of the article, but hey, that's another issue. Fences&Windows11:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder about Sandy Koufax. In an earlier generation, his refusal to pitch on Yom Kippur was considered quite notable.Mzk1 (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, concerning Sandy Koufax. Except that notable or not should not matter. All that should matter is that he is Jewish. The role that Jewishness plays in his life is not for us to evaluate. Why would we decide in advance that all nonobservant Jews are ineligible for inclusion in WikiProject Judaism? That is in essence what we are doing if we accept, as some are suggesting above, that a person has to be notable for their Jewishness in order to be considered for inclusion in WikiProject Judaism. Can you give me an example of a nonobservant Jew who is notable for their Jewishness? While a nonobservant Jew may not be notable for their Jewishness, they are every bit as Jewish as an observant Jew. Judaism is a religion that has always posited that failure to be religiously observant does not in any way detract from one's status as a Jew. The distinction that some editors above are articulating is not only meaningless, it is also misleading. Bus stop (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria for inclusion should have nothing to do with being involved with the religion. For Wikipedia purposes we want to know if the person is Jewish. If Sandy Koufax did not pitch on Yom Kipper — he was involved with the religion. If he simply affirmed that he was Jewish, he would be involved with the religion. Were people not involved with the religion they would probably not identify themselves as Jews. For Wikipedia purposes a statement from an individual to the effect that he or she is Jewish should suffice. The hurdles you are suggesting, in the form of rabbinical ordination for instance — are arbitrary. For a nonobservant Jew — simply saying one is Jewish should satisfy Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion in WikiProject Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was just looking at the article King David and it seems to me that certain articles need to have parallel versions. If I wanted to have an article that described Dovid Hamelech with all the Jewish sources, it would probably not work in the general article as the Christians and Muslims wouldn't think it appropriate. And all those pictures of statues of Dovid Hamelech are just obscene. This is a general problem and I'm just using this article as an example because I wanted to edit it. I'm afraid of making any sort of change, because in the past it was impossible to make parallel articles, but perhaps it would work if we could come to some sort of consensus. It would be so much more useful for frum people if we could look at an article and not have to see all the idiocy that creeps into the general articles.
For example, we could have all of Tanach from a Jewish point of view and link to articles that describe the medrashim etc. I would even think that it would be appropriate to have an Orthodox or sometimes even Charedi point of view, because otherwise you would constantly be fighting with people who have all sorts of things to say about medrashim and other parts of the mesorah. Ezra Wax (talk) 04:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I note that this was done with the Netinim, where there are three articles. I also think Biblical Wedding should have a hatnote, stating that it is the critical point of view and referring to Jewish Views of Marriage.Mzk1 (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think your idea is excellent, Ezra. We already have articles like Passover and Passover (Christian holiday). I would also like to see separate articles for the views of Bible critics. As it is now, articles on Biblical topics like Abraham or The Exodus set out the topic according to Jewish sources, then the topic according to Christian sources, and then the complete undercutting of the topic according to "critical scholarship". Yoninah (talk) 12:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Being that it looks like there might be agreement here that parallel articles are a good idea, where would be a good place to broach the subject where all interested parties could weigh in? Ezra Wax (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with this comment. "Articles on Biblical topics like Abraham or The Exodus set out the topic according to Jewish sources, then the topic according to Christian sources, and then the complete undercutting of the topic according to "critical scholarship"." Yes, it's called a neutral point of view. You can't only describe a topic according to its adherents or advocates. To deliberately take the argument to extremes, are we to allow everyone—paedophiles, terrorists, white supremacists included—to write about their beliefs in articles without the "complete undercutting of the topic according to "critical scholarship"," or should only articles about the Jewish religion have this special privilege? Is religion to be the only topic immune from critical analysis on Wikipedia?
We have separate articles on the Jewish and Christian Passovers because they are not the same topic, and Passover is already too long to incorporate Christian observance of it (although it should at least be described in a summary section, not relegated to a mere "See also"). Those articles don't describe the observances from a 'Jewish POV' or a 'Christian POV' respectively, or at least they really shouldn't. Fences&Windows11:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The comment above would be good, if this is what is happening. But, for example, the article on Daniel is entirely Christinan, including the quotes from Jewish sources. (See my comment there.) "Biblical wedding" is entirely historical-critical. Also, the texts are not always the same. Some Christian versions of Samuel have many extra chapters. There continual arguments against that the historical-critical ("scholarly") view is more notable.Mzk1 (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Without addressing the POVFORK issue, I would point out that a Jewish article or section, would, presumably, include a range of Jewish viewpoints, including secularist, Reform and Conservative that accept historical-critical viewpoints to varying degrees. I still think that is a valuable addition, as the debates within the Jewish world are often different in tenor, in key issues, and even in source texts (as mentioned above) than those in the non-Jewish world. I do not know whether those need seperate articles, or a section is enough. See what I have tried to do with this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Moses . I have added Jewish sources and POV's, from Orthodox to Reform, to secularist but "pro Jewish". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardianman (talk • contribs) 13:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Translation on reference desk
I was wondering if someone fluent in Hebrew might be able to take a look at this:
Hi. The article on Psalms states that "most of the psalms are believed to have been intended for singing (some even include instrumentation and the names of tunes to sing to)." In the King James version of the Bible I haven't been able to recognize any notes about instruments and tunes, only notes that attribute authorship and dedicate psalms to various musicians, etc. I assume these details are preserved in Jewish texts. Can anyone clarify or perhaps give some examples? I posted this on the discussion for the article on Psalms but it looks to be infrequently updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.223.16 (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why do editors replace, for instance,' book of Exodus' with 'Hebrew Bible'
I see this done from time to time, usually by IPs, never that I can recall with an explanation. Can anyone explain this please? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't be sure, but it might have to do with the desire to use "Hebrew Bible" instead of "Old Testament". Perhaps these editors are over-zealous, and don't realize that the problems with the term "Old Testament" don't apply to "Book of Genesis", since Jews and non-Jews alike refer to it as such. -shirulashem(talk)16:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's likely that IPs and new editors will actually read these kinds of guidelines or essays, much less comply with them. Jayjg (talk)03:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely, but it would something we could then ask them to read. And it would help editors like me know what is what. Dougweller (talk) 07:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see now someone has changed it from Book of Genesis to Torah. That is how a traditional Jew would be more likely to say it "Torah says" rather than "The Book of Genesis says" but is I suppose not appropriate for a wiki article on a topic of interest to a wider audience than mainly Jews. Ricardianman (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<-------------
In my view, Christians want to underline the distinction between the laws of the New Testament and prefer to call the five books of Moses (Torah, Pentateuch) the Hebrew bible to distance themselves from it. The reasons are the incompatibility between Christianity and the laws within the Old Testament (circumcision, worship of graven images, pork, sabbath laws, etc.) which Christians ignore. Christians also prefer to refer to Jews who lived before the destruction of the Second Temple as Hebrews to make them more palatable. No Christian wants to picture Jesus as a circumcised, bearded rabbi who would be more at ease in a Synagogue than at a Church. Thus its more convenient to forget and not follow the laws the Hebrews followed same as laws of Assyrians and Hittites. Meishern (talk) 03:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this as a Christian vs Jewish thing, especially as the changes appear to have been made by Jewish editors. Please don't start up a religious war here. Dougweller (talk) 07:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not touching that article with a 20 foot pole. Just gave my view supported by some scholars. Other scholars disagree. Same as editors on Wikipedia. Some are comfortable with Old Testament and others are comfortable with Hebrew Bible. I offered my analysis since a question was asked. My ancestors haven't started a religious war in thousands of years, and I don't plan to break with that tradition. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 08:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could still use a few more voices here, particularly those who know more about the academic background of the RD. JFW | T@lk12:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strange reason for banning Holocaust info site from Wikipedia
Website (holocaustresearchproject.org/ar/sobibor/sobiborrememberme.html) is blocked for 2 years now. I wrote the article about Alexander Pechersky of Sobibor fame and am rewriting the main Sobibor article now, and this banned website has some interesting (referenced) information.
1) 'Associated with the death camps nonsense'. Interesting use of the word 'nonsense'. Maybe its time to re-evaluate the racist, revisionist who wrote such a terrible reason for banning a holocaust information website.
2) 'the site is not reliable.' Each page on the website has references at the bottom, and from the information I've read, it is accurate, well written and doesnt conflict with other reliable sources.
I just write articles, and am not familiar with the internal workings of Wikipedia. Would someone help me re-evaluate this situation and perhaps remove the person who describes the Holocaust as 'nonsense' from Wikipedia? Thanks in advance. Meishern (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that by "death camps nonsense" the editor who wrote that was referring to the intellectual property dispute that was going on between the owners of deathcamps.org and death-camps.org. From what I can tell from a cursory glance at the relevant discussion pages, someone was going through a number of articles removing links to one site and replacing them with links to the other. As far as I can tell, the upshot is that death-camps.org is gone from the internet as a trademark violation and has been replaced with holocaustresearchproject.org and all three domains were blacklisted to stop the edit war.
One of the articles on my watchlist was the victim of the edit-warring, so I was somewhat relieved when both sites were blacklisted. You can still use them as sources, you just can't link to them. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk18:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Too funny. Holocaust sites edit-warring and some kid doing a research paper now cant get quick access to interesting pages with compiled and referenced info from multiple sources. I wont misuse my time on this any longer since some of you know the situation better than I do. I just hope Yad Vashem wont start an edit war with the Holocaust Archives.... Cheers! Meishern (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalization of messiah
The MOS for Wikipedia itself states that the messiah is capitalized because of divinity. Since Judaism emphatically rejects this belief, it would seem that in the Jewish articles or Jewish sections of articles "the messiah" should not be capitalized. Messiah without the acticle should, I would think, since it is a proper name. Any thoughts on this? (I know this should go in our MOS section, but I figured it would get lost there.)Mzk1 (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hebrew Bible is currenly rated as an article of high importance, while articles such as Rabbi are of top importance. I think it is quite obvious that the Bible is more important than the role of a Rabbi, so I think Hebrew Bible should be rated as an article of top importance. Tomer T (talk) 10:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over the articles relating to the Temple in Jerusalem, there is lots of confusion, some stemming from opposing secular and religious scholarly outlooks, but more so from various editors making major contributions over the course of a decade and creating and running parallel articles about what should be one topic. This is the situation at the moment:
Temple in Jerusalem is the over-all article. So far so good, but it does not connect with so many other articles about its own subject matter, essentially the First and Second Temples. There should really be more about its name and place in Judaism over the millennia as the Beit Hamikdash - "House of Holiness" that was built for, functioned for, existed for, was destroyed for, and prayed for by the Jewish people.
The First Temple article is at Solomon's Temple which reads like a Christian exposition and not like the holiest Jewish house of worship and sanctity that it was, while the Second Temple article is at Second Temple of Jerusalem. This is inconsistent. In addition, there is also a separate and parallel article for the Second Temple at Herod's Temple since Herod's Temple was an extension of the Second Temple.
When trying to place the destruction of the First and Second Temples, which according to Judaism occurred on Tisha B'Av, with the general dates for their destruction in Jewish history conventionally given as 586 BCE and 70 CE, when one tries to look for the times relating to the destruction of the First Temple, there is no linkage to the subject matter of the Jewish version such as the build up from The Three Weeks and The Nine Days but rather the Solomon's Temple/First Temple article links to Siege of Jerusalem (597 BC) which cites "Babylonian chronicles" (published by Donald Wiseman in 1956) making no mention of the accepted Jewish chronology and observances relating to the same time-frame. In fact it uses the Jewish-sounding months in the non-Jewish Babylonian time-frame. (The names were originally from Babylonia, but not the actual concepts and months themselves which were of Mosaic origin in the Torah itself). With more articles like this from non-Torah sources each with their own POV of course.
The only "normally named" Temple is the Third Temple, which does not even exist! While the First Temple and Second Temple have still not earned the honor of a clear-cut and clearly identifiable name and articles for themselves.
I think the First Temple is better known as Solomon's Temple in English. That explains the name and why First Temple redirects to it. Debresser (talk) 07:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
