To add your comments and see the discussion of this, go [[v:Topic:Jewish studies/Elyashiv discussion|here]]. I've written my own perspective, which is critical of R. Elyashiv. --[[User:AFriedman|<font color="navy"><b>AFriedman </b></font>]][[User talk:AFriedman|<font color="#303030"><b>(talk)</b></font>]] 19:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
To add your comments and see the discussion of this, go [[v:Topic:Jewish studies/Elyashiv discussion|here]]. I've written my own perspective, which is critical of R. Elyashiv. --[[User:AFriedman|<font color="navy"><b>AFriedman </b></font>]][[User talk:AFriedman|<font color="#303030"><b>(talk)</b></font>]] 19:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
==Happy Passover!==
[[File:Simon ushakov last supper 1685.jpg|150 px|right]]
May you have as good a Passover as these guys to the right. --[[v:User:JacobFrank|<b><font color="red">Jacob</font><font color="green">Frank</font></b>]] [[User talk:AFriedman|<sup><font color="green"><i>purification through transgression</i></font></sup>]] 05:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Howdy! I've been seeing lots of articles about yeshivas that have little to no notability. I could start putting them up, one by one for AFD's. Is there a better way to deal with a group of articles? Examples include:
Derech Etz Chaim - the only WP:RS fact is that they won a flag football championship
And I could go on... These are all fine institutions and I'm sure are doing great work but I don't see how they are encyclopedic. How do we best go about dealing with this?
Many of the creators of these pages will claim that there is a problem in finding WP:RS for a yeshiva in that most of the time there is no reason to write about a yeshiva (barring a scandal). What are your thoughts? Do we need to establish notability guidelines for a yeshiva? Thanks Joe407 (talk) 15:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If no-one has bothered writing about them in a book or magazine or newspaper, they ain't notable and excuses won't wash. However, I would discourage a mass AfD, as they'll get very messy with individual arguments breaking up the flow. --Dweller (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A yeshiva is notable, in my opinion, because people who are thinking about going there or sending their child there would want to know many things about it. For example, who is the principal? What is the curriculum, and how good is the school academically? What is the culture like? There are lots of reasons to write about a yeshiva, barring a scandal: the students have received X scores on their exam, someone notable is coming to visit, someone notable attributes part of what they did to their experience at that yeshiva, the students are involved in a particularly interesting program, a teacher's coached a student that won a local or national award, etc. Schools are major facilities in the areas they serve. I believe that all day schools are considered notable by Wikipedia standards, and yeshivas are no exception. I've seen lots of articles in the newspaper The Jewish Week related to yeshivas. --AFriedman (talk)16:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What people are interested in does not define notability on Wikipedia. Your last sentence is [one thing] that does define it. --Dweller (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why would Yeshivas be any diffrent than school articles? The are many articles about schools listing even less information than the yeshiva ones ChashuvBachur (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like every high school in the United States has a Wikipedia article, and most of them are non-notable. Regardless of whether it's right or wrong, my sense is that WP:NOTE has been applied more loosely to schools than to other organizations.
This last argument is more a non-argument. But is does sound compelling...
My believe is that we should be reluctant with deleting articles based on the notability argument, because 1. a lack of sources on Wikipedia does not proof that there are no sources (and thus notability) 2. WP:BIAS. By which I mean that it is likely that we are not familiar with the sources because we live "far" from the subject (geographically or otherwise). Debresser (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Debresser. Wikipedia doesn't look like it's running out of space any time soon, and article deletion not only demoralizes new editors, but also destroys information that is valuable to someone. --AFriedman (talk)22:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A school is an institution. Unlike an individual, it is less likely to be trying to exploit Wikipedia to advance its own "career." I think schools are inherently notable. We don't live in a wold with a surplus of schools. Bus stop (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is actualy the reason that I feel many of these should be deleted. A place like Yeshiva Gedola of Carteret doesn't seem to have anything notable about it other than "Hey! I'm a yeshiva!" and "My webmaster told me to create a wikipedia entry as free advertising." These articles are 90% unsourced / OR and are viewed as an ad buy. Look at the history of Derech Etz Chaim. It is filled with WP:PEACOCK and once I cut out all of the junk it is still an article of OR showing no notability other than "Howdy! I'm a yeshiva!". I'd like to slice the advertizing. Joe407 (talk) 06:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Joe407, it is still a school. A school is an institution. An institution does not get started without considerable resources of support. That means not just money for the building and the teachers and other learning materials but also the realistic future prospects of students attending. All these things are no trifling matters. As in all Wikipedia articles language must avoid salesmanship. But as I said earlier, I find schools to be inherently notable, unless exceptions to generally assumed notability can be found. Bus stop (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that some articles are really WP:PEACOCK/WP:ADVERT. The best way to deal with them is cleaning them. But Afd stills seems to be an undesirable last resort. That said, if they are really unnotable, like a collel of 10 batlonim who come together every day between minche and mayriv (excuse me for WP:TERM), then Afd should be considered. Debresser (talk) 08:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Debresser, could you please use English as per WP:TALK which says,
"No matter to whom you address a comment, it is preferred that you use English on English Wikipedia talk pages. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, try to also provide a translation of the comments."
I think of these discussions as being potentially for the entire Wikipedia community. I hardly think it is helpful to community-wide comprehension when key words in a sentence don't connote anything to many if not most English-speakers. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was just an example, while the drift of my comment is perfectly clear. Especially since I apologised beforehand for using yeshivishe terms. I find it quite untasteful that you start quoting me Wikipedia pages. Debresser (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Debresser — This may be the WikiProject Judaism, but it is also part of the English Wikipedia, therefore we should take efforts to include all people in whatever ensuing dialogue will follow from what we post here. It conveys a welcoming environment to speak in standard English. These words are not standard English: collel, batlonim, minche, mayriv. And no translation was provided. And you only linked to WP:TERM at which was found nothing relating to the terms you used. Now you are saying that you mentioned that you were using "Yeshivish" terms — but in the post that I am referring to you did not mention that they might have been Yeshivish terms. It's only a simple point that I am making and you need not be offended. Bus stop (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) while I am here - discussions such as the one on yeshivas have been echoed on schools, hospitals and many other similar entities. One option of one can't find sources is to place the text on the appropriate town or suburb where the entity is located. However, best bet is to find sources. My 2c is that the internet is pretty bland on sources, so digging out books, newspapers etc. is often in order. Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Unlike an individual, it is less likely to be trying to exploit Wikipedia to advance its own "career."" -Bus stop
Interesting that you say this. Among many of the yeshivas in Israel and in the US, as private institutions, there is fierce competition for both donor dollars and students. When I see WP articles that have are entirely OR detailing the vaunted lineage of the Rosh Yeshiva or listing where in Israel the students take overnight trips to, this is exploiting WP to advance their career. Please take a look at the schools listed in Template:Orthodox yeshivot in Israel. Some of them (Mir yeshiva (Jerusalem) or Ateret Cohanim) have both real stories, notability & sources. Others (Torat Shraga or Yesodei Hatorah) have been in existence for maybe 10 years and as I noted above, seem to have a WP article just to direct traffic to their website or show prospective students how great it is.
I'm not asking that they all be axed. I am asking for members of this project to look objectively at the cruft on many of these pages. Deleting the junk will force the yeshiva fundraisers and PR people who (often) create these pages to create meaningful pages that will be truely helpful to people wanting a NPOV view on a given yeshiva. Joe407 (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Joe407 — I would have no objection to removing self-promotion for the school or the educators but I think it is likely that any large institution has notability, so I would be hesitant to delete the article. Therefore I think I am in agreement with the approach you are taking toward these articles. Bus stop (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these were prodded, and I deprodded the yeshivas, and sent the kollel to AfD. In response to a question about why I had done so, with a link to this discussion, I commented on my talk page , & summarize here:
Every secondary school that can be demonstrated to be in real existence, present or past, has been kept at AfD for at least the last 2 years. The reason is that in practice we can find sufficient material to show about 95% of them notable by our usual guidelines, and it is not worth having elaborate and time-wasting debates to exclude the other 5%. Any established school will have some notable alumni; will usually have won some academic competitions; the decision to found a school will normally be discussed in news sources or in sources about the founding group or agency; the construction of the school will have often been a major project, resulting also in public information; the appointment of the successive heads will have been newsworthy; the school may have been a place where some noteworthy things have happened. Any of these is enough for notability, and it is extremely rare that some of this cannot be found.
When I first came here, I did not understand this, but I soon realised that the attempts to distinguish just which schools were below the bar for the thousands of them was a useless enterprise, when almost none of them really failed it. Any attempt to discriminate would make more errors than it corrected. We are not an abridged encyclopedia.
The question is whether yeshivas count. All other religious schools do, even small ones. If they serve the purpose of a secondary school, it does not matter what subject they teach. It would be prejudicial to omit those of one particular religion.
Some schools may be branches of another, in which case they might not get a separate article. The rule that we have been applying is that a separate campus is not a separate organization, but a separate administration is. If the school has a headmaster, it is separate. If the school operates in cooperation or under the very general supervision of another institutions it is still separate: most schools operate in such a manner--in the US secular world, a superintendent or a school district; for Catholic schools, either the diocese or the founding order. I think the founding order situation might be the closest analogy for some of the Yeshiva branches here, which would thus be separate. .
For institutes of higher education, the same rules apply, though the distinction is made between vocational schools and those that grant degrees. As I understand the meaning of kollel, it could refer to a wide range of possibilities. The fact that they might not grant formal degrees may or may not be considered relevant. Although I think the one here probably qualifies as a genuine institution of higher education, I'm taking this to AfD to see what the community thinks.
I think he was referring to the discussion he summarized from. You can see the thread on DGG's talk page. I would however suggest that if we are continuing the discussion, furthur comments be posted here. Debresser, what do you think? Are there two or three yeshiva articles that you would like to improve/support/or prod? (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll have a look at all of them, and will comment here in detail. My Internet provider is having trouble, so I'll wait till after normal connections are reestablished. Debresser (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop, I don't have a list of yeshiva articles that I want to can. The list I posted at the top of this thread is a sampling of articles that I feel should be looked at by the the WP:JUDAISM community and either radically overhauled or killed. I also listed some of my reasons. The problems that I described above include advertising, WP:PEACOCK and huge amounts of OR. For a full list of yeshivas look at any of the yeshiva-related categories (like ) or at the list in the Orthodox yeshivot in Israel template. Reviewing these articles doesn't take long and as a group we could probably clean up the lot of them in a week. I'm happy to have articles about yeshivas on WP. I'm less of a fan of the promotional tone I find in so many of them. Joe407 (talk) 08:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeshiva Gedola of Carteret strikes me as a good example the other way. There just aren't that many higher level Yeshivot in the country, outside of certain concentrated areas. When I looked for a town to live in when I was single, an absolute requirement was that there be a place like that where I could find someone to study with. Furthermore, this sort of institution tends not to serve justa local area, but people from all over, including other countries. Quite notable to me. (Note: I know nothing about the place except the name and implied location.) Mzk1 (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I improved the erusin article. Please see my comments (the same) on the talk page there and on the Jewish views on marriage page. I would appreciate comments. On the talk page I mentioned things that need to be done, particularly good non-Orthodox sources. Thank you. Note that the original debate over JE appears to be moot; the problem is not to misinterpret JE.Mzk1 (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing. Would it be a good idea to redirect Kiddushin from Nashim to Erusin, then disambiguate on top of the page?Mzk1 (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the sources for Orthodox Judaism on the project page, and I have to say that I have severe problems with some of them. For example, the one with the chart seems wrong in just about every aspect. The one starting with Lieberman is pretty good, except for the statement that the fact that Lieberman uses observant instead of Orthodox is significant. Orthodox Jews have always had a love-hate relationship with the term, which we generally blame (not entirely accurately) on Reform. When I grew up, we always used the term "religious", and I think this is pretty commonly used, both in the U.S. and Israel, by people who are solidly observant Orthodox. So there is nothing strange about Lieberman's term.
What is wrong with the chart source? Here are some examples:
1. An artificial distinction between traditional Jews in places where they call themselves Orthodox, and places where the term does not apply.
2. No connection between German neo-Orthodox and Hareidim, in spite of the fact - as Rav Solveichick himself says in a recent book of conversations - they are the ones who basically founded the original Agudah.
3. A blanket statement that Lithuanian Chareidim are anti-Zionist (I am?).
4. I only clicked on one link (see 3), and I found a nicely prejorative, POV description.
Are these sources there by consensus?
Also, regarding general translations, has anyone contacted Yaackov Menken's Project Genesis (www.torah.org)? He has been doing co-operative pranslations for many years.Mzk1 (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Timeline template
I found the following (very clever) timeline in the article for the previous Satmar rebbe.
Two questions:
Can anyone turn this into a template for widespread use?
Should this template appear as part of the article on any major rabbinic figure? If so, how do we define major?
This is getting out of hand. Please look at Talk:Criticism of Judaism where the user is cherry-picking, mixing different issues, focusing on unaccepted psakim and basically obsessing over trying to make as many criticisms as he can. There are many valid criticisms, but this is ridiculous, in my opinion. Please comment of you agree or disagree, and do we need to engage the wider wikipedia community about what, in my personal opinion, is someone on a mission. -- Avi (talk) 08:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, Avi, I am concerned that this is not proper under WP:Canvas. I understand you are concerned about a particular editor, and their edits to Criticism of Judaism. Going to the Judaism WikiProject as a starting point to discuss whether it should approach the community with concerns is problematic. As a starting point I am not sure that this is an appropriate part of dispute resolution, or an appropriate forum to propose and discuss sanctioning an editor. But beyond that, I don't believe that Wikipedia's dispute resolution system contemplates a group of editors organizing in order to raise a complaint against an individual editor to the community. I am not familiar enough to say whether your concerns are legitimate, but it strikes me that standard dispute resolution should be used, or there is a good chance that this would need to go directly to the WP:Arbitration committee if you believe that the community is not sufficient. Otherwise, though I have no way of knowing how others here will respond, I am concerned that the actions you are taking could result in the unacceptable treatment of an individual editor. With respect, Mackan79 (talk) 09:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just looking at the talk page, I think what Avi was hoping that people with factual knowledge of the topics (e.g. where this Noleander person quotes ancient Jewish sources) might be able to provide balance. I too get the impression that Noleander seems to be very good at criticising Judaism, and spends an inordinate time furthering that agenda.
Wikipedia has insufficient processes for editors who are polite enough not to get caught into basic civility disputes (WP:NPA etc) yet have an obvious bias. Avi was quite right to take soundings here. JFW | T@lk09:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The request appears to be for opinions on whether Noleander should be sanctioned for edits to Criticism of Judaism. I think there are extremely serious problems with having that discussion here, and then taking the discussion to the community for action, as I am not aware of any way to determine community consensus in that situation. Such a series of events would almost certainly necessitate a request for arbitration. If the request is for specific opinions on a factual issue that would be fine, but otherwise presenting here for general views on a dispute would also be problematic without presenting also to other religion wikiprojects to ensure a balanced set of viewpoints. There may be serious concerns here, but so is the protection of the consensus model, and the fair treatment of an individual editor. Mackan79 (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't wish to stop the thread, but I am hoping that editors will recognize the potential problem. I could post it to the Wikiproject on atheism, and maybe we could gin up something dramatic. More seriously, my reason for posting is simply to suggest that this should not be a pre-RfC on a user, which is then taken to another forum. I believe that is what was initially suggested, and indeed, I thinks such a request does compromise further attempts to take this directly to dispute resolution. I also think Noleander should only be asked to participate in one forum about his conduct at a time. Any further concerns I have would be contingent on such further steps being taken. Mackan79 (talk) 11:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wish people would challenge him on the article, actually. Currently he's making proposal after proposal and no one really responds. Maybe it's crap, I don't know, but if he's doing the research it seems to me this would not be terrible. Mackan79 (talk) 11:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, Mackan, leaving notices on the talk pages of wikiprojects is the proper way to inform interested people without canvassing; please re-read WP:CANVASS. -- Avi (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many of Noleander's suggestions are, in my understanding, cherry-picked attempts and not representative of Judaism. Having 2000 years of history and responsa allows for many, many fringe ideas to have been written, and focusing on those as opposed to mainstream is misleading and intellectually dishonest. -- Avi (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving a message regarding the possibility of antisemitic behavior at the Judaism wikiproject isn't exactly neutral advertising. I'd find a different place to announce concerns like these. Equazcion(talk) 16:11, 14 Mar 2010 (UTC)
Well, first I'm going to ask you to calm yourself. Then I'll say that I've already done what I think needs to be done, which is to inform Avi, and everyone else here, of my opinion regarding the Judaism wikiproject as a venue for this kind of discussion. If you're suggesting that I either need to make a unilateral action or shut up entirely, I'll say that no, I'd rather try to discuss the alternatives openly first. Equazcion(talk) 16:20, 14 Mar 2010 (UTC)
Who mentioned antisemitic, Equazcion, if you believe that so, perhaps it should be taken to WP:ANI? My point is that he is, in my opinion, giving fringe and WP:UNDUE criticisms equal weight with notable ones and demonstrating a misunderstanding of fundamentals of the Jewish halakchic process. Where ELSE am I supposed to get other experts to confirm or deny but here? Think through what you said, Equazcion, it is illogical. Also, review WP:CANVASS; this is not only allowed but approved. -- Avi (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fringe theories regarding what? The criticism of Judaism? Even if not antisemitism exactly, the point still stands. You can't possibly think the Judaism wikiproject, a place where people who care about the presentation of Judaism congregate, will be the proper neutral venue to discuss something like that. I'd take it to AN, or something. Equazcion(talk) 16:24, 14 Mar 2010 (UTC)
AN{I} is the board for when fundamental policies are being abused. This is the step before that; asking experts if in their opinions the polices are being abused. I believe they are, but it is not my habit to go running to the drama boards as a lone wolf. If other experts believe Noleander is abusing policy, the next step is to ask him once again to stop, and then, escalate if that does not work (AN/I, RfC, etc.). To escalate now would be to foment unnecessary drama. First, let the community most closely involved in Judaica topics become aware, and see if there is a problem in the first place. I believe there is; I've asked others to comment here if they believe there is. -- Avi (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not proper to seek attention merely from "the community most closely involved in Judaica topics". That's canvassing, if not in letter then in spirit. You may believe AN and ANI to have deteriorated into drama factories (not an unpopular opinion) but they're nevertheless the best place to discuss things neutrally. If we were talking about the criticism of Christianity and you saw a similar discussion at the Christianity project, I think you'd feel differently. Anyway I'm sorry if you don't see my point, but I'll take whatever steps I can to get the venue changed, if others don't. The audience here is just a little too select. Equazcion(talk) 16:33, 14 Mar 2010 (UTC)
The audience here is the proper audience to ask if there is something wrong within the context of expert understanding of Judaism. I am surprised that you can be misreading WP:CANVASS, which specifically states that notices on project talk pages is acceptable, nay preferred. -- Avi (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Avi, I think it may be appropriate to ask here for input on the article or particular edits. To ask whether an editor is disruptive is a different issue, but I really don't see how you can come here and say you think the editor is disruptive and ask others if they don't agree so that a petition may be made to the community. I appreciate that you notified him of this discussion, but the fact that you posted this at the same time as posting several accusations on the article talk page, and on his talk page, creates an unfair environment for him to respond. Canvassing has to be neutral, even if you are looking for expertise (and the expertise should be brought in first to evaluate the talk page discussions, not to jump straight away to whether an editor is disruptive). If that were done, I think things would be on the right track. Mackan79 (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I do not think there is something wrong with stating my opinion. Actually, people should realize I am involved in the issue and may not have the most impartial opinion, which is why I asked for others' opinions. Again, I reiterate, per wikipedia policy this is not canvassing but project talk page notification, which is the preferred method for involving other users who have previously demonstrated interest. Canvassing would be indvidual talk-page editor notifications or e-mails to users; please keep the difference in mind as improper use of what has become accepted terminology only leads to misunderstandings and confusion. At this point, I hope that other interested parties and other experts investigate and either explain to me why I am mistaken, or explain to Noleander how he is. -- Avi (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if this isn't canvassing, editor behavior shouldn't be discussed here, as Mackan points out. Wikiprojects are for collaborating on content, not determining if there's a problem with an editor. There are many other, more central venues to discuss that. Equazcion(talk) 20:57, 14 Mar 2010 (UTC)
Could I encourage Mackan79 and Equazcion, who seem to be so concerned about fairness to Noleander, to go to the talkpage and support him there? Noleander has been made aware of this thread[1] and should be fully capable of defending himself. JFW | T@lk22:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jacob Frank now a mascot for Wikipedia sister project Wikiversity
Hi, I'm developing Jacob Frank (an 18th-century religious leader and follower of Sabbatai Zevi, and a topic within the scope of this WikiProject) as a mascot for Wikipedia's sister project Wikiversity. Wikiversity aims to be an online open school and university, and was also created to host original research. Because of its nature, it's open to educational resources in almost any format. Wikiversity's mascots appear on User talk pages when new Users are welcomed. In my opinion, the Wikiversity mascots could be used more fully as an opportunity to teach. The previously developed Wikiversity mascots lack intrinsic educational value. For example, they include a jack-o-lantern, a goat and twin babies not noticeably tied to anything else. In contrast, Jacob Frank is tied to a chapter of history that is relatively little-known and is probably interesting to some people who might not have heard of him beforehand. I'm also hoping to use his professed ignorance in real life and his doctrine of "purification through transgression" to introduce the Wikiversity policies of "Be bold" and "Ignore all rules" (Wikipedia has very similar policies with the same names). I would appreciate your going over to Wikiversity to provide feedback on the pages about the mascot: v:User:JacobFrank and v:Template:JacobFrank. The Template is left on new Users' talk pages; the Userpage is linked from the template and provides more information about Jacob Frank. Also, any ideas for other Wikiversity mascots? Thanks. --AFriedman (talk)03:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No joke, Jacob Frank is one of the 6 Wikiversity mascots. 1 in 6 people who are given the "mascot" welcome message to Wikiversity now see him on their User talk page. (The other people see the other mascots.) I am learning about Sabbateanism and, as Max Dimont so nicely put it, "Jewish history has been so replete with revered prophets, rabbis, and scholars, that it is a pleasure to interrupt the tedium of so much saintliness with a select gallery of the most magnificent psychos and crackpots, adventurers and charlatans the world has ever beheld." Sabbatai Zevi, IMO, had such magnificently original and wonderfully paradoxical ideas that I've awarded him a Content Creativity Barnstar on Talk:Sabbatai Zevi. It is delightful to navigate through the maze of conundrums he created and find, at each turn, new reasons for his extraordinariness. It is also delightful to try and defend him against people with more conventional views. We are not using Rasputin because I didn't know about him, but yes, at Wikiversity so many different kinds of things will fly that he's probably an interesting choice for the 7th mascot. --AFriedman (talk)19:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit that when I saw this, I was overjoyed, because I thought you were talking about LEO Frank. Shabtai Tzvi himself was perhaps the most important Jewish figure of the past several hundred years, for entirely negative reasons. Few people have caused so much suffering and heartache to so many Jews as he. Arguably, a lot of the trouble the Jewish community is in today can be traced to him. As far as Jacob Frank is concerned, I suppose it will make the "Jews for Jesus" types happy.Mzk1 (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
173.52.134.191, I think you should take a look at WP:Civility, especially given that you don't have an account so I assume you are new here. There are very clear standards for how editors are supposed to interact with one another and I'd like you to keep them in mind. I hope that your concern for the integrity of the site will encourage you to make more positive contributions. And BTW, I think it's unfortunate that more times of year aren't like Purim. How about 9 Av, as Shabbetai suggested? Or 17 Tammuz? But I don't think that would go over well, so how about 15 Av? That holiday just strikes me as too shrouded in mystery.
Mzk1, wow, Leo Frank is quite a sad story. Thanks for sharing. Why do you think the trouble the Jewish community is in today might be traceable to Shabbetai Tzvi? Please clarify. I think Bogdan Chmielnicki and even Sultan Mehmet IV of the Ottoman Empire probably caused much more trouble to the Jewish community, and the Jewish community also caused trouble to itself. They had a man whose genius defied its norms and first they ostracized him, then they set the unrealistic expectation that he was going to be the Messiah, and then they reviled him and practically blotted out his name because he didn't live up to their absurd expectations. The Dervish order he joined seemed to have dealt with him much more sensibly--appreciate him for what he was, and recognize that it's actually all right to be a little crazy. Certainly, it's much better to stay crazy than to go insane. AFriedman (talk)21:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AFriedman, please review WP:SOAP. This noticeboard is to discuss improving WP articles dealing with Judaism. It is not an e-forum to promote your personal ideas and random thoughts. It would probably be best if an administrator deleted this entire thread because it is outside the scope of WikiProject Judaism. 173.52.134.191 (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the more general topical discussions could be moved to our User talk pages instead of deleted, if we want them to continue. People need to understand history in order to edit articles properly, and lack of understanding of history is certainly an obstacle to quality editing about historical topics. As for promoting Wikiversity on Wikipedia: I'm starting a new thread below. --AFriedman (talk)21:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP Judaism and coverage of Jewish topics on Wikipedia's sister projects
I propose expanding the official scope of WP Judaism, to encompass coverage of Jewish topics on Wikipedia's sister projects. I think it is right for Wikipedia and its sister projects to support and complement one another. After all, many types of learning resources are used together, and each Wikimedia Foundation project is one specific type of learning resource but united under the common umbrella of "learning." This is the philosophy of at least one other Wikipedia WikiProject, WikiProject Neuroscience--"We aim to ensure that all neuroscience-related articles on Wikipedia are clear, well-referenced, and include proper use of media, and that all neuroscience-related resources on other Wikimedia projects are comprehensive." Any thoughts about this idea? --AFriedman (talk)21:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A point-of-view discussion has been initiated at NPOV notice board to discuss the deletion of material from the Criticism of Judaism article. The material (seen here) discussed how critics claim that Judaism sometimes is used to justify or motivate violence, particularly violence in the Middle East in modern times. (Disclaimer: I am the editor that contributed the deleted material). --Noleander (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People may be interested in, and may wish to offer comments on, the CfR discussion here about renaming this and related categories.(I initiated this CfR by the way)--Smerus (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
