Please see [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:VanEman_reported_by_User:Debresser_.28Result:_.29]]. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 17:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Please see [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:VanEman_reported_by_User:Debresser_.28Result:_.29]]. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 17:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
:That's just a two week block which as of right now he is requesting an unblock. [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] <sup><font color="Green">[[User_talk:Sir Joseph|(talk)]]</font></sup> 05:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
:That's just a two week block which as of right now he is requesting an unblock. [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] <sup><font color="Green">[[User_talk:Sir Joseph|(talk)]]</font></sup> 05:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Can I add Toddy1 and Неполканов to this proposal please? Please see ''introduction'' to reasons posted at [[Talk:Karaite_Judaism#Christian_Missionaries_slowly_changing_hegemony_of_Karaites_on_Wikipedia]] but looking at their edit histories you can see they have been building up to this for a very long time. [[Special:Contributions/87.71.129.210|87.71.129.210]] ([[User talk:87.71.129.210|talk]]) 19:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
3 Tammuz falls on July 9, 2016, which is Shabbat. Is the observance moved a day? And if so, is it moved to 2 Tammuz or 4 Tammuz? I'm not sure because this is a Chabad sect holiday and thus it isn't found on most online Jewish calendars.
10 Kislev - Again, same problem as before. It is a Chabad observance falls on December 10, 2016, which is Shabbat. Is it moved, and if so, to what day? 9 Kislev or 11 Kislev?
Counting the Omer has no bearing on Yom Kippur Katan. There is no YKK in Nisan, but not because of Sefirat haOmer—only because there is no fasting during Nisan (except firstborn on Erev Pesach or a bride and groom on their wedding day). There is YKK in Iyar. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info on Yom Kippur Katan. I know that the Chabad days are not considered under halakha, given that they are a splinter sect, but I'm sure the Chabad have their own rules about it. Is anyone able to direct me to a resource that might be able to answer my query in regards to Chabad observances? Asarelah (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you for clearing that up. And I admit, I didn't actually read the Chabad article, only the parts about the observances, so my bad. Also, the article on Mother's Day in Israel has it falling on Shevat 30, which is Yom Kippur Katan. Is this just an odd instance of bad scheduling on the part of the Israeli government, or have I mixed up Yom Kippur Katan? Asarelah (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I *did* read it, I just thought it was odd that they'd schedule it on a Yom Kippur Katan and I wasn't sure if 30 Shevat was observed as a Yom Kippur Katan, as the Yom Kippur Katan article lists several exceptions and I thought 30 Shevat might be one that wasn't listed. I presume by your response that it isn't an exception. Thank you. Asarelah (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt anyone even gave it a second thought, to be honest with you. I suspect that Yom Kippur Katan is just about unknown in the secular Jewish world; it is not observed universally even in the Orthodox world. And flipping the problem the other way, I suspect that within the YKK-observant world, Mother's Day is just not an issue. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I think. But Hasidic Judaism is in the next level up of the Cat tree, along with Conservative Judaism and the Essenes. --Dweller (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hasidic should be under Haredi, and Haredi under Orthodox. Or Haredi on the same level as Orthodox, both in Jewish religious movements. Presently Hasidic is in both Haredi and Orthodox and Jewish religious movements, and I think the Orthodox should be removed from both latter. Debresser (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think Haredim would be the Israeli Litvish, the Bnei Brakers,etc. the Chasidim are all over the spectrum in terms of observance, Hasidisism is a movement under Orthodoxy, but it's not under Haredism, it's a spiritual movement similar perhaps to Haredism, but they're not always the same thing, especially if we want to make it easier for people to search. Sir Joseph(talk)20:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you say, but I think not, and I think it would be better to have Hasidic and Haredim both under Orthodox. Hasidic spans many areas and it's best to just keep it under Orthdox, or I would even begin to think to keep it under Jewish, not even under Orthodox. Sir Joseph(talk)15:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To answer Dweller's questions, misunderstood by SirJoseph, I do know why this is so. Somebody, perhaps it even was I, decided these are non-diffusing subcategories. If we decide so, then that decision should be implemented for all denominations. Debresser (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We ought to tidy it up. It'd be very confusing for anyone unfamiliar with the concepts. It looks like Hasidim are not Orthodox. --Dweller (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then the Haredi article makes no sense, which I agree with. Look at the Haredim in Brooklyn living in Midwood and Marine Park going to Brooklyn College!?!? I think they're not Haredim, but I lost that battle ages ago. That whole article is messed up. As for hassidim and haredi, the hassidim are wide areas, and should not be synonymous with haredim so they should not be under the category of haredim. Sir Joseph(talk)17:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sir Joseph, Hassidim are not synonymous with haredim, not at all. Debresser, weigh in on this:
Overall, I would consider there to be two major subcategories of haredim:
Hassidim
"Mitnagdim/Yeshivish/Litvish" (or whatever label you want to put)
The above two groups are substantially distinct from each other. (I say "substantially" because I don't want to be on record as saying that it's impossible for someone to exist in the intersection of those groups.)
Beyond that, there may be some additional people that don't fall neatly into either of the two camps above ("Oilamish," in Debresser's lexicon above).
I would define Haredim, in turn, as a subgroup of Orthodox. The main other subgroup of Orthodox would be something around "Modern Orthodox/Religious Zionist", and it's a separate issue whether or not there shouldn't really be more than one such subgroup identified (possibly with substantial overlap). Haredim and this other group also have a non-empty intersection, and I'm sure there are people who don't fall neatly into any of those groups, either. And this leaves out the question of Open Orthodoxy, which I'm not even going to touch at the moment.
Finally, I'm not sure what your problem with Haredim going to Brooklyn College is. In the US, it's pretty common for haredim (male and female, as far as it goes) to attend college. Most of the time, that study is pretty vocational in nature; it's a lot less common for haredim to focus on liberal arts, for example. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, MO and RZ are not the same, at least in Israel. What I mean by Haredim going to college is that the lead basically says Haredim don't go to college. Brooklyn Jews aren't haredim, they're yeshivish. Haredim is a modern term brought over by Israelis. An American may think they're charedi but when they land and call themselves a charedi, they'll be in for a rude awakening when they do so. That's all I meant. Go to Israel and see any charedi going to college, it doesn't really happen, even high school with secular subjects doesn't really happen, even Maarava has to be outside of the J'Lem and only now is some sort of programs beginning to start for classes for charedim in Israel. As for chassidim, there's more of an overlap as for spiritual and cultural and identity, that I think it should stop at the Orthodox level, and not go under charedi. Sir Joseph(talk)18:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The lead doesn't say that at all. צא ולמד.
I'll be the first to admit that there are differences between communities, and differences between Israel and other places. But what you are trying to say, I think, is that "Haredi" is uniquely an Israeli institution, and that to the extent there is a commonality between yeshivish and chassidish Jews in hutz la'aretz, you'd use a different term (like the unpleasant term "Ultra-Orthodox"). I think, though, that the term "haredi" here is being used broadly to include all these communities. Therefore, I think my category hierarchy is substantially correct. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added the Leo Frank article to this WikiProject since it was on Jewish History but not here. I got this article to GA last year and might eventually go for FA. If anyone is interested in assessing the article importance or offering any comments, I'd appreciate it. Tonystewart14 (talk) 07:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, we have terms that imply a distinction, and a huge scholarly literature that to-and-fro on the merits and demerits of making precisely a distinction. Secondly, personal religious commitments have historically inflected these discussions (though one will find Christian scholars conflating them, and Jewish scholars marking the putative differences).
While I think your comment,'Most sources do not make any differentiation between antijudaism and antisemitism. It is a minority, perhaps WP:FRINGE,' widely off the mark, I also think Kendrick's view, while historically correct in noting that the distinction is widespread, too rigid.
In modern Christian apologetics ( (Fr.)E. H. Flannery,"Anti-Judaism and Anti-Semitism: A Necessary Distinction," JES 10 (1973): 581-88 anti-Judaism is taken to be 'a purely theological reality …which rejected Judaism as a way of Salvation but not Jews as a people.') all sorts of fine distinctions are made, which even hair(Hare)-split anti-Judaism (accepted as distinct from anti-Semitism) down into ‘prophetic anti-Judaism’, ‘Jewish-Christian anti-Judaism’ and ‘Gentilizing anti-Judaism’!!)
You'll find the real or apologetic distinctions merits weighed in virtually every scholarly exegesis of the Gospels of Matthew and St.John, particularly regarding the latter.
The historical problem is that for the first several decades, probably the majority of 'Christians' were, like the founders of the 'heresy', Jews, and after the Destruction of Jerusalem, the rift between the developing rabbinical form of Judaism, and its Christocentric messianic sect was increasingly suffused with polemical vehemence (Birkat haMinim) vs. St.John and particularly the letters of Paul, who, if somewhat anachronistically, looks very much like what is loosely called today a 'self-hating Jew'. All this took place in the larger discursive context of pagan attitudes, from Hellenic philosemitism to classical and Egyptian Judeophobia. Teasing all of these strains apart, making careful hermeneutic distinctions that, suspending our post-Holocaust worldview's retrospective rereading tendencies, that take into account the ethnic, creedal, regional distinctions of what were distinct cultural/anthropological/historical realities, is no easy matter. All you have, in short, is academic controversy over these distinctions.
Langmuir himself, who can see the problem with the defensive ecclesiastical distinction, nonetheless himself, marks off the two, preferring anti-Judaism to refer to polemics down to 1150, based on real competitive rifts between Judaism and Christianity, and the kind of fantasy-fed 'chimerical' discourse against Jews raising the hysterical myths of hatred of Jews based on ritual killing world-money managers, racial odium. I'm not persuaded: as Norman Cohn showed (Europe's Inner Demons etc.) this fanrtasy is rooted in ancient traditions, but certainly what scholars call anti-Judaic in early times fed into the classical anti-Semitism of more modern times in a profound way. Hope this is of some help.Nishidani (talk) 10:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is really good info; thanks @Nishidani:. I shall endeavour to incorporate the sources you mentioned into the article. Wikipedia is blessed to have someone of your knowledge and intellect working on the project. -- Kendrick7talk04:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I should clarify that I think it is mainly useful as a historical term for origins. I was reading about the life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer last night: he was strongly opposed to anti-Semitism, but was, at least theologically what might be called 'anti-Judaic' in the Augustinian sense, that the Jews must be preserved as witnesses to what Christianity came from and superceded. To Jews at that time, though he is not a good example, such equivocation might rightly have been interpreted as echoing anti-Semitism, while wearing a bespoke suit. As one can see in looking at the orations and polemics in France in both pre-a and Carolingian times for example, what was often read as anti-Semitic in priestly screeds has, in recent times, been analysed as an anti-Judaic fervor lambasting 'Jews' (a 'negligible minority') for internal political ends. But those intemperant tropes laid, at the same time, the grounds for a generic hatred of Jews centuries later certainly, and we are dealing with textual traces that do not have the kind of human details that might, were they known, actually lead one to think of sociopathic enmity. I can well understand why this seems like conceptual thumb-twiddling to anyone who happens to be outside that fold. I once observed an English scholar, a radical enlightenment humanist, suddenly jump out of his impeccably bred manners, and assume the crouching wheedling manner of Fagin, all to make a caricature of a colleague, who happened to be Jewish. The transmogrification lasted just 10 seconds, to underline a point he wished to make. That is something many Jews have occasion to see or hear, in quips, faux pas's, in their diaspora upbringing, and is uncanny in its nervous testimony to how deeply laid, beneath even the best of gentiles, this kind of tradition can persist. It is perhaps the strongest argument for Israel: to have a land where one can be oneself, Jewish, in any manner, without having to put up with this chronic baiting, or underhand sneering, as one goes about one's daily life. To be Jewish in short, without having, to think about what actually 'Jewishness' entails, much as French, English etc. never find their daily lives worried by outside comments on who they are or are not. Nishidani (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Western Wall
Can you please join me at Talk:Western Wall and try to salvage the article? I'm especially trying to save the article's Jewish section. Chesdovi, who I think is a member here, has been inserting Satmar NK POV and as the section now reads is heavily slanted towards the Kotel being a source of disunity, not a place of prayer, etc. It's a messy section. Any help would be appreciated. He has been inserting POV/Fringe elements such as boycott of the western wall. Sir Joseph(talk)17:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please look at the article, he is trying to de-judaize the wall. I have no idea what his problem is, I know he's anti-Zionist, but I feel he is going too far this time. Sir Joseph(talk)02:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is unfortunate that none of these discussions were notified here.
I don't have a problem with the merging of the parent categories, as it's not unreasonable to see a single global movement here -- UK Masorti shuls frequently have rabbis who trained at JTS (if they weren't trained at Leo Baeck in London), host visits and talks by U.S. Conservative rabbis, use the Etz Hayim Chumash, etc.
But it does seem to me that Category:British Masorti rabbis should be preserved as the name the name for the rabbis of this movement in the UK, as how the national movements in the UK (and also Israel) self-identify is as Masorti, not Conservative, as for example overwhelmingly used on the website http://www.masorti.org.uk/, albeit they may be affiliated in turn with the World Council of Conservative Judaism. (Now renamed Masorti Olami ?).
If you have a good reason to think that the Cfd decision doesn't pertain to British rabbis, then just ignore the discussion, which was perhaps too general, and undo the changes to articles about British rabbis. I do agree it is a shame this Cfd wasn't reported here. For most Afd's there is always some editor who is so kind to inform us. Debresser (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mikveh article
Notorious edit warrior and POV editor VanEman has made some edits to the Mikveh article, which I successfully stopped by adding a source. Now he has removed a lot of information, and because he is edit warring, the page was protected after his removals. Fairness compels me to add that VanEman has also made some good additions to the article, and that sources can easily be found for the statements he removed. Please comment on the talkpage sections. Debresser (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I somewhat shortened the introductory paragraphs, up to the actual rules. I agree it is somewhat wordy, but I could not in good conscience shorten more without losing significant information.Debresser (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added inline references so you can tell what's copied from the Jewish Encyclopedia and what was added later. ------02:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Women and Talis, Women and the Wall, Women and Tefillin
Can you please keep a look out at user VanEman, he appears to be pushing POV at every article related to Taalis, Tefillin and the Western Wall. While a mention at the Western Wall about women and prayer might be OK, a picture and whole section of women and prayer at the Western Wall is not necessary at the Tefillin section or at the Tallis article. Sir Joseph(talk)01:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal to ban VanEman from Judaism-related articles
I sincerely the definition given in the Zera Yisrael is based on halakha, but perhaps I am wrong. If I am not wrong, that article should be deleted. Please have a look. 21:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
