|
IPA fot Zeev Suraski
Could someone provide the IPA for Zeev Suraski, the current article is a bit ridiculous. Thanks, JACOPLANE • 2008-06-27 10:14
Shalom, everyone-
IZAK and I cannot agree on which image is better for the Jewish Barnstar. Perhaps you guys can lend some input, taking into account overall aesthetics, image quality, recognizability, etc: — Preceding unsigned comment added by L'Aquatique (talk • contribs) [1]
 
- Number one looks better. However if you look at the templates there are 2 different barnstars listed. Untilrecently one used picture #1 and the other used picture #2. Perhaps you can use both, or perhaps one of the templates should be deleted.Nerguy (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Nerguy: First of all, image 2 should be image 1 because it has been around longer and now that User L'Aquatique (talk · contribs) wants to change things he calls his own image number "1" and the one I used number "2". In my view, #2 is far better because (a) the images here are not actual size as they are used in the template. They are enlarged here and look very very different when actually deployed, see actual image 1 [2] and actual image 2 [3] in the templates, and you will see that image 1 is much more fuzzy and its Jewishness is lost in the ugliness of the brown barnstar, so that (b) it's hard to see what's "Jewish" about 1 with the Star of David lost in the brown overlay of the other star. There is no "law" that says barnstars must look ugly and image 2 is a lot nicer and more Jewish in appearance with the Star of David given prominence with a smaller barnstar that is also in its center and not the other way around. Symbols are important and a Jewish barnstar should look, well, Jewish. Why is this such a significant point in any case and why does User L'Aquatique want to "fix" something that is not broken? IZAK (talk) 05:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, I'm not a he, I'm a she. Secondly, I respectfully disagree. My version of the barnstar has a higher image quality, in terms of smoother edges, less graininess, etc, and, I believe, it is more aesthetically pleasing. To be honest, I find it a little bit insulting that you would call something I spent a good deal of time on ugly, and I'm not sure why you are being so hostile, here. The whole point of Wikipedia is to continually improve upon things, barnstars included. It's not that yours was bad in any way, mine is just an update, the next version. L'Aquatique[talk] 05:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and by the way. The numbering was totally arbitrary. It was not my intention to place unnecessary emphasis on my version by placing it first... L'Aquatique[talk] 05:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My first inclination is to ask whether this has to be an either/or choice. Can we have two barnstars, and let editors choose which of the two they would like to award?
- If that's not an option, I think I prefer L'Aquatique's version (image #1), but I wonder if it's possible to tone down the brown a little more, or make the "halo" effect behind the Star of David a little brighter, so the Star of David is a little more prominent. Just a suggestion from a graphics idiot. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 06:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear L'Aquatique: Usually the sex of users is not known and "he" and "she" is used interchangeably and when in doubt a user is a "he" unless it becomes known otherwise. So now we know you are a she. Your version does not have a "higher image quality" as one can see that the edges around your brown barnstar are fuzzy and unclear and the dark blue Star of David of yours is swallowed and lost and one has to do a double-take to really see it, unlike the main Star of David in the second version with its clear-cut and sharp lines, corners and colors reminiscent of the Flag of Israel's famous and proud Star of David. The emphasis on blue in my preferred version makes it far more prominent and prettier and projects a strong message of Jewishness, just like the Star of David on the Flag of Israel, see below, whereas yours clearly does not, just another mediocre and ugly barnstar. (Most of them need improvement by the way, so why not work on others first and then come back with some good ideas here later?) It makes far more sense that a symbol for a Jewish barnstar should look more like this:  unless you think that the flag of Israel is "not" "aesthetically pleasing" either. I totally diasgree that you are "improving" anything here when nothing needed improving, and your decision was totally arbitrary on such a delicate subject of important Jewish symbols. IZAK (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, I like the first one better. The coloring just goes better. But I'd add that the formatting goes better as well. To have the barnstar inside the magen David is to have the barnstar as a subset of Judaism. It's not. The Jewish barnstar is a type of barnstar, not a type of Judaism. The barnstar is the superset in this instance, and should be larger.Tim (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Tim: "To have the barnstar inside the magen David is to have the barnstar as a subset of Judaism" or "The barnstar is the superset in this instance, and should be larger" is to introduce a game of semantics because the subject is not about "Judaism" but about being awarded a barnstar for work in Jewish topics and many barnstars don't even have any type of stars as there is no rule to this, so having a larger Star of David is fully legitimate even within the realm of barnstars alone. See for example
 ;  ;  ;  and many others and many awards do not emphasize the stars at all, see  ;  ;  . So that it is clear that there are no "rules" and "policies" governing which should be the "subset" or the "superset" -- terms that you are arbitrarily throwing in here. IZAK (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- IZAK -- I wasn't trying to be dictatorial or make a rule. I was just saying why I liked number 1 better. It was how it struck me, not how it had to be for everyone else.Tim (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like #2 better, but I would like it even more if the interior (five pointed star) could be changed to a six pointed star. Is it required that barn stars have five points? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, I was wondering that too. Why not just a plain jane run of the mill barnstar... that has six points instead of five? The coloring would make it an obvious barnstar and the shape would make it Jewish.Tim (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tim: Why do we need a "plain jane" anything just because it pops into your head? What do you have against a classical blue Star of David? And my question to you is the same as the one I posed to User:L'Aquatique: Why fix something that is clearly not broken! IZAK (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- IZAK -- I'm terribly sorry. I wasn't trying to tell people what they had to like. It just occurred to me that we ALREADY have a star. Blue, green, purple, bronze -- the rest of the Wikiplanet has a five pointed star, but we've had our own star for a while now. Heck, even the blue star by itself is a star. It's OUR star. But I wasn't trying to say anything against any work and thought someone else had done. It just popped into my head and I apologize.Tim (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe make it six pointed and with blue shading instead of brown, but I agree with IZAK, if it ain't broke don't fix it. Nerguy (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I heard there's an issur on all barnstars... mumbling about ovdei kochavim... -- Anonymous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HG (talk • contribs) [4]
- Touché. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 18:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
[unindent] IZAK! For goodness sakes! The reason I made a new one is because the old one was broken. The edges aren't smooth, the barnstar in the center is pixellated, and the color is splotched in the star of david. I'm really trying hard not to be insulting here, but frankly you're not granting me the same courtesy. The whole point of Wikipedia is to improve upon the work of others. I did that, and you're hanging me out to dry and leaving extended messages on my talk page complaining about other work I have done for this Wikiproject. This is not okay. L'Aquatique[talk] 19:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Let us all try to keep calm. The purpose is not to insult each other, but rather get things done.Nerguy (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
L'Aquatique is there a way you can just make your version available, and let users decide for themselves which to use? If there is, I suggest you do that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, we could write the template so you choose which image you want. But before I think about how to do that, I changed my barnstar a bit as an attempt a compromise. You might need to purge your cache to see it, but I made the star of david bigger and made the barnstar white so the star stands out more. IZAK- would this be more acceptable?
- I am sorry if I went a little overboard, by the way. Stupid Angry Mastodons... L'Aquatique[talk] 19:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are now two Jewish barnstars: {{The Jewish Barnstar}} with the older star and {{The New Jewish Barnstar}} with the newer star. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 19:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- We need one more. "Two Jews, three opinions..."Tim (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, L'Aquatique, I think you accidentally reuploaded the same old image.Click on the image below and you will see what I mean.Nerguy (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
- Nerguy- looks good to me. Try purging your cache- in firefox type ctrl-shift-del. L'Aquatique[talk] 20:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good in firefox.Nerguy (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, we DO have three! Yes, folks, we really are Jewish!Tim (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like it! Can I give myself one? ;-)Tim (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Only if you give one to Lisa, too! :P L'Aquatique[talk] 21:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, thanks! Sorry if this whole thing got out of hand... L'Aquatique[talk] 06:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi L'Aquatique: No problem. I tend to be somewhat direct so if we can just be open with each other that'd be great. IZAK (talk) 02:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone have a look at the links added to a number of articles by 24.193.186.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). On one hand, these look like CoI links to a self-published website. On the other hand, if the claims made on his website are true, he looks like a legitimate scholar, albeit a trifle controversial. My personal judgment was that if the articles have only been published on his website, regardless of how legit he is, they probably don't merit external links. I reverted them all except for a couple that someone got to before me. I'm requesting more eyes on them, and if I'm wrong, please revert me. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Steven -- José Faur is a notable scholar of rabbinic law and literature. Not unusually controversial (i.e., not fringe by any stretch). I'd ask that you revert these yourself, esp if they are merely citing his works. Thanks. HG | Talk 23:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll happily do that now. The only thing that bothered me about the links is that they were all added by an IP to a range of different articles and, as I say, looked self-published and seemed like linkspam. Also, the only reason I called him controversial is that his webpage details controversies surrounding him (scroll down). (I updated the userlinks template above so it's easier to get to the log of the IP's edits.) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, done. But some of those links seem awfully peripheral to the subject of the articles in which they're contained. Also, the links are not to the articles themselves (which are in PDF files) but to a catalog describing. Did you actually look at any of the links or follow them? Also, I'll point out that I didn't say or imply that there was anything fringe about them. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, sorry if my reaction wasn't helpful. I had looked at the diffs, not at the website or their fit within the article, and also replied based on my knowledge of Faur. Now: spotchecking the Maimonides example, I see that the article is from a serious journal and it does seem like a plausible item for the article. To be sure, the article should need to be cited fully and (ideally) placed under something like Further Reading. In this instance, then, better to restore and, if you are inclined, make the improvements. I don't mean to question your judgment about whether the linked Faur cites belong to the WP articles. BTW, you might want to inform the newbie about how to improve it. Hope this is more responsive. Best wishes. HG | Talk 00:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can a few experts from here drop in on this discussion? This is about merging Category:Kashrut to Category:Kosher food. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've commented there. I'm guessing now that merge will fail, though both categories may be kept and reorganized. Thanks. HG | Talk 13:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone please explain why Category:Jews by religion (created by User Good Olfactory (talk · contribs) in March '08 [5] is not a violation of WP:NEO (a "Jew" of "another" religion is not the conventional way or referring to a Jewish apostate) and a violation of WP:POVFORK of Category:Converts from Judaism and why it should not be nominated for deletion or a merge into Category:Converts from Judaism. This is unquestionably somewhat tricky, since the word "Jew" can refer to an ethnicity, but it does open up a pandora's box since "Jew" does also refer to an adherent of Judaism always called Jew/s so that in this case it is best to focus on the religion of Judaism and not on a doubtful "Jew" label that is ambiguous and can refer to either the ethnicity or the religion of a Jew. It would accordingly make no sense that there be a category of Category:Christians by religion (other than referring to only Christian groups or divisions) or Category:Muslims by religion (other than only referring to Muslim groups). IZAK (talk) 03:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, you're right, that is a bit tricky. You might consider opening Categories for discussion discussion to get some other opinions. My thought would probably be to merge them and rename the whole shebang. Or, have a category called "Ethnic Jews" and which could then be merged with Converts from Judaism... maybe. Incidentally, is there a category about Converts to Judaism? L'Aquatique[talk] 04:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't guess at the motivation of another editor, but I would note that Jewish Buddhists (the only articles in Category:Jews by religion and not its sub-cats relate to Jews and Buddhism) are not necessarily converts from Judaism. I agree, however, that this category seems unnecessary.
- It's also odd is that this category is a sub of Category:People by nationality and religion, which consistes of categories like Category:Afghan people by religion and Category:Israeli people by religion. Jews are, in effect, being treated as a nationality. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 04:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Although it is kinda what we've always wanted, that makes me inclined to want to delete, simply because it's not actually accurate. Good catch, Malik. L'Aquatique[talk] 04:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As the creator, it was not my intention at all to create a fork or make a point or to invent a concept. When I created it, if I remember correctly, I did it to contain the subcategories Category:Jewish Christians, Category:Jewish Muslims, (since deleted), Category:Converts from Judaism, and the Jewish Buddhist article. (It seems like I remember it having another subcategory and/or another few articles, but it's possible they have been deleted or removed.) I suppose it's obvious I was thinking of "Jew" as an ethnicity, but perhaps the category name was inelegantly worded. Perhaps "Jewish people by religion" may have been clearer. Many of the "Jewish FOO" categories are routinely kept during CfDs on the grounds that it is an ethnicity, not merely a religion. Thus, Category:Jewish sportspeople is acceptable as a category, but Category:Christian sportspeople or Category:Muslim sportspeople would not be because they are non-notable intersections of religion and occupation. (Why ethnicities and occupations are more notable as intersections — don't ask me. That's one of the great mysteries of CfD consensus.) In any case, I'm definitely open to discussion on what should be done — rename, merge, delete, whatever. I won't be offended if a CfD is started. I can certainly understand the confusion. (Thanks for bringing this discussion to my attention, IZAK.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This just looks like an organizational issue, instead of a POV fork issue. Can we drop "violation of POV fork" and just approach this from a neutral standpoint?Tim (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: The above comment was posted by User:SkyWriter, not User:Teclontz, who also edits in Judaism-realated topics and signs himself "Tim". --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Oops, there seems to have been a name change, Teclontz is now a redirect to SkyWriter --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the confusion Stephen. I'm impersonating myself... ;-) Tim (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category redirect
Thank you all for your input. Based on the flow of the discussion here and in order to avoid entirely obliterating Category:Jews by religion, for the time being I have redirected it to Category:Converts from Judaism and moved its few contents to Category:Converts from Judaism (a polite way of alluding to Jewish apostates). IZAK (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I dunno about that. The way to rename or merge a category is not to manually empty it. If the category is referring to Jewish people (ethnicity-wise) by religion, it's incorrect to say that all are converts from Judaism. A second-generation Christian could be a "Jewish person" ethnically, for instance, and not be a "convert from Judaism". I'm not trying to defend the category from my point of view — to a large extent I think we agree somewhat about the category — but I'm just pointing out that it would probably be better to have a CfD on the matter so that everyone can be invited to input on the appropriateness of the category and/or the name, because the issue is not so "one-sided" that this is a WP:SNOW situation. So I'm restoring the contents of the category. But by all means, nominate it if you wish. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a difficult one. The Jewish religion - all denominations - would not consider a "second generation Christian" to be Jewish, if you're implying that the person's parents had converted to Christianity. For example, the Reform movement (the largest Jewish denomination in North America) considers anyone who has taken on another faith to be a non-Jew, not just an apostate. From that standpoint I would tend to lean towards IZAK's opinion above, although I have no doubt Good Ol’factory's positive intentions. The whole ethnically Jewish issue is a slippery slope... Best, A Sniper (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why I think perhaps a CfD on the category would be best — it's a difficult subject, and I'm sure lots of editors would have good input on it. I personally am leaning towards IZAK's approach as well — I certainly have no outstanding love for the category I created — I just think it should be opened to everyone if a change is going to be made, rather than just limited to those who participate on this WikiProject page. Maybe I'll nominate it myself. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: I've begun a formal discussion about Category:Jews by religion HERE. Feel free to replicate any of the comments/opinions you've made here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I recently created Gate of Mercy Synagogue and have put it up for DYK. I am not very familiar with the topic so could someone please:
- Check the infobox data for me? I am not familiar with the affiliation, rites etc.
- Does Sha'ar ha Rahamim mean Gate of Mercy in Hebrew?
- If someone is familiar with the Hebrew script, could the name of the synagogue be added?
Thanks =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The answer to Number 2 is yes.Nerguy (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not familiar with the Synagogue. Is the translation שער הרחמים? Post Addendum: I added my translation, but I don't think my font is normal...CheskiChips (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eveyone are invited:
- merge discussion here:
Talk:Self-hating Jew
- Category delete here:
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 14#Category:Auto-Anti-Semitism
--Shevashalosh (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The actual discussion is at Talk:Self-hating_Jew#Auto-Anti-Semitism_merger_proposal. Shevashalosh has repeatedly changed the tag to lead away from the discussion where others have already commented and !voted. I can't imagine why. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I highly suggest merging the following articles because two articles, with slightly different titles have been created, about the same subject.
- Chaskel Besser and Haskel Besser
- Mercaz HaTorah and Mercaz Hatorah
Thank you--Nerguy (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There seems to be little doubt that these articles are about the same subject.
- You can read Help:Merging and moving pages for suggestions about how to merge two articles. Since one of each pair is a small stub, you can probably WP:BE BOLD and make the mergers without building consensus first. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 17:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you.--Nerguy (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chesdovi and I appear to be in an edit dispute in the Minyan article. Chesdovi takes the view that there is too much content on issues of women in the article and these issues should be drastically cut. My view has been that because that the issue of women in a minyan has been a defining issue in distinguishing Conservative Judaism from Orthodox Judaism on ideological grounds and has been of immense importance in Conservative Judaism and of no small importance in Modern Orthodox Judaism, a substantial amount of coverage is not undue weight. I would not object to the subject getting its own article, and might be open to arguments that some of the content may belong in a different article. However, I would object to the out-and-out deletion of the content from the Minyan article, particularly since Chesdovi's edit reduced discussion of Conservative Judaism to a single sentence and removed all discussion of anything to the left. Although Chesdovi finds that it adds unnecessary length and emphasis, my view is that an informative discussion of women and minyan needs to provide some background on the different views of the role of women in prayer in order to explain the different conclusions about the status of women with respect to a minyan. And although I agree that public prayer should be the main focus of the article, I would object to making that exclusive, since the concept of a quorum exists for a variety of other purposes and the word "minyan" is used in some contexts where the required number is not 10. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see my comments at Talk:Minyan. I object that public prayer should be the main focus of this article. Public prayer is called Tefilah be'tzibbur. A minyan means a quorum. This page should simply describe what that is, when it is needed and who is eligible. Long sections, which descend into the intricacies of who has an obligation to pray in totally out of place here. Shirahadasha notes that I “removed all discussion of anything to the left.” She fails to mention that I also removed all the “right” waffle – which makes this article overly long-winded. Also it is badly written and does not flow well. If a long section on Women and minyan is to stay, it needs to be rewritten and encompass all views under one section. Chesdovi (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification: I should have said the article should be mainly about "the role of a minyan for public prayer" rather than "about public prayer."
- That said, I agree that that the current content presents some detail about the arguments for against whether women should count in a minyan, including different philosophical views of the role of women in prayer, rather than simply presenting the different conclusions. I believe this is a feature, not a bug. I simply don't see this content as "waffle" or inappropriate. In my view, it's the kind of content that necessarily distinguishes an encyclopedic presentation of a controversy from a presentation of agreed-on, this-is-the-way-it-is facts. One could argue that because of the amount of detail it involves, this content should go in some other article, perhaps in its own Women and minyan article. However, it definitely shouldn't be deleted. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is quite clear that the conservative bits can be quite nicely accommodated in either Women in Judaism, which already discuses the matter or at Conservative Halakha which also touches on the subject. The surplus and needless additions about women in Orthodoxy in this article all added to provide balance for the conservative view, which makes this page look like a POV fork. Although I assume good faith, it also should be noted that User:Shirahadasha would seem to be overly biased on this subject. See Shira Hadasha. Need I say more?! Chesdovi (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid that I have to support Chesdovi's concerns of a WP:COI here. I hope this can be settled amicably. JFW | T@lk 22:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I too support User:Chesdovi over User:Shirahadasha in this case. Indeed, User:Shirahadasha's potential WP:COI is that he/she deliberately chose the user name "Shirahadasha" precisely because he/she created, wrote, moniters closely, and advocates for the Shira Hadasha article and its POV, and in this context probably violating WP:NPOV here as well by promoting and pushing the classically un-Halachic notion that women may be counted for a minyan, an irresponsible act, knowing full well that Wikipedia is increasingly being used as a reliable international reference and that by advocating for Jewish feminism in the context of very Modern Orthodox Judaism it creates the utterly mistaken and distorted impression that classical Judaism somehow supports women counting in minyanim when it never has except in a few rare and very isolated and specific instances never meant to be the sources for extrapolating new ideas about women counting for a minyan in Orthodox Judaism. So the best thing, and the TRULY HONEST thing in this case would be to create a new article about Modern Orthodox Judaism and women in a minyan or The role of women in Jewish services and not try to shove the obviously square peg of "women in a minyan" into the round hole of how classical Judaism and normative Orthodoxy view what is regularly and simply called a "Minyan". Of course, this discussion does not apply to Reform and Conservative Judaism who accept women as equals in all their services. IZAK (talk) 06:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many strong reliable sources on the topic of women and minyan in the context of Orthodox halakhah. I've added a few sources by Broyde, Schachter, Wolowelsky, and their interlocutors to the article, and more could be added. Regardless of the strong POVs of various editors involved, this is a significant aspect of minyan as a topic. Thanks. HG | Talk 07:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Broyde, Schachter, Wolowelsky" -- they are now the poskim for Klal Yisrael? What a joke! Name one yeshiva or posek, or universal Halachik work who relies on the opinions of "Broyde, Schachter, Wolowelsky et al" please! To use them as "RS" is to violate WP:NOR as far as Judaism is concerned (sure on Wikipedia you can fool some of the people all of the time...but any truly Torah knowledgeable and serious scholar or Talmid Chochem worth his beans will see right through this kind of megaleh panim BaTorah shelo kehalacha)! Look, let's call a spade a spade. Feminism, and its handmaiden egalitarianism, is making strident demands upon all streams of Judaism, and Jews in those streams, be they rabbis and lay people are victims of monkey see, monkey do that then spawns all this retroactive pseudo-scolarship, like they do in Nevada or in the Netherlands when they play lawyerly games and rename prostitution as "legalized sex" and prostitutes have no stigma since they are then called sex workers or it becomes "sex tourism" in Asia rather than calling it by its truthful and honest DIRTY and illegal name. There is no true Halachic stance that allows for wholesale partcipation of Jewish women in minyanim, and everyone knows it, but because of the shallowness of the times and for fear of fighting the boogymen (women) of ("Jewish") feminism, people come up with all kinds of lame excuses that they then try to foist as "scholarship" when it is nothing of the sort. Anyone ever heard of the word "ehrlichkeit" and knows what it means? IZAK (talk) 07:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Izak, your comment reflects poorly on you and undermines whatever point you're trying to make. HG | Talk 14:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- IZAK, if you can identify a instances where I've "pushed" this position I would strongly suggest that you do so. Otherwise, I would suggest stopping the bluster about the people who disagree with you being dishonest and try to think up some sort of argument that actually addresses the article. As an FYI, the Conservatives made essentially the same arguments back and forth and used the same background, a good piece of this article was originally written by a Conservative who essentially argued that classical sources support the Conservative position, most has been redone but some remains. It would be incorrect to attribute that content to me. If you look through the history you'll find I wrote most of the content on the traditional position. But be that as it may, this article has to include how contemporary people regard the subject of minyan, including how they view and use classical sources. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 07:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comparing chesdovi's version to the version Shira prefers, I think that Chesdovi's version is a better basis for expansion. I think that Chesdovi's version can be expanded to have a small section on women and minyan and if it get out of hand again it can be branched off into and new article "women and minyanim". As it stands now having the article 80% about women and minyanim is crazy. While the subject might be a very "hot topic" now, wikipedia must not be temporally biased and overly focused on the current situation at the expense of an historical perceptive. Jon513 (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's good to be notified when people get a bit stuck on these kind of q's, but discussion might best proceed on the article Talk page. That said, this strikes me as a question that can be resolved by focusing on Reliable Sources, and the proportionality of their attention to minyan in general vs role of women. From my reading of the secondary literature (Jewish and scholarly), the role of women is quite a significant matter and the most notable aspect of minyan in the RS. It's not merely a temporary journalistic hot topic (like a news event, and the encyclopedia should not be skewed to news) but rather the major feature of minyan coverage in 2ry sources for upwards of 25 years. I suppose there are other issues discussed in secondary sources, such as the use of somebody under 13 (e.g., contemporary psakim and diff betw Ashkenazi or not), which could be expanded in the article. Thanks. HG | Talk 10:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also want to mention a common issue w/the minyan article. Under an Orthodox heading, the article describes the various pre-modern sources (Rambam, Rashi, ShA, etc). Editors should work out another heading, such as "Traditional" or "Rabbinic" or "Pre-modern" etc. "Orthodox" is not the correct label for anybody before 1700. (Actually a much later date, but I want to avoid argument here.) Thanks. HG | Talk 10:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- HG, I think this is an area where I suspect you'll find my view somewhere between yours and Chesdovi's. I agree that in the Orthodox (and particularly the Hareidi) world, discussion of the role of women has been less than it has been in more liberal circles, while the issue has a lot more coverage in academic discussions. While I agree that the academic and liberal religoius sources are important here and on net the issue merits substantial discussion, I want to clarify that this is not because I think the academic sources on the subject are more reliable than the traditional religious ones. Here I suspect the issues academics choose to focus on are especially likely to reflect their personal interests and perhaps their biases, and hence are better regarded as simply representing a viewpoint. There may be something of a tendency on both sides to think of ones own viewpoint as the natural meat of the article and others as things to be grudgingly mentioned at the bottom. There may also be something of a tendency to think of the sources reflecting ones viewpoint as the reliable ones and the other sources as unreliable. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to HG, I would say that this is precisely what my problem is about. Today the word minyan is synonymous with women rights. Sure, the role of women is a significant and notable topic with regards to minyan. But is it the only one? Is too much devoted to this alone? You "suppose" there are other issues. Well, I can tell you that there must be a wealth of literature regarding minyan which quite frankly you wont find published on the internet, but buried in halachic tomes. It was the weight given to women in the article which struck me as unbalanced. Other matters just as important regarding minyan cover: Is minyan permitted in one room where the people can not see one another; it is permitted to be split in to two rooms; is permitted in an unenclosed space; whether an intoxicated person can be included; what if some of the ten left in the middle of the prayer; whether the duty is biblical or rabbinical; whether a young lad is believed to be eligible; whether an onan can be included; whether a ger can be included; whether a deaf person can be included; whether one was profanes shabbat can be include; whether one who denies the oral tradition or the resurrection of the dead or a mamzer or an excommunicated person or an uncircumcised person or a 13 year old who has nor brought signs of maturity; or whether those who have already prayed can be included, etc, etc. Chesdovi (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For better or worse, it's my sense that Wikipedia privileges secondary sources. But really, that's fine Chesdovi, you can write up these issues in the article. That will provide the balance you want; it wouldn't justify deleting content that's backed up by other sources. I can't tell where I may disagree w/ShiraH, but I can say I'm not talking only about scholarly journals (whether AJS or Tradition), I also mean the ordinary English language media. And I mention the sources not because of "reliability" but because they shed light on proportionality of the subtopics within the article. Anyway, let's continue on the article Talk as need be. Thanks. HG | Talk 22:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CfD here -- Jheald (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral eyes would be appreciated at Yahweh.
Previously, eg this revision, the article opened with a decent lead, setting out why Jews don't pronounce the Name, and different proposals exist for its vocalisation.
Davidamos (talk · contribs), who appears to be motivated by a fringe Christian group called the Assemblies of Yahweh, has been editing the article to downplay any doubt about "Yahweh" as the correct reconstruction of the Name. He's also trashed the lead because in his view "The article should begin with the groups who use the name Yahweh [ie the 'Assemblies of Yahweh'], not the groups who don't".[6]
The article, to be fair, was previously a bit sprawling. But these new edits aren't going in the right direction. I've already had probably more than my fair quota of reverts, so I'd appreciate if others could take this on. Jheald (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jheald, you deserve credit for trying to handle this. At this point, though, you probably need an uninvolved admin to step in. Your interlocutor is attacking you personally (i.e. edit summary: "...get rid of this jheald"). Plus, the article has obvious POV problems, driven apparently by the Yahweh-ist POV against Jehovah, e.g., "Thus Jehovah – though a word widely used by Christians today – is not an accurate transliteration and unquestionably contemptible..." Good luck. HG | Talk 13:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I listed some of the POV issues and placed a neutrality tag. But I'd still advise admin intervention. HG | Talk 14:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CheskiChips (talk) 11:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Why in this article is it deemed acceptable to write the name of HaShem? Please can we consider having this changed to YodHey, or some other version that's not directly written. It's an irrevocable avera for many of the Jews that will be viewing this page.[reply]
- Unfortunately it is not a Wikipedia policy not to allow people to commit aveirot. --Eliyak T·C 08:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, some articles have little warnings for the reader, like -- you're about to read a spoiler. But what is the halakhic source for this "irrevocable" avera, anyway? HG | Talk 10:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- After viewing something in a vein manner it cannot be unseen, therefore it's irrevocable. It's not beyond reparation. Halakhkicly, do not lay a stumbling block, which includes for yourself and others. CheskiChips (talk) 10:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've read through the page, and it looks closer to propaganda than an encyclopedia article. It needs an overhaul, but I don't think it's going to improve from tweaks we can give while the propagandist editor is active. Looking through the history, external improvements are soon removed once any individual editor looses interest, and unless we are proposing long term policing of this, it may be a lost cause. I appreciate the concern regarding the aveira, also. I'd suggest that the risk involved (aveira), and the likelihood of creating a sustainable scholarly article (very low) in the face of this fringe interest group, should be weighed against focusing on this article. We'd end up taking time away from other articles with lower risk and easier gain.EGMichaels (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there is any reason the article could not be reverted to an earlier version? I seem to recall that it was better not so long ago. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just looked, and this version was indeed much better. I'd suggest several things here. First, I think that we should go in the history and find what we believe to be the best version of the article. Second, we should enlist interested parties from ourselves and another interested responsible group. And third, reset the baseline, in cooperation with the other group -- perhaps the Christianity portal. I don't edit very often, though. So I'm not sure how much help I would be. But that's the simplest, fastest, and easiest to enforce solution: multiple groups reseting the baseline to a version before the fringe group entered, and starting afresh. But the current article is a mess. I'd almost suggest an AfD in its current form.EGMichaels (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps it's being continued by a Messianic sect? I've heard many Messianics obsessed with the topic. CheskiChips (talk) 10:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi folks. Anybody want to create an article on Kabbalah scholar Moshe Idel? Should be an easy DYK to do. More than 1,000 hits in Google Scholar. HG | Talk 13:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not so sure it's as easy as it appears. Would it entail expressing his extensive views or just his history/who he is/ what he wrote etc ? CheskiChips (talk) 10:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For a DYK new article, you just need to cover the basics in a few thousand characters (not words), I believe. Besides bio info, mention his main works, his awards, and I'd suggest use a review essay or two (or intro to Kabbalah:New Perspectives or the like) to cover his basic method and a couple emblematic views, described very briefly. The trick is to come up with a "hook" to publish on Wikipedia's Main Page, as discussed in the WP:DYK pages. Good luck! (Tip: Prepare much of it off in a user subpage and then launch it when in decent draft form. You only have a week or so after it enters main space to apply for DYK.) Presumably I or others could help out, too, if you want. Is this useful? HG | Talk 11:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm surprised there's no article on Har Zion Temple nr Philly, locale for Friedman's The New Rabbi: A Congregation Searches for its Leader book. HG | Talk 05:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Resolved Has anybody heard of Selective Judaism? A new editor just created an article about it. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 19:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Its a new form of judaism that not many are apart of so i would be SUPRISED if someone knows about it. but i have heard of it
It was created in 2003 i think — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beitmidrash (talk • contribs)
- Well, one of the criteria for Wikipedia articles is that their subjects have to be notable. If nobody's heard about the article subject, Wikipedia isn't a good place to publish information about it. Also, information has to be verified by reliable sources. It looks to me like you got this from the web site [7] Whether this blog is simply satirizing cafeteria-style Judaism or actually proposing a new denomination, Wikipedia's inclusion criteria don't permit an article that's based on a blog. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for more information about what makes an organization "notable".
- Have any newspapers or magazines have written about Selective Judaism? That might establish the movement's notability. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 20:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- I submitted the article for proposed deletion. But it likely fulfills the #3 criterion for speedy deletion because it is a purportedly humorous form of misinformation. Also, pls give warnings to User:Beitmidrash for both the article and the misinformation of the comment above, thanks. HG | Talk 20:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a host because i dont think anyone would find it funny at all. its an actual denomination. That i am apart of as well as under 100 people. if you havent heard of it doesnt mean you have to delete. Something has to start some where. If you think this isnt real then i dont htink you think Alternative Judaism or Humanistic Judaism is real either now do you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beitmidrash (talk • contribs) 20:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec)Hi Beitmidrash. I've given you a warning on your Talk page. It'd be great to have you participate constructively here. Meanwhile, people will need to go thru all your "contributions" and reverse them. Please stop immediately. If you would be courteous enough to undo all your edits on this, it would be appreciated and reflect better on you. Thanks. HG | Talk 20:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are editors assuming that the article is a hoax? Selective Judaism has a website and a blog. That seems like a lot of trouble to go through to make a Wikipedia hoax. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 20:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- A blog created today? An article created today by a user who says it's from 2003 (haha) ? Hey, Malik, how'd you even here about this thing? LOL. HG | Talk 20:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if it's a hoax, and I don't know if you're the same person as the person who wrote the blog, although the writing styles do have certain similarities. However, Wikipidia isn't the kind of place to publish new ideas previously mentioned only in blogs. We can't have an article on a jubject unless it's already been covered in published reliable sources. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Beitmidrash has become hostile and removed the PROD banner and other tags as "nonsense". I agree that an uninvolved party should take a look. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 20:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- if it is so much trouble i will delete the post myself when you tell me its ok becasue its just wikipedia and i made this post so others can know and understand Selective Judaism but i guess you dont understand so i will just leave. Thank You and Shalom (talk)
Obviously the blog was created today because we were previously with word press. The website is not a joke. I find your language to be immature like the words "joke" and etc. Please if you have a busy life and if you are a "pro" then please type like one because from what i read it is easier to see who the bigger person is. Please when you are ready i will delete the wikipedia and everything else isnt your business but the members of Selective Judaism.Beitmidrash (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being professional and friendly. I will pray for you all during Yom Kippur especially Malik for his wrongdoing. Shalom everyone and hope you all keep up the work.Beitmidrash (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
The issue is resolved and the thread can be archived. HG | Talk 03:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone who really knows his stuff please have a look at this article? It's become something of a coatrack for, well, weird ideas, mainly regarding claims about modern-day ethnic groups being members of the mysterious ten lost tribes. There were several recent edits by someone who, from his website, appears to be a Messianic. Obviously, Messianics have the same right to edit articles that anyone else does, but I reverted one of them because it seemed highly POV, unsourced and apparently OR (although I doubt that it was actually original). I'd be more comfortable with more eyes on that revert as well as attention from some of the more knowledgeable members of this project on the overall article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven J. Anderson (talk • contribs)
Shouldn't this article be completely removed in entirety? Well perhaps mention of who the 10 tribes are and how they were disobedient etc etc. But only historically written things, or even oral traditions of the people. However the majority of these things don't even have historically charted oral traditions, it's as if there's world-wide gaps of people scattered looking for a place to belong. There are sigificantly "valid" claims, such as the Japaneese connections some language similarities and their ancient temples. Also perhaps for Christians even the tribe of Dan in Ireland or the Danish. But seriously...is there no way to just remove the bulk of this article? The majority of it is really just the misunderstanding of what the tribes were by people who never studied Hebrew or Hebrew-related things. CheskiChips (talk) 08:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay SECOND note. I cleared out a lot of the garbage here and put reasonings on the discussion page, we'll see how much stands and how much is changed. I doubt there are a lot of people who really believe the things on the page, the bulk was most likely entered by a small faction. I will definitely need help. Has anyone considered allowing for a "Supposed Claim" page. There is a significant amount that can be written about the 10 tribes, but as it is...it doesn't fit in the article. CheskiChips (talk) 08:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Third note: I made significant edits to the page, and removed unsubstantiated facts. They were all reverted the very next day, apparentally there is no way to remove this problem. Can someone help me create a 'claims' page for compromise. CheskiChips (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This article has been taken over by various folks making claims to be one of the 10 lost tribes. Haven't looked at the latest. The article has been somewhat liberal in keeping reliably sourced clais (reliable as to notability in the sense of picked up by mainstream media, rather than reliable as to truth), in no small part because several claims were accepted by the State of Israel and the Chief rabbinate of Israel, and hence it is within the realm of possibility that future claims might be accepted as well. Accepted claims include the Falasha (whose claim to be descended from the Tribe of Dan was accepted) and the Bnei Menashe, whose claim to be descended from the Half-Tribe of Manassas was accepted. --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
