Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism

Main        Discussion Board        Members        Article Assessment        Templates        Categories        Resources        Manual of Style        To do        New Articles       Discussion Board Discussions relating to Jews and Judaism. (edit) (back to top) 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 Nomination for deletion Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unification Church and antisemitism Move Jew to Jews? An editor has proposed moving Jew to Jews. Please weigh in at Talk:Jew#Requested move. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC) There was not much discussion - especially by established users - and then BA-BOOM the change was made. Is this proper? Can the move be rolled back? Even the discussion was promptly closed and archived. Best, A Sniper (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC) I hope that members of the Project will take a look here and make their voices known as to whether the move was given enough thought & time. Thanks. A Sniper (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Jews and WikiProject Judaism Do people, by dint of their being born Jewish, belong in the WikiProject Judaism, bearing in mind that the intro states: "and other subjects and phenomena that are directly related to Judaism as a religion?” Chesdovi (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC) That point of view pushing should not be there. That is just one more attempt in a seemingly endless collection of attempts to reduce Jewish identity to starkly defined categories that do not exist, in most cases, in reality. That sentence should simply be reading: "This WikiProject aims to standardize Wikipedia articles on Judaism, Halakha ("Jewish law" and tradition) and other subjects and phenomena that are directly related to Judaism." It is sad that arbitrary distinctions are being foisted on an identity that is actually quite free-form and fluid. The reality is that many or most Jews exhibit qualities that fall into the religious and the ethnic categories on a highly personal basis. Yet the emphasis on Wikipedia seems to be to accentuate the "either-or" basis for Jewish identity as concerns religious affinities and more casual connections to that identity. Bus stop (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Agree w/Bus stop (if I am reading his response correctly' and would have the same answer for those who convert to Judaism). As long as I have been on Wikipedia, there has been representation on this wikiproject (and in many categories -- though there have been massive efforts to delete them, some successful, unfortunately) of Jewish Nobel Prize Winners, Jewish chess players, Jewish athletes, etc. I think that being Jewish relates directly to Judaism, without question. I can't recall an earlier effort to delete Jews from this wikiproject. And I note that the first category covered by this wikiproject is ... Jews. So emphatically agree w/Bus Stop.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Agree with above. A WikiProject is for improving articles, not categorizing them. As a result, I think WikiProject coverage should be of topics that might be of interest to the editors involved, regardless of whether they are strictly defined as being part of the area. If at least a significant minority of editors think the topic is relevant to a WikiProject or would want to edit those articles because of their interest in the subject, then an article belongs in a given WikiProject. For example, people have all kinds of ideas about what articles belong in Wikipedia:BACON, a drive to improve articles related to bacon. Even though WP:BACON is almost the opposite of this WikiProject :), I think its relatively free-form nature is an interesting model for how to define what belongs in a WikiProject. --AFriedman (talk) 03:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC) For the record, I agree with the previous two editors. Debresser (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC) I tend to agree with AFriedman senitiments. Let me add though, that if one takes a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity its seems not every person who is a Christian is part of the project; only people that have an influence on Christianity as a religion. Should a line be drawn between people who are born Jewish but have no bearing on Judaism as a religion. Does Judaism cover anything remotely connected with something “Jewish” like Batwoman and baseball players who are Jewish but do not even adhere to Judaism. Are we to add every Jewish person to this project? If so, it should be renamed WikiProject Jews and Judaism. Chesdovi (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC) I have to admit, I misunderstood your original post. I didn't know you were referring to subjects of articles. I understood that you were referring to editors of Wikipedia. My comment would still be that the end of that sentence should be left off — "…as a religion." And in response to what I now understand is your question, my answer would be yes — anything related to Judaism should at least be considered for inclusion, including, yikes, Batwoman. Bus stop (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC) If a person is Jewish, that should be the end of it. We're not about to start reviewing whether they go to shul, and if so which one, and would a Reform rabbi deem them Jewish but an Orthodox (or a Satmar) rabbi not, and do they have menorah -- or a "chanukah bush" or christmas tree -- or both, and if so what should we do with them then. These sorts of discussions have plagued efforts by some to delete people from the various Jewish "categories", as well as (more typically) by an active group seeking to delete all the Jewish categories. Doesn't make sense, and would be a most unfortunate road to start down. Jewish baseball players -- as an example -- have books dedicated to them as a group, have Cooperstown focusing on them as a group, and are in both those ways quite different form Christians as a group. See, e.g., articles here, here, here and here. See also: The Big Book of Jewish Baseball: An Illustrated Encyclopedia & Anecdotal History, The Jewish baseball hall of fame: a who's who of baseball stars, What is Jewish about America's "favorite pastime"?: essays and sermons on Jews, Judaism and baseball, Jewish baseball stars, Ellis Island to Ebbets Field: Sport and the American Jewish Experience, The Baseball Talmud: The Definitive Position-by-Position Ranking of Baseball, Baseball and the American Jewish Experience, The Last Jewish Shortstop in America, and Jews and Baseball: Entering the American mainstream, 1871-1948 Plus, there is no way to draw a line -- do we then not reflect categories of Jewish Nobel Prize winners? If we're not sure if they were in shul for Yom Kippur? All of this IMHO. As to Batwoman, I have little idea what that issue is, but it sounds like an outlier--and from the little I can see, it looks as though she is ID'd as Jewish (as a fictional character) ... there is precedence on wikipedia in including fictional characters who are in groups in wikiprojects. This all sounds like a tempest in a teapot -- no harm done by inclusion; and inclusion sounds like the consensus view above.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC) In my personal understanding, this wikiproject was always focused on articles that relate to the phenomenon of Judaism, which is mainly the religion. We used to have a special wikiproject that dealt with Jewish culture that was absolutely secular, namely Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish culture, but that is now defunct. Perhaps restarting that would be helpful in dealing with Jewish baseball players or actors, such as Seth Green whose lives and careers only intersect Judaism by virtue of birth, as opposed to, for example, Sandy Koufax, who did have his religion impact his career, or Sacha Baron Cohen, who had his religion affect his marriage by having his fiancee convert (See Sacha Baron Cohen#Personal life.) -- Avi (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC) This topic is the classic case of having opened up a can of worms. A week from now the discussion will be where it is now. Is there some reason why this must be addressed? What's the difference? If an editor wants to edit an article, would it really matter if he/she edited it under the auspices of the Wiki project Judaism or under another Wiki project or under no wiki project at all? Bus stop (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Agree w/Bus stop. FYI -- the genesis of this was that Chesdovi deleted WikiProject Judaism templates from a number of articles this week, including a number of Jewish baseball players I had watchlisted who had been under the auspices of the wikiproject for years. When I objected, Chesdovi did not agree with me, and felt that he had to raise it here. I'm hoping that with the above consensus, Chesdovi will be happy to hue to the common viewpoint here, and we can put this to rest.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Yeshiva stubs and non-notables 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 Yeshivat Netiv Aryeh Mesoras Mordechai - 25 students, no notable features. Dvar Yerushalayim - the article is a two line stub with link to their website. Yeshiva Gedola of Carteret - Opened in 2006. The article has a 15 line "History" section! Miami Beach Community Kollel - 13 Lakewood graduates learning in Miami. Only RS is [[WP:ONEEVENT] about a building fire. Yeshivat Eretz HaTzvi - Has been tagged for notability since Dec 08. Yeshiva V'Kollel Beis Moshe Chaim Kollel Ohr Yosef 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) 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) Is this a paid-for source, and therefore unreliable? --Dweller (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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. Having said that, it wouldn't be inappropriate to nominate an article about a non-notable school for deletion (PROD or AfD only—CSD doesn't apply to schools). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) Pah! I actually received a reward for this comment of mine (here). Debresser (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC) 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) (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) "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) 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) 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 suggest that there would be the place to discuss it. DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC) You mean at WP:AFD? Debresser (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC) 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) Joe407 — Which Yeshiva article(s) do you feel are deserving of deletion? Bus stop (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC) 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) 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) Ashkenazi Jews‎ A heads up and request for more eyes. I have semiprotected Ashkenazi Jews‎ until some nonsourced additions from an IP are cleared up. Essentially statistics on the number of ashkenazi jews per country are added. This does strike me as rather difficult to ascertain (given the kerfuffle over defining whose image would/should/could be in the infobox!), but I might be wrong. I have zero expertise in the area. So can folks with some knowledge drop into the talk page and hopefully come to some sort of consensus on it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC) PS: (Big hint) getting articles like this one to GA or FA - standard is prudent, as it gives it a stable consensus-point to measure up again in the future, and makes it more robust WRT removing unsourced additions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Humanities question at the reference desk I recently asked a question at the humanities reference desk that members on here might be able to answer. I would appreciate some feedback. Thank you. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Help Desk post regarding neutrality in National Council of Young Israel (moved from WT:ISRAEL) If anyone here is familiar with the topic, would you mind taking a look at the issues raised in this post on the Help Desk regarding a rather one-sided section in the article in question? I've been helping the user a little bit with some obvious policy problems, but as for all the issues raised, my expertise in the area is, well, non-existent :). Cheers, Nick—Contact/Contribs 06:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC). User:Aleksig6 adding personally interpretive images to various Jewish articles User:Aleksig6 has been adding personally created images to various pages such as Ten Commandments, Showbread, etc. (see his contributions). These images are his personal interpretations and neither in accordance with tradition nor representative of fact (as we have no 3000 year old images). Wikipedia should not be used as forum for user art, especially when it is not necessarily representative, and I think these images need to be removed. Other participants agree or disagree? -- Avi (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Please see the discussion at Talk:Ten Commandments#Image added and comment as your conscience dictates. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC) The articles in question were Ten Commandments, Showbread, Ark of the Covenant, Menorah (Temple), and Tabernacle. -- Avi (talk) 02:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC) I disagree. I think they are more in keeping with diagrams. I don't think they are interpretations. They seem to be constructed in accordance with measurements and descriptions. I don't think they are "art" except in a very broad understanding of that term. Bus stop (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC) I just want to say that wikipedia suppose to be neutral and present all facts on the particular matter. Your claim, Avi, goes against this wiki rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV. Besides, all of my images have been made by the description from Pentateuch. Aleksig6 (talk) 03:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC) For example, your image of the menorah has the oil cups in a circle, where is the source for that? Your image of the showbread has it as loaves, when the Talmud is clear that it was in the shape of |_| with walls. Your personal interpretations are fine, but they cannot be represented on wikipedia as authentic. WP:NPOV does not allow WP:FRINGE claims, see WP:UNDUE. Your interpretations are solely your own, and thus WP:NOR, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NPOV violations. -- Avi (talk) 03:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Like I said, I do not mind clarifying the description of my images (where it is appropriate, of'course), but I'm higly against removal of my images by you, based on your unsubstantiated and very much biased claims. Aleksig6 (talk) 03:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC) The onus is on you to show that your images do not contain elements of personal interpretation, Alek. Otherwise, it is a WP:NOR etc. violation. -- Avi (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC) With all due respect Avi, and as you have rightfully pointed out, there are no such images available (same goes for the textual description). So either all images needed to be removed, or you should agree that a certain degree of artistic interpretation can be allowed for the illustrative' sake... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleksig6 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Those may be valid criticisms, Avi. The validity of such criticism should depend on how true and authentic such representations are to the most conservative sources. I would be against interpretation. Images containing any representations that are not absolutely true to source should be removed or abbreviated down to a form of representation that eliminates anything possibly fanciful. Bus stop (talk) 03:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Well... I have nothing more to say then, than I already have. I'm not going to continue this conversation with all of you, as I see no point to do so. If you will reconsider and decide to employ my images to improve Judaism section of Wikipedia - let me know. Aleksig6 (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Aleksig6 — I think your images are potentially useful. If they accurately represent what they purport to represent, then great. I only wanted to concede that if Avi is correct that certain arbitrary decisions have been made — that would be unacceptable. Please tell me if you disagree with this. Avi points out that there is an interpretive element in how the Menorah cups are depicted. Another example he seems to find a problem with is the depiction of the Showbread. I'm not claiming to be knowledge about these two items. But I think that where insufficient confirmable visual information is available, that the illustrations you are providing should remain ambiguous on these points. A suggestion I would offer would be to use actual language in your illustrations — meaning that words such as "Menorah cups" and "Showbread" be placed in the illustration where these items might be. That way the non-disputed parts of the illustration can still provide a useful diagram. And a general situational relationship of the parts can be established, as well as the context of the proportional relationships between the known dimensions of for instance architectural elements. I think that it is hard for a reader to visualize these things. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC) RE: Menorah and the Table: Yes, this is true that in my images there is a certain degree of artistic(or interpretive) visualization. However, my images depict all explicitly stated details of these artefacts and(since it was done in 3D editor) all explicitly stated dimensions are 100% proportional and up-to-scale. You and Avi asked me about Menorah cups: did you mean Menorah Lamps ? And the Table, what Avi had said about the bread is only true according to Talmud and not the Pentateuch. And dont get me wrong: I do not mind having traditional views of Orthodox Judaism represented in the article, even in the form of images. What I do mind though, is that the actual description from the original text(Pentateuch) is misrepresented, and Traditional view is being promoted as an ultimate truth. But like I said, I do not want to engage in discussion about validity of the Traditional interpretations. FYI: most wiki articles related to Pentateuch are heavily biased towards traditional views and do not represent the original text as they should. It is also clear to me that this is how the community likes it and I'm not going to engage in any "edit wars" or whatever you call it with the present participants. I genuinly tried to contribute, but I was met with apprehension and bashing. Is there a reason why I should be trying to resolve this situation at this point? I have better things to do, you know... P.S. Just several examples: This images http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Menorah_0307.jpg is a recent and modern recontruction of the Menorah according to the traditional view. Is this image authoritative? From the traditional standpoint - more or less, from the Pentateuch standpoint - absolutely not. In the "Ark of the Covenant" article, there is this image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ark_of_the_Covenant_19th-century.png Is it authoritative, even from traditional point of view? Absolutely not, as this is a Christian interpretation of the Ark. Even an old image from Baraita on Mishkan would do - it would at least balance the article. Not to mention that there are several very widespread mistakes in the description of the Ark, one of which I have corrected on my my personal wiki page.Aleksig6 (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Look, here's the problem. If you open up the Torah, read a description of the Ark or of Showbread or of the Mercy Seat, and create pictures of those items based on what you just read, that's original research. This is clear-cut as far as I can see. It doesn't really matter how good or bad, accurate or inaccurate your research is. You have to publish it elsewhere, get it accepted elsewhere, get it to become notable elsewhere, before it gets on Wikipedia. You can't put it here and call it the Truth™ about what these things looked like. After that, it's just a question of whether these images add anything to the article aesthetically. I leave it to other editors to check you user page and form a consensus on that.--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC) I just took a closer look at your last comment. The difference between the images you created and those you refer to is that no one is calling those images the accurate, truthful, definitive, be-all, end-all, authoritative images of these items. They're just artworks that have been created about the items that have a certain aesthitic value. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC) RE: Original research: My images are no more "OR" than any other images available on the subject. I only claimed that my images were up-to-scale (proportional) and in agreement with explicitly stated details from the original text. But like I said, I will leave it for now up to the community to decide, as my images speak for themselves. RE: Aesthetic value: Thats a far better argument and I can accept it, as I'm not an artist per say, and I do admit that my images may look a bit ugly. But again, I will leave it up to the community to decide... All in all, I just want to say it again, that the only thing that is bothering me is that my images are being removed by some users under rather "made-up" pretenses. Not good... Aleksig6 (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC) I've put most of these images up for deletion at Commons, in addition to his essay-like user page. As for their inclusion in Wikipedia, they don't represent any notable viewpoint - they are Aleksig6's original research, and not depictions based on notable scholarly viewpoints, or notable religious viewpoints - and therefore come under WP:FRINGE in addition to WP:OR. Aleksig6, no-one objects to the general idea of you creating drawings, what they are objecting to is you creating drawings based on your own interpretation of what it means - you should instead draw things based on the views of notable scholars or religious views. For example, matching near-identically the views of the Encyclopedia Brittanica, or matching near-identically the view of Haredi Judaism, or Coptic Christianity, etc. You point out a 19th century image. For a start, User:Reddi didn't draw it, nor did any of his friends. Its a 19th century image, and he's not that old, so it cannot be original research, because it isn't his creation. But the key thing to note is that the description of that image says A late 19th-century artist's conception of the Ark of the Covenant, employing a Renaissance cassone for the Ark and cherubim as latter-day Christian angels. The key thing to note about that description is (a) It tells you that its only one POV (b) It states what that POV is (c) It gives some details about the stylistic background. Your picture would have to be labelled A modern computer-drawn image by User:Aleksig6 based on his conception of the ark of the Covenant, ...... The key thing to note is that it is YOUR CONCEPTION - that's ORIGINAL RESEARCH. And Original Research isn't allowed, on Wikipedia. Additionally, ditch the shadows and reflection, or at least make them much much lighter and near-transparent, it makes it extremely difficult to work out what is being shown. Newman Luke (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Israel FAR I have nominated Israel for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cptnono (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Vandalism on Satmar and Bnei Yoel articles. Can anyone please review this and this and take appropriate action?--Shmaltz (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Look at my talk page history and you'll see the IP address responding (as well as the username) belong to derblatt which is one side of the equation in that fight, is it permissible to use WP for political push of an agenda?--Shmaltz (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yitzchok Kogan NVO (talk) 09:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC) User:Newman Luke User:Newman Luke is back making wholesale changes to Judaism-related articles. Can people please check that the changes are both accurate and per wikipedia policies? Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC) Have you read WP:STALKING and WP:FAITH, Avraham? Newman Luke (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC) I just reverted all edits of this editor on Forbidden relationships in Judaism, because in general they introduce incorrect concepts and terminology. An occasional good edit is too rare to search for. This editor has in my experience been proven to make highly inreliable edits. It is definitely a good idea to check this editor's edits, and I for one would be happy if the community would/could take action banning him from Judaism-realted articles and topics. Debresser (talk) 11:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC) YHWH vs Yahweh - sockpuppet Are changes such as this one [1] reasonable? 70.17.103.88 (talk · contribs) has just arrived and I wonder, looking at the other edits as well, if this is a sock puppet. Dougweller (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC) I looked over the changes and I don't understand why you would object to them. They look reasonable to me. Please explain. --AFriedman (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC) Putting it another way, is there a standard for the use of YHWH over Yahweh, and I'm a bit bothered by the fact that Yahweh or YHWH, the actual cited texts in the boxed quotations don't use either by say 'Lord', and we normally expect quotations to match the source. There's also the issue of replacing 'Bible' with either 'Hebrew Bible' or Tanakh. And here [2] he changed the main article template which lead to Cyrus in the Judeo-Christian tradition to Cyrus in Jewish tradition which leads nowhere. I've reverted that. My memory may be faulty, but some of these edits seem familiar. Maybe I should ask elsewhere. Dougweller (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC) Doug -- for what it's worth, I think the original version was a little clearer for a generic audience. Gentiles won't know what "Tanakh" is (the editor seems to have preferred that to "Bible" to keep it distinct from a Christian Bible). "YHWH" versus a representation of the Divine Name may be an attempt to avoid using the Divine Name, but probably misguided on the grounds that "YHWH" IS the Divine Name. I don't see any major problems with the edits -- other than the fact that they are unnecessary and make the article less intelligible to Gentiles.EGMichaels (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC) YHWH is more technically accurate, but Wikipedia's policy is to use the common term. In theology/academic circles/books, its always written as Yahweh, rather than YHWH, except when discussing the technicalities of the meaning/full-spelling of YHWH itself. So in Wikipedia, if we are to follow wikipedia policy, it should generally be Yahweh (except in those very small number of circumstances mentioned) - and therefore the above-mentioned edit is unreasonable. For reference, the term YHWH is the Hebrew version - which LORD is the usual "translation" of. But the key point about the original Hebrew text is that there are no vowels in any of the words - so if we are going to use vowels in other biblical names, we should use vowels here too. Newman Luke (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks all. Dougweller (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Criticism of Judaism There have been additions to the articles recently that seem to be, in my opinion, non-notable and violations of WP:POV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:FRINGE. Please review Talk:Criticism of Judaism and comment as you see best fit. -- Avi (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)