::::Not sure, will check again. <nowiki> [[</nowiki>Jewish views on sin|sin of Israel<nowiki> ]]</nowiki>? [[User:JorgeLaArdilla|JorgeLaArdilla]] ([[User talk:JorgeLaArdilla|talk]]) 23:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
::::Not sure, will check again. <nowiki> [[</nowiki>Jewish views on sin|sin of Israel<nowiki> ]]</nowiki>? [[User:JorgeLaArdilla|JorgeLaArdilla]] ([[User talk:JorgeLaArdilla|talk]]) 23:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
:::::''sins of Israel'' in Ezra 7–10 in [[Ezra–Nehemiah#Summary and structure]]. [[User:JorgeLaArdilla|JorgeLaArdilla]] ([[User talk:JorgeLaArdilla|talk]]) 23:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
:::::''sins of Israel'' in Ezra 7–10 in [[Ezra–Nehemiah#Summary and structure]]. [[User:JorgeLaArdilla|JorgeLaArdilla]] ([[User talk:JorgeLaArdilla|talk]]) 23:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Please be aware of the following discussion: [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Chabad.org]]. Thanks you, [[User:IZAK|IZAK]] ([[User talk:IZAK|talk]]) 21:15, 9 August 2020 (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
This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Vashti again
Please tell me if I am wrong at Vashti. User:GPinkerton is for sure wrong claiming that aetiology is "incorrect spelling" since according to out "etiology" article this is a valid alternative spelling. He is also wrong when he claims that the statement that the Book of Esther provides an etiology for Purim is a falsehood, since this is completely true and he himself admits this implicitly in his revert which only adds the word "invented". But maybe I am wrong about removing the word "invented"? Debresser (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Debresser: You are wrong about the the word "invented" having different meaning to the word "provides".
The reliable sources say "invented".
You are obviously afraid of this word, and would rather a woolly meaninglessness pervade the article, at variance with the sources cited.
The myth of Esther was invented to provide an aetiology for Purim, a pre-existing festival of non-Jewish origin. It does not merely "provide an aetiology". It was written so that there would be a non-non-Jewish aetiology for Purim.
This interpolation of yours gives a wholly different meaning, which is why I have reverted it and described, correctly, as false.
As for your vague (and wrong) assertions about the word "aetiology", I suggest you consult the dictionary in whose spelling the article is written, where "etiology" is listed as 16th century variant spelling. The correct form "ae-" is attested from the 15th century. Please do not revert to incorrect spelling and misleading POV wording again. GPinkerton (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Two sources are given for this sentence in the article - Browning and Tucker. GPinkerton is correct in understanding the assertion of Browning; however Tucker implies that "invented as an etiology" cannot be stated as a consensus position, which means that GPinkerton's edit is incorrect. I imagine the most accurate approach would be to mention "invented as an etiology" as a possibility supported by some scholars and not others. Ar2332 (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ar2332: Please read Tucker again. Nowhere does it justify this claim that the story is why Purim exists, as Debresser's wording would have it. It says: the Book "purports to explain the origin of the festival". There is absolutely nothing there that supports Debresser's unsourced and ahistorical claims that is actually does "provide an aetiology for Purim". Quite the opposite. GPinkerton (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GPinkerton:: @Ar2332: is right, the best wording would be "invented as an etiology as a possibility supported by some scholars while being opposed by others" Ibn Daud (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's weasel wording. Who are these scholars that dispute this? Why haven't they published anything in reliable sources? GPinkerton (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As for my supposedly "wrong" assertions regarding the word aetiology, please see etiology, and stop being an ass.
Claiming that a whole story was invented to provide a justification for changing a holiday from non-Jewish to Jewish sounds far-fetched, and as all big claims would need impeccable sources. On the other hand, we see that even in the 21st century people make up things... Debresser (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Debresser: No, claiming that there is the least possibility of Vashti being anything other than a fictional character in a mythical plot "sounds far-fetched". Nothing more. Your Whataboutery is as useless as is your attempts to justify your interpolations. GPinkerton (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the question. The question is whether the story was made up for the specific purpose of explaining Purim, and that is not something you can claim as having general academic consensus. Debresser (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, and yes, I can, and the articles' citations prove it. GPinkerton (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Today there is general agreement that it is essentially a work of fiction, the purpose of which was to justify the Jewish appropriation of an originally non-Jewish holiday. What is not generally agreed upon is the identity or nature of that non-Jewish festival which came to be appropriated by the Jews as Purim, and whose motifs are recapitulated in disguised form in Esther." (Polish, 1999) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GPinkerton (talk • contribs)
I noticed that the overall usage of the two terms on Wikipedia is nearly 50/50, and I looked for a while to see if one or the other is clearly preferred. The closest I found to such a discussion is here, which came to the conclusion that antisemitism is preferred (though not overwhelmingly). Has there been any movement on this? Does this seem like local consensus, or is this generally preferred? I am not so interested in litigating this issue here myself, but if there are examples where consensus one way or the other is demonstrated, I'd love to see that. Thanks~ Jlevi (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That is my impression. What is the suggestion when quoting from sources? Do we use the original term, or convert to the non-hyphenated version inside the quote? I don't expect that this falls under MOS:CONFORM, but I figured I'd ask for clarity. For titles and proper names, it seems clear that one should keep the original. Jlevi (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that whenever quoting sources you keep the wording of the quote the same. Ibn Daud (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's what I figured. Means there's some inconsistency in text formatting, but that's a reasonable sacrifice for source accuracy. Thanks! Jlevi (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think either is more significant than the other. Some sources use antisemitic. Some sources use anti-Semitic. There are arguments for both.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 13:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ʽAm haʼaretz
Somebody recently moved Am ha'aretz to ʽAm haʼaretz. Is this correct? If not, what should the correct spelling be? Ar2332 (talk) 06:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And we should use straight apostrophes. By the way. Debresser (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Links to DAB pages
I have collected a batch of articles with ambiguous links to Judaism-related topics where expert assistance would be welcome. (I did have 40 or 50, but when I reviewed my bookmarks, many had been fixed.) Search for "disam" in read mode and for "{{d" in edit mode. If you solve any of these puzzles, remove the {{dn}} tag, and post Done here.
The Job one is difficult - look at the comment I added there (in source mode). The other remaining ones just involve tedious looking up sources on responsa.co.il to figure out which Pesikta is intended. Ar2332 (talk) 08:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hebrew calendar
Hebrew calendar is a long and complicated article. I am thinking of moving its History section to a new article entitled "History of the Hebrew calendar". I hope this would make both articles more manageable for readers (especially as I think the History section/article could use a good deal of elaboration). Thoughts? Good or bad idea? Ar2332 (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article is quite convoluted, however I personally see no need in creating a new article soley about the history of the Hebrew calendar, I sure with the right structuring all the information could be contained within one article. Ibn Daud (talk) 23:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Improving the improvements to The Exodus article:
There is a proposal for a new subsection on ecclesiastical titles being conducted at MOS:BIO. Interested editors are encouraged to participate. It is a bit Christian-centric as currently written, so the opinions of those with knowledge of other religions is especially welcome. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Historicity of Ishmael versus Moses (and Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) discussion
Please see Category talk:Orthodox rabbis from New York City for a discussion about how to properly categorize rabbis from YU/YTV for example. Shimon Shkop right now is under a subcat of YU, which now is under NYC/US rabbis, which doesn't make sense. We should have a geographic cat, and then a cat for YU/YTV, etc. Sir Joseph(talk) 04:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all, a wikipedia search of the above shows the term is dispersed throughout. Is there a suitable redirect target? Thanking you in anticipation.JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JorgeLaArdilla: I am also unable to find that term used anywhere on wikipedia nor have I ever heard of it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
