Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Malik Shabazz (talk | contribs) at 02:30, 29 May 2019 (→‎Jewishness and Jewish heritage: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

 Main Discussion Board Members Article Assessment Templates Categories Resources Manual of Style To do New Articles Articles for Deletion Sister Projects Watchlist 

Discussion Board

Discussions relating to Jews and Judaism. (edit) (back to top)

WikiProject iconJudaism Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used


Semitic neopaganism

I need help on the Semitic neopaganism page. It is being repeatedly vandalized, over a years long period, by someone who has a grudge against one of the listed groups. This page is about modern day groups that have neo-pagan beliefs, and are open about it (for instance, openly discussing their beliefs and the gods they pray to by printing prayerbooks, siddurs, discussing them on websites and in interviews.) But one Wikipedia editor is censoring this position, apparently trying to present one modern day neopagan group (Kohenet) as if perhaps they were Orthodox Jews. They aren't. Members of Kohenet offer prayers to Anat, Asherah, Lilith, and other deities. I do understand the the person opposing me wishes that Kohenet were Orthodox Jews, but they simply aren't. Wikipedia needs to be a place for groups are described accurately. We can't falsely write about Protestant Christians as if they are really Catholic; we can't write about neo-pagan Wiccans as if they are Muslims, etc. We merely need to be accurate. Thank you for your time. RK (talk)

Eyes on Kosher wine please

A new editor is trying to state on Kosher wine that you must be a male to make kosher wine and I'm afraid an edit war is brewing. A pair of eyes would be appropriate. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've read some of the diffs, but haven't read all of them. Is it possible that he's just (clumsily) claiming that one has to be male to be a mashgiach? Gilded Snail (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's less than four days until Passover appears on the main page on the on this day feature, and then inevitably gets removed again because the article is woefully undersourced. An edit war and various arguing will then ensue. I don't suppose it's possible that someone could at least ensure there are no unsourced paragraphs or sections before Saturday? I would try it, but my knowledge of this area is pretty much zero. Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look, but what changed this year, the page has been on the main page every year but 2017, since 2004, according to the talk page. I will reiterate that being a FA is not a requirement for OTD. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, I was thinking of Rosh Hashanah, but the concept applies anyway :) Black Kite (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moves and new article Hashem

A relatively new editor, Yallayallaletsgo (talk · contribs) has created Hashem as a stand alone article, the old one having been a dab. There's a bit of a mess with talk pages and the old links, and the article itself seems poorly sourced. If someone could take a look it would be helpful. I'm also having problems at Mount Gerizim where the editor is insisting that Yahweh must be replaced by Hashem "removed a word that is not allowed to be typed or uttered by Jews or Samaritans and is not appropriate for the article. Instead added the proper term and an explanation." I don't think this is appropriate and am concerned that they may try to make this change elsewhere. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Mount Grizim article, I think that using God in Judaism is the obvious best candidate, and have made that change. Debresser (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Debresser: I agree, that's the best choice. I'm still concerned about the Hashem problems of course. This new editor also doesn't understand our copyright policy but I've told them about that now. Doug Weller talk 13:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The standalone page is deleted as a copyvio. So do we move the dab back? StevenJ81 (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrian captivity needs attention

Compare and contrast Babylonian captivity with Assyrian captivity. The former looks pretty decent, whereas the latter would seem to need some major work. Any thoughts or volunteers? Feline Hymnic (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction at Antisemitic canard

There's a discussion going on about whether or not there were pogroms following the Black Death. Please contribute your thoughts at Talk:Antisemitic canard#Contradiction about post-Black Death massacres. Mathglot (talk) 08:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found this article today and it has no references at all. If someone has some time, any help cleaning it up would be appreciated. Ktav_Stam. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you agree that finding sources would be preferable to removing content. Just asking because "cleaning up" sounds like "removing". Debresser (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
רחמה ליצלן, that's not what I meant. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
{{Smile}} Debresser (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you were trying to do this: , which is accomplished through {{smiley}}. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. 21:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Should the Tefilin article include the section "How to put on tefillin"?

If you like, share your input at Talk:Tefillin#Section_How_to_put_on_tefillin. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Orthodox Judaism § Deleting most of the article Please see Talk:Orthodox_Judaism#Deleting_most_of_the_article for a discussion on the Orthodox Judaism article Sir Joseph (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usage question

From our article on Australian artist Howard Arkley:

His mother's side of the family was Jewish and his father was German.

Is this correct usage per WP:MOS or would it be better to rephrase this?

Thanks - 189.122.248.181 (talk) 02:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would rephrase it considering that many Jews are German. In other words, nationality and religion are not the same thing. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but in the absence of further details (nl. the nationality of the mother or the religion of the father), I don't think this can be rewritten meaningfully. "His father was German. His mother was Jewish."? In general, this is not lead material ("Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability."), and should be moved to a "Personal life" section. Debresser (talk) 07:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See (for example) Judaism § Distinction between Jews as a people and Judaism. This is actually a very involved issue. To some extent, "Jewish" represents nationality, or at least peoplehood, and to some extent it represents membership in a religious community. So handling usage like this is not necessarily simple and straightforward.
Fortunately, in this case, we can kick the problem down the road—punt it away, if you will. As @Debresser notes, unless such matters are relevant to the subject's notability, they don't go in the lead of the article at all. As I read the article, Arkley's Australian-ness seems to be relevant, and so can stay in the lead. His ancestry—Jewish, German or otherwise—doesn't, so should be moved. (For contrast, see Marc Chagall, whose Jewishness absolutely belongs in the lead.) StevenJ81 (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Portal:Jerusalem for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Jerusalem is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Jerusalem until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 13:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lag BaOmer is scheduled to be on the main page in a few days but there are a few citation needed tags. Please help reference the page if you have time. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jewishness and Jewish heritage

Hello, WikiProject Judaism,

I have a question I hope you can help me with. I work a lot with Categories and I'm running into individuals who seem like they are tenuously Jewish but who are categorized as Jewish. One incident had a musician who had one great-grandparent (out of 8 great-grandparents) who was Jewish, there is nothing in the article that says that they thought of themselves as Jewish, there is no information that they practiced or identified as Jewish, but they are in categories of Jewish performers.

I'm happy to have every notable Jewish person have an article on Wikipedia. But this seems like a case of Jewish ancestry and not Jewishness. What do you think? This isn't only a question about Jewishness, it's whether having one great-grandparent of any ethnicity or religion confers that ethnicity upon that person if they don't state that they identify with that heritage. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 00:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CAT#Articles: "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." If a biography doesn't cite reliable sources that assert a person is Jewish, the article shouldn't be in categories for Jewish (Americans/journalists/actors/etc.) If the sources state that a person's parent(s) (or grandparents) were (or are) Jewish, the article may belong in categories for (Americans/journalists/actors/etc.) of Jewish descent. And even then, the article should only be in the category if Jewish descent is one of the person's defining characteristics. This has nothing to do with halakha, which says that a child of a Jewish mother is Jewish, but with Wikipedia's sourcing, WP:BLP, and categorization requirements. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]