Talk:Dushanbe Synagogue

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Judaism (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Jewish history (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

A missing word[edit]

In Controversy, line 6, there is a missing word (between 'a' and 'in'). I'm not quite sure what it is from the context, can someone please fill in the void? Thanks. -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 14:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I added the word "building". I hope it's correct. -- PFHLai 14:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
yes, thanks! It is so cool to see people fixing the page I started and making it better. This is my first Wikipedia entry--what a great experience. elizmr 16:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

A few wikipedians express opinions[edit]

This is very disturbing--with so many wealthy Jewsih people, especially in the US and the UK, and so many religious (and otherwise) philanthropies devoted to Jewish and humanitarian causes, there should be no problem with helping buy and build a new building, and even perhaps paying for a bus and driver, to get the elderly congregation to the new synagogue.

Of course there is anti-Semitism involved in this matter, but what can you do. Perhaps those Jews remaining in Tajikistan, should have fled to Israel or gotten asylum (not difficult under their circumstances) in the US or Canada. Trafalgar007 23:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

How can you say that they should have fled to Israel or gotten aslyum? I agree that those are completely reasonable options, but no one should have to leave their home country in order to live normal lives. I'm sure that a substantial amount of money will be donated to rebuild, but that doesn't change the fact that a government has wrongfully destroyed the original building. -Bottesini 23:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Trafalgar007. I'm a Bukharian Jew. I know my family's history and what the Bukharians had to go through in order to make a living in those horrible Central Asian lands, especially Tajikistan. I was born in Dushanbe and moved to Queens, New York City when I was one. Central Asia was temporary for the Bukharian Jews. Our home is Israel and the United States. We have Bukharian Jewish synagogues in New York and in other states. We have shuls in Israel. We don't need Central Asia. That is not our home anymore. I, as a Bukharian Jew, hope that all Bukharians would move out of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. They deserve a better living. Israel is more of a home to us than Central Asia ever was. After almost all the Jews left Tajikistan, except about 1000 or maybe even less, Tajikistan was left with nothing. Jews made the economy and the Tajiks didn't appreciate that. I was born in Tajikistan but that is not my home country. America is where I grew up. Israel is the homeland of the Jews. United States and Israel are my homelands. They are my home countries, but not Tajikistan. The Bukharian Jews left Central Asia for a better life and never looked back and we never will.

Discussion about whether or not opinions should be included on discussion pages[edit]

Hi Trafalgar. I am new to Wikipedia, but I think these talk pages are intended to discuss Wikipedia content in the sense of whether or not it should be included, if it is accurate, if it is cited correctly, etc. This comment above is more in the sense of how you feel or analyze the event and I don't think it belongs on this particular page. elizmr 23:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I think that in the Talk pages, anybody can comment on ANYTHING he/she likes.--AAAAA 12:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Nope AAAA, that isn't true. Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox. This page is for discussion of how to improve the article. Welcome to Wikipedia. Feel free to put your views on your user page. Maustrauser 13:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
True, though it's pretty easy in my observation to discuss opinions that other notable people or organizations have or facts with the sincere intent of adding, keeping, removing, rewording, atttributing etc. content in the article. TransUtopian 14:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

are the dates overlinked?[edit]

I'm pasting this from a discussion on a user page I had with bobblewik after he had taken out a bunch of date links and labeled "MoS". The links were revered by another editor.

Thanks for collaborating on the Dushanbe synagogue page. I noticed you make some edits characterized as above, but I don't know what it means. These were subsequently reverted, but please explain if you could. elizmr 17:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, it is a nerdy abbreviation for Manual of style. The guidance on when date links is at:
       Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context
       Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
       Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)
If you like what I did, you can always reset the article back that way. If you don't like what I did, then so be it. I hope those references help explain it for you. bobblewik 17:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I am pasting this here to remind me and anyone else who wishes to do so to read the style sheets and think about links appropriately. elizmr 18:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It's Bukharian, not Bukharan[edit]

First of all, on the website that we got the picture from, it says BukharianJews.com, not Bukharan. The community itself calls itself the Bukharian community, Jewish or Muslims. Also, I am a Bukharian Jew. My great great grandfathers were one of the founders and one of the first people to bring the Torah to this synagogue. As the descendant of the co-founders of this shul, I should know a thing or two. LeeMulod333 (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversy over demolition of synagogue[edit]

Jayjg objected to the edits I made to the article between 11 October 2008 and 22 October 2008 and accordingly rolled back, on 26 October, the article to the previous 11 October 2008 version. In his edit summary he based his decision to revert on removal of “sourced and relevant information” in my edits.

I have compared all the sourced statements between the two versions. Only one sourced statement (corresponding to note [3b]) was omitted between 11 October and 22 October. The omitted statement reads as follows: “The community argued that it could not afford the costs of rental or construction. Even if they could afford these expenses, one source stated that “most of those attending the synagogue are elderly and very poor, and it is hard for them, both physically and morally, to get to a temporary building provided by the city authorities” (note 3b). If this statement is judged to be relevant in an encyclopedic context, it can be re-inserted in an appropriate place in the article, without rolling back everything wholesale to a previous version. If someone decides to reinsert this statement, care must be taken to straighten out the confusion between construction (permanent) and rental (temporary).

Regarding the rationale for my edits between 11 October and 22 October, the section as it stood on 11 October was written more like a journalistic piece than an encyclopedic entry. According to one of the editors involved in the article (Khoikhoi), “we could limit the "news update" style of the demolition section and make it more encyclopedic” (see here). My changes between 11 October and 22 October 2008 were intended to tighten up the rambling, verbose style and to make the discussion more organized and concise. I think I have accomplished that without sacrificing truth or relevant encyclopedic information, although the pieces have been radically rearranged. If necessary, I can justify my edits word by word, sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph.

Based on these considerations I am restoring the version of 22 October 2008. If there are objections or need for further edits, the corresponding actions should be taken on a case-by-case basis, without wholesale reverts.

--Zlerman (talk) 06:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)