Talk:Glossary of Jewish terms

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 August 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was Transwiki to Wiktionary.

History and viability of this article

This article began as a split from Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms. Edit histories needed.

Questions: How would editors define a "Jewish term" and narrow down the list of terms suitable for a glossary? What lists of key terms might be available from reliable sources? (The EJ glossary might be slightly helpful.) Is a glossary needed rather than, say, the category of Judaism articles?

Thanks. HG | Talk 23:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It needs follow my suggestions in the AfD, to help avoid yet another AfD: Notable terms would consist of those having their own articles. If you really want a term included like "Normal mysticism" create an article for it first if it doesn't exist, then add it to the glossary.

So editors can start pulling them from Category:Hebrew words and phrases. And as I said, to avoid POV forking and OR, use only what's in the introduction of articles, and if those are too weak or unsourced, improve them in the main articles, then add them here. That should keep everyone busy for quite a while and avoid debates over details of introduction content in this article Talk, as such discussion should be handled in those main articles. -Bikinibomb (talk) 07:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Intro only" rule

(copied from Talk:Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms#"Intro only" rule) This "rule", which Bikinibomb used tonight to delete content, is no rule at all. In fact, it can lead to someone silly consequences. For example, the only article called Chesed in Wikipedia is actually a redirect to Chesed (Kabbalah). However, chesed is a major term in Judaism, as it denotes an extremely important set of activities, such as visiting the sick, giving to the needy, taking in guests, and the like. Having chesed defined as meaning only a Kabbalistic term, when the teachings of Kabbalah are not a mainstream and common thing in Judaism, and ignoring the actual meaning of the word, would be misinformation of the worst kind.

For this reason, as well as the simple fact that intros don't always start with the part of the article that is most pertinent in the context of this one, I think Bikinibomb's "rule" should be dismissed out of hand. I think it can be a helpful guideline, if a person wants, in good faith, to copy in some relevant material from the article that is already linked, but it should be done with judgement, and not as Bikinibomb tried to insist in the case of the entry on chesed. -LisaLiel (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main article should be improved first if the introduction is too weak and doesn't convey main points, as indicated in the guidelines. This is the only way to avoid this article being a magnet for content disputes and POV pushing, as indicated in the AfD. With a broader range of editors to work with in main articles, there will be less controversy with this one. I don't wish to debate with you as before here in Talk, however I'll revert up to 3 daily according to that ideal and be watching to see you don't replace more than three introductions by the same editor per day. -Bikinibomb (talk) 02:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you revert the same one three times in a single day, you'll be in violation of 3RR. You'll get banned. Not that I mind, but I thought you might like to know what the results will be. If you do it to three different ones, I'll just change them back. Appropriate content is more important than a personal rule you made up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LisaLiel (talk • contribs) 02:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. So mind your reverts when modifying introductions.

As copied from the other Talk: for example to Christian you just added, which I reverted and you reverted again, Jewish theologians do not generally consider Christianity to be monotheistic.The Real Messiah, by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, pp 7ff: "Worship of any three-part god by a Jew is nothing less than a form of idolatry.". No such statement appears in either Christian or Christianity articles, thus it is an item that may need to be discussed in main articles with regular editors there to check your sources and see if it warrants inclusion. As it stands I see nothing in the PDF that says Jewish theologians generally consider anything. This is an example of the content disputes and possible OR we need to avoid here now. -Bikinibomb (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a sourced statement, one which was in the original article before it changed, and it's relevant. I'll get to the other article in time. Your "rule" is not binding. -LisaLiel (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only reference to "theologians" I find is on page 26 referring to Dominican Theologians in the years 1413-1414. What page on the PDF is your statement about theologians sourced? -Bikinibomb (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'd like to comment. It looks like various Wikipedia do mention terms that themselves do not have articles. I think this is quite reasonable. Unlike a list or category, the purpose of a glossary is usually to help people read a text -- in this case, to help our readers understand articles on Jewish topics. Within those articles, and their Talk pages, non-expert readers may find many unfamiliar terms. For instance, an article may refer to a pasuk. They can then find "pasuk" in the glossary. Perhaps there's no need for an article on "pasuk" itself. (Likewise, see the Glossary for the Encyclopedia Judaica. Many of those terms don't have articles.) Anyway, while a hard and fast rule isn't needed, I would expect that most terms have articles, given the nature of Wikipedia. Perhaps in the ideal world, the glossary would transduce definition in articles, but I doubt we can rely on the stability of articles and their definitions. Thanks. HG | Talk 00:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty confident that a lot of the religious Hebrew terms can find counterparts in Christian articles if they have none for themselves. I just found one for pasuk and made a redirect for it. So yeah, the point is look for something like that first, then try to keep the two articles consistent with descriptions. And, if there is an article about something, there should be no debate that it belongs here, it belongs. I think a fairly hard and fast rule is exactly what is needed to avoid disputes and revert wars like we had before. -Bikinibomb (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious about how easily folks set up such rules for individual articles. Since anyone can edit, wouldn't it be difficult to try to impose a rule on an article, if the rule isn't already closely tied into broader WP policies? thanks. HG | Talk 01:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can set up a rule. The trick is to find anyone who cares. I can say "There's a rule that the title Rabbi should always be written as R'." But it'd be arbitrary, because there's no actual reason for it. Bikinibomb has set up an arbitrary "rule" that no one but himself cares about. I certainly don't consider myself bound by it. And since I'm checking in every day, I don't see how he'll manage to enforce it.

In other words, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." -LisaLiel (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Maybe not if dozens of Messianics come swarming in at any moment to do reverts and take charge. The article might even be renamed and turned into a Messianic table again, there are no guarantees of anything here on Wikipedia, a mystery at every turn. That's what makes it so much fun. :) -Bikinibomb (talk) 03:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Start watching List of drummers and see how fast we remove additions of non-notable drummers with no article. I'm not entirely for that kind of swift reaction here, but there should at least be an effort to find a matching article which covers a proposed term like I did with pasuk. I bet for every term there is something out there.

And then when you find it, ensure that content is the same in both articles, not have a main article that says apples are often eaten, but then come in here and try to say apples taste like crap. If you want to do that, it should be in a main article where there is a diverse consensus to decide if that is appropriate. Not here where one gang gets to decide the definition of every single term in the Hebrew language. This is the way we need to play NOR and NPOV with these highly-charged religious issues, unless you want to see another AfD and more hellish exchanges. -Bikinibomb (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shituf

This section needs sources. When does the term first appear? In what context? Is it identical to avodah zarah, or a form of avodah zarah, or something different? According to whom? Are there different definitions of shituf? Regarding its application to (1) all human beings (2) just Jewxs or (2) just gentiles, is this clear in a prooftext? Where? Is it ever discussed in direct relation to Christianity? If so, when is the first occasion? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]