Talk:Rabbi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Use of Rabbi by Mandaeans[edit]

A Mandaean priest holds the title of Rabbi, but they are not Jews by religion. They appear to be of Judean Israelite origin. Perhaps a section on non-Rabbinic usage of Rabbi by Samaritans, Mandaeans and Karaites? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANMC001 (talkcontribs)

Article issues[edit]

Sourcing issues (a lack of references) was mentioned over 4 years ago ("Lack of references in article") when there were apparently 62 references. There are now 74 references yet large amounts of unsourced content. This ranges from tagged (February 2019) sections to unsourced sub-sections, to unsourced paragraphs. Reading things like this:

  • "Today Jewish federations and foundations collect and distribute most charity within the Jewish community. However the rabbi retains the task of teaching the value of charity and often participates personally in appeals for the synagogue and for national and international causes. Role-modeling: The rabbi serves as a role model for the congregation by his or her conduct and deportment. Congregation members are keen observers of their rabbi's personality traits, family life, professional conduct, leisure activities and in general the way he or she treats others. Rabbis are aware of this and in the best case deliberately model their conduct so that it represents Jewish values to the community and to outsiders.", reads like a church pamphlet about Rabbis, or this:
  • "Once acquired, Torah knowledge must be passed on, because it is the heritage of all Israel.", sourced with Deuteronomy 33:4 that states "Moses commanded a law for us, A heritage of the congregation of Jacob.". The source actually only supports "heritage" and not the complete sentence.

The policy Verifiability is not vague: In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors.

A lot of the material I read is presented as teachings, possibly from a textbook (instructional, assuming it is not pure OR), that is unacceptable.

When challenged: Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. The burden is on any editor, wishing inclusion, to supply a source. Evidence of such questioning is clear with tags and talk page comments.

Unsourced content is rarely acceptable, and might possibly be useful for a student or someone familiar with the subject, but not for the general reader. Paring back material to comply with the three above-mentioned policies (WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NOT) might be a necessity. -- Otr500 (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[]

Agreed. Some of the unsourced material is important and sources could be found for it, so I think we should focus on that before deleting. Ar2332 (talk) 06:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[]

My "goal" was to call attention to issues in hopes that someone could resolve them. Aside from the tagged sections:

  • 1)- "Functions" section contain seven completely unsourced sub-sections,
  • 2)- The "Ordination" section and two subsections contain a ton of unsourced content,
  • 3)- "Non-orthodox seminaries unaffiliated with main denominations" contains walls of unsourced text,
  • 4)-The "Interdenominational recognition" section is unsourced.
  • 5)- "Women" section is unsourced.

We can argue "importance", which is subjective, but to ensure there is not a bunch of original research we require sourcing so that the information can be verified.

Please note: This article is listed among vital articles and was apparently part of a "Foundation-supported course assignment". At a point (created in 2002) there is an expectation that things would get better. The "Etymology and pronunciation" is largely unsourced and not written in an encyclopedic tone. Inclusion of instructional information ("which is the way a student would address a master of Torah") and puffery ("As a sign of great respect, some great rabbis are simply called "The Rav""). -- This is on a quick glance through, from someone not familiar with the subject, so I am sure one could get a little serious and find a lot of things to correct.

Tags were placed on the article in November 2010, as late as February 2019, and it is now August 2020. While we are not on a specific timeline claims that something is "important" could be construed as meaning unsourced material can remain with such a designation. This is not in any policy, guidelines, essays, or acceptable practice. If editors have interest in the article it needs some work or cropped so that it "somewhat" adheres to policies and guidelines instead of presenting unsourced material. Adding several additional tags as "Multiple issues" would not likely result in improvements so we go to alternatives.

Since this is not an area I choose to edit in, I list my concerns here. This does not mean I cannot redirect my attention (that would involve trimming) but would much prefer someone else (involved editors?) look into this with a goal of sourcing material or removing that which might be original research. It is, after all, an 18 year old article having had 1,001 editors, and far too much unsourced material. Here is a good goal: If material is important, source it with Inline citations, or remove unsourced material. All of this material surely had to come from somewhere and a primary source is better than nothing at all. Thank you, -- Otr500 (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[]

Added note: There is also what seems to be synthesis with material presented as a quote in the "Historical overview" section following "This is illustrated by a 2000-year-old teaching in the Mishnah, which observed about King David,". -- Otr500 (talk) 03:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[]

Just fixed this. Ar2332 (talk) 11:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[]

Comments on original research: Wikipedia is not equipped to handle, nor the place for "novel narratives and historical interpretations", and this is what this article currently presents. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[]

Little to nothing here is novel (if you take my word for it), it's just lacking good sources. Ar2332 (talk) 07:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[]