Template talk:Jews and Judaism

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

You may be looking for Template talk:Jews and Judaism sidebar.

Leadership[edit]

The leadership section begins with top historic figures (Hillel, Shammai, Yehudah haNasi, Saadia Gaon and ends, bizarrely, with Michael Lerner. Whatever his significance, Michael Lerner is dwarfed by such unlisted leaders as David Saperstein or Avi Weiss, to name just two. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT applies. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Still messed up. Many of the Rabbis were very important, (like RASHI), but weren't exactly the leaders of their respective strains of Judaism in their time. Furthermore, many more important leaders are left out. I'm patching it up now. Yserbius (talk) 04:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Size[edit]

This template is much too long. Can we break it into several different templates or otherwise shorten it? tahc chat 18:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

(talk) 19:26, 24.01.2015 2013 (UTC) MShabazz I have added very important things Related to Jews and Judaism, and edited the Template. I have worked really hard for it. To me it's seems very relevant and Necessary to add all of these, they provide a much broader vision on this vast subject. Perhaps it is necessary to divide it into 2 - one Jews and the other Judaism. Moreover, it seems to me that you are stalking me and cancel everything that i Writing, I can not feel that you are harassing me, please stop it. There was no reason to cancel half the things you undid to me, it's ridiculous and alienating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaoXan 14:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@DaoXan: please don't accuse other editors of "stalking" you when they are only reverting your sweeping changes of this template. You may have good ideas for improving the template, but you MUST gain consensus first. PLEASE READ WP:CONSENSUS and then you can propose a page rename, or work out what you think should be included in each subsection, or whatever else you think would benefit this template. BUT YOU MUST GET CONSENSUS FIRST. Yoninah (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

History section to first section?[edit]

Should the History section be the first section of the template instead of the 14th? That feels right to me, but I work from a sense of history so that viewpoint comes from within that particular mix. So throwing it out there as an idea and discussion point. Randy Kryn 1:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that suggestion makes sense. I would even go as far as to let you move around all sections into a more logical order. Make a bold edit, referring this section, and if other editors will see reason to further tweak the result, all the better. Debresser (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Removal of ethnic groups[edit]

Several ethnic groups were removed recently, as usual for the removing editor without any prior discussion, on the flimsy basis that the template is not a [[History of Jews in ..]] template. That is however not a reason to not mention whole ethnic groups of Jews. Especially since for example Kurdish Jews could easily be replaced by Kurdish Jews, and likely others as well. Debresser (talk) 04:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

As usual this user acts like a jerk. I put kurdish jews in the template in the first place.--Monochrome_Monitor 09:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
There's also no rule saying every edit has to be discussed on a talk page.--Monochrome_Monitor 09:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for calling me a jerk (WP:NPA violation). Since you don't WP:OWN this template it is utterly irrelevant who added Kurdish Jews. That was just one example, in case you don't understand the difference between an example and an argument. In any case, you had nothing substantial to say regarding the fact that you removed ethnic groups for unclear reasons and without discussion. I suppose you don't have anything to say, since it was another one of your poor choices. Also, you violated WP:BRD which says that if your edit is reverted, that is a sure sign you should discuss (by the way, who is the jerk after that?). Best proof is that your revert was promptly undone by an uninvolved editor for precisely that reason. On a final note, not every edit has to be discussed, but see WP:CAUTIOUS, that major edits should be discussed. Debresser (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Titles[edit]

I'm thinking of adding more titles for current and historic communal roles, for example: lehrer (Jewish educator) and firzogerin (precentress). Aharon (talk) 00:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

A lehrer is the same as a teacher, at a school. Since when is "schoolteacher" a specific Jewish role? Debresser (talk) 09:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

New version[edit]

The template is ridiculously large. Navbox for such a vast subject should be reserved for basic topics. I reworked its structure, added very notable omissions and removed all those unnecessary articles that are linked in the articles included in the new version:

--Triggerhippie4 (talk) 01:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

  • I agree that the current template is much too big, and I think you've done an excellent job of whittling it down to its essentials. I would support the replacement of the current template with the version proposed above. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  • It is missing Jewish Nationalism as a headline subject. Under that heading would be Haskalah, Zionism, Israel, post-Zionism etc. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Haskalah is listed in "History". "Zionism", "Israel" and "post-Zionism" are similar and overlapping topics which can be found clicking on "Politics". Also, link to "Land of Israel" is already in the template. Zionism can be added to "History", but not as a separate heading. And "Jewish Nationalism" cannot be used as a separate heading with "Zionism" in it, because there's no such articles – the former is a redirect to the latter. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 08:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I added Zionism to History. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 11:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Is the idea to split off content into more specific navboxes? If so, what topic areas would be good for the new templates? --Yair rand (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
@Yair rand: Most of the removed articles are already in various templates, such as {{Jewish history}}, {{Jews and Judaism in Europe}}, {{Holy sites in Judaism}}, {{Jewish life}}, {{Jewish prayers}}. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 11:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Debresser[edit]

@Debresser: concerning my edit. This template is supposed to summarize whole Jewry through all of its history and aspects, so it should be reviewed for what is included here, otherwise it will overgrow. I removed the link to History of the Jews in the Middle Ages because it's a redirect to history of European Jews only. I also removed 2 articles about YIVO and 3 articles about the Holocaust organizations because WP:UNDUE. I removed 3 articles about relations with separate Christian streams because there is already a link to the article about relations with Christianity as a whole. I removed Hazzan – obvious. I also fixed redirects, piped links, did sorting and fixed the link to Book:Judaism. You reverted it all for no reason demanding that I must discuss it first. That's not how this works, WP:BOLD. You already have a long history of edit-warring for which you've been blocked many times, I'm asking you to self-revert. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Hear, hear! deisenbe (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
I reverted because I opposed the removal of many of those links. Why mentioning my block history? That is called "poisoning the well". But okay, if you really want to piss editors off, you're doing an amiable job. Oh, and you are a liar as well, since your statement that I "reverted it all for no reason" is untrue. What about WP:AGF? Shame on you!
WP:BOLD is also closely linked to WP:BRD, so instead of reverting my undo of your bold edit, you should have discussed first.
I can agree with most of your explanations, even if I don't think them optimal. One question, what is so obvious about the removal of Hazzan? Debresser (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
I reported you at WP:ANI#Debresser. As for Hazzan, it should obviously be removed because as I already argued in the beginning, "This template is supposed to summarize whole Jewry through all of its history and aspects, so it should be reviewed for what is included here, otherwise it will overgrow." An experienced editor in the field would look at this template and see that such a minor topic as Hazzan is not on par with the rest of the links, but you are WP:NOTHERE. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Cut the WP:DRAMA, please. The entry for "prayer" has secondary entries for "synagogue" and "hazzan". Related and I don't see the problem with them. Nevertheless, I understand with your reasoning, and even though I don't agree your edits are optimal, I won't oppose removal of Hazzan. Debresser (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Why were the Italkim removed, for example? Debresser (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
@Debresser: Because I was reverting a user who restored large pre-consensus content. And there are more notable groups than Italian Jews which were not included – they all can be reached through clicking on "Population" and "Diaspora." --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Schism[edit]

I'm unhappy with this heading. Orthodox is not a "schism". deisenbe (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Schism means "division", and the concept of Orthodox Judaism is a consequence of that division. If we rename it to Movements or Branches, then Jewish secularism link would not belong under the heading. Schisms is a broader term. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 08:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Deisenbe. The section used to be called "Religious movements", until this edit by Triggerhippie4. I disagree with the notion of Triggerhippie4 that Jewish secularism is not a branch or movement in Judaism: it is, just a secular one. And being secular is simply being 0 on a scale of religiosity. So either we link to Jewish religious movements, or we use "Jewish movements" without a link. In any case, the word "schism" is used here incorrectly. A "schism" is the process of splitting into different branches, not a name for the resulting groups. This is not correct English. Debresser (talk) 11:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Well put. deisenbe (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think "movement" is the right word either. "Movement" implies a goal, a destination. How about "Varities", as in "Varieties of Judaism"? Or "Types". "Branches" is another possibility deisenbe (talk) 10:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

How about "Divisions" with link to Jewish schisms? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
"Divisions" implies that Judaism is some whole that's been split up. If that's true then what was the original that has been divided? deisenbe (talk) 11:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Judaism is divided into what is listed there. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 11:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't know what the whole is that has been divided. deisenbe (talk) 11:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Triggerhippie4 has again made an edit without the discussion reaching its end. He should rename his username "triggerhappy".
I don't like "divisions", for the same reason as Deisenbe, which is basically why he openend this thread. Even though "branches" seems appropriate, the term "movement" is the commonly used one. Deisenbe, the word "movement" when applied to organisations doesn't rally imply some goal, rather the presence of some common ground between the members of the movement, and in that sense it is used regarding "Jewish movements" as well, so I think that fits the description in the case of this template. Debresser (talk) 11:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I think "Movements" is the word that best describes the articles listed there, and "Branches" the second best. I think "Schisms" is probably the least accurate term. Jayjg (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I think "movement" is not right. You can speak of "the labor movement", "the criminal justice reform movement", "thr civil rights movement". These sre all gosl-directed, at least theoretically. But "the Jewish movement" makes no sense, at least to me. "Branches" seems better, but thst brings up the question "branches of wsat?" Branches of Judaism, but whst is the Judaism these are branches of? How about "varieties"? deisenbe (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
The template is titled "Jews and Judaism" not just "Judaism", so "Movements" is more suitable than "Varieties" for what's listed there. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
@Deisenbe I agree that one can't speak of "the Jewish movement", but one can speak of "the Reform Movement of Judaism", nad that is precisely what is being proposed. Debresser (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)