User talk:IZAK/Archive 31

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

IZAK (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email)

Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32

History of the Jews in Thailand or Jews and Judaism in Thailand

Article seems to be missing. Hmmm. Meanwhile, I've inserted what is a disproportionately-sized blurble about Jews in Thailand at Thailand#Religion that should probably be reduced there to a single sentence. Thoughts? Tomertalk 16:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Tomer, thanks for dropping by. Kindly note that in almost all cases of such-like articles I do not create them, so feel free to do some research or put up a note somewhere where people who know something about the topic could help. IZAK 08:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Alright, I took the bull by the scurs. Gedächete? Tomertalk 09:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Hi Tomer. Good. For now they should be one and the same topics (History of the Jews in Thailand) and I have redirected the page accordingly. Good start but you will need some sources to make it better. Thanks, IZAK 10:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
        • IZAK, please check your email. I send you an email regarding this yesterday. Regards, Tomertalk 15:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Hi Tomer, sorry I did not get it, could you resend please. Thanks, IZAK 16:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
            • Hi again. I don't know why, but for some reason, my mail client has it marked as potentially dangerous, so your email filter may be regarding it as dangerous and not delivering. Here, anyways, are its contents:
              Hi IZAK,
              If you're amenable to it, I think the article should actually be at Jews and Judaism in Switzerland, rather than History of the Jews in Switzerland. In fact, I think almost all the "History of the Jews in ___" articles should really be at "Jews and Judaism in ___" articles instead, with "History of the Jews in ___" reserved for those "Jews and Judaism in ___" articles whose ==History== sections have outgrown their respective articles. Let me know what you think.
              Kol tov,
            • Tomertalk 16:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "Jews in ___" would be better, with any special minhaghim discussed in said articles, and, if sufficiently large, split off to "Judaism in ___". Still tho, "History of the Jews in ___" should be reserved for discussing Jewish history pre-1950 or some other arbitrary date, and then only where that history is of sufficient size to render it "outsized" for the rest of its companion "Jews in ___" article. Regards, Tomertalk 16:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Tomer: This subject has been hashed back and forth over the years, and right now editors have come to peace that the main articles about Jews in countries read as "History of the Jews in ____" as the baseline articles as you will find them lined up so beautifully in Category:Jewish history by country -- why mess that up. Who says that Jewish history starts from pre-1950? Jewish history could be what happened last year. As the expression goes, "It's history baby!" What you are proposing will require massive amounts of new information and how will that be divided? Until now, there are no real articles about "Jews in ____" because the "Categories" of "____Jews" consist of the names (i.e. biography articles) of Jews from countries. These articless and the related categorization have taken years to accumulate and build up and they are still very skinny. Lots of stubs and fluff. There are really very few active editors right now and this would require a huge amount of work and time, so for now, I say we just leave and live with the way things are lined up, or else risk tampering with articles and creating chaos. IZAK 16:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, the reason some articles came to be renamed "History of the Jews in ___" was because a number of articles on Jewish communities in various countries were cut and pasted into WP from the JE. The rationale was that these articles contained nothing about these Jewish communities past 1908, and so the move made sense. Consigning articles on Jewish communities in various countries to "History of the Jews in ___" now, claiming "uniformity" as a rationale, is ridiculous. I can't help but note that American Jews (as though the American Jewish community were somehow a cohesive "community" with common heritage and practice) does not fit into your neat scheme. I'm going to rename the articles you've requested be renamed, but under protest, and with the understanding, respectfully, that I expect better reasoning from you in the future when it comes time to actually straighten this mess out. I don't want to hear about how long the articles have resided at poor names, nor about uniformity, especially when the uniformity is at an inappropriate name. Regards, Tomertalk 16:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Darlin': Don't blame me for the mess. I have not written any of those articles. In fact over the years I have tried to create some semblance of order by creating categories to deal with all the helter-skelter information, so it's funny that you are lashing out at the only guy who has worked consistantly to tidy things up. The last editor who really worked on these types of articles and actually created them with content was User Goodoldpolonius2 (talk · contribs) who was inactive for a long time but I see from his contributions that he has re-activated himself, so maybe you may want to contact him and maybe the two of you could come up with some meat to put into articles. You can count on my help with the organizational and some technical stuff like edits and categorization but I am not up to writing up what went on in all these countries. The issue with the American Jews article is different for obvious reasons that we have had a lot of editors from the USA, which has the world's largest concentration of Jewish English speakers and with literature to boot and they have expanded it over the years, not so for the Jews of Sweden and Norway etc etc and the articles that flow from them. In the case of other European countries one would need access to their languages and literature but sadly that is so tough because as you know between the Nazis and the Commies not much has been left standing in terms of human life or scholarship to help with writing articles about the Jews, Judaism and Jewish history in them. I wonder though how or if and in what way the German or Russian or Polish Wikipedias are loaded with or without articles about the history of the life or practice of Jews and Judaism in their countries in the centuries gone by. Take care, and let me know how you go, IZAK 17:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, IZAK, I don't appreciate patronization of the "Darlin'" sort, as I've made clear to you in the past. Per your request, I have moved the three articles (i.e., Jews in Switzerland, the Philippines and Japan). For the record, I have met Philippine Jews and Japanese Jews (ethnic Pilipinos and Nihonjin who have converted to Judaism), so the concept of Philippino Jews and Japanese Jews is not alien to me. Do they constitute a distinct community? No, but neither should their existence be discounted. Since this is one of the few Jewish-related areas of Wikipedia that interests me deeply, I will try to work together with PoorOldPolonius (if only he hadn't've hidden behind that curtain!), BGotts as well as any other interested editors, to (b'ezrath hashem!) improve these articles, and to attempt to hash out an agreement on the best possible uniform organization and naming scheme for them. Kindest regards, Tomertalk 05:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Tomer, it's a mark of my sincere affection for you and I do not wish it to be in any way patronizing. Sorry of you misreading my warm regards. "My dear sir" would just not capture the enjoyment I get from corresponding with you. Now down to business. Thanks for the help with those other articles. I have absolutely no argument with what you say and by all mean let's have articles about "XXX Jews" but as I said there is too little material at hand to create articles which would just clutter up the place. But looking forward, this is going to take carefull research and writing and it has been the core of the dilemma which revolves around writing three types of articles that have overlapped in many obvious ways, and they are: Articles about (1) "XXX Jews" ("XXX" denoting a country or region) (2) "Judaism in XXX" ("XXX" denoting a country or region), and (3) "History of the Jews in XXX" ("XXX" denoting a country or region.) Here are some of the issues. Since during the bulk of Jewish history, the practice of Judaism was the main identifying feature of Jews, so then how does one write an article about "Judaism in XXX"? Does one write about how Jews got there and established their religion in that country in past times?, which then thrusts the subject into the domain of the "History of the Jews in XXX" in that country or does one just create an article about the synagogues, yeshivas, scholarly works and the rabbis and ages who lived in those places? How about the general historical events that impact those things and create entirely different and new circumstances? And, if an article about "Judaism in XXX" (a country) is only about the religious accomplishments in those places what will there be besides lists of rabbis, seforim, and the decrees of tolerance issued by gentile rulers to be so nice as to let the Jews live on those lands? That is why there are great problems in writing articles about "Judaism in XXX" unless perhaps it can be about very current Judaism in those countries as part of a kind of a current events type of article, and who will do that for dozens of countries and keep it current on Wikipedia? So therefore that is why the "History of the Jews in XXX" has been so useful as well as fulfilling accepted academic norms. It it is a "kol bo" vehicle that can carry and include all and sundry information relating to anything and everything about Jews in any country -- until such time of course that there is so much information that will allow for splittting off of articles. Indeed in the history of Wikipedia there was first a Jew article and then there was a split off to a Judaism article and then to multitudes of other related articles created from it, all eventually fitting under the rubric of Category:Jews and Category:Judaism and into the master category of Category:Jews and Judaism. Finally, as for the "types" of Jews, sure Jews coming, by either dint of history or conversion, from all the various countries and places where they have ever lived in the world will show unique signs, and that is why there are known groups such as Georgian Jews, Mountain Jews, Sephardi Jews, Ashkenazi Jews that are accepted. But I would hesitate to run to create articles about "Japanese Jews" and "Philipino Jews" because then you may be headed into a twilight zone which neither Jews nor Judaism nor the world really recognizes, and this may well qualify as WP:NEO and WP:NOR. Let's not make up "types" of Jews more than they exist in the world, because according to your formula, anytime some Jews land up in a gentile community they then are assumed to start a new sub-hybrid of Jew so that there will be an endless and infinite variety of Jews in the world. Bottom line, it's not practical and the line has to be drawn somewhere (not in space), and it may also pose further problems because according to Judaism itself, being a Jew or Jewish is supposed to transcend ethnic, cultural and national lines, since being a Jew, as far as Judaism is concerned is done in ONLY one of two ways: Either one is born of a woman who is definitely known to be Jewish herself or one converts to Judaism. Period. People are not Jews for any other reasons. So that if anyone converts properly, they are regarded as full Halachik Jews so that who and what they were in the past as far as nationality or ethnicity is concerned is of no consequence. So this brings us full circle, and we need to proceed with caution before opening up a pandora's box of "Jews" who if they are Jews, then are Jews, and if they are not Jews then they aren't and where they come from and who they lived with makes not an iota of difference in the end. Be well my friend, IZAK 10:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Meh. I wasn't proposing to create articles on "Japanese Jews" or "Philippino Jews", I was simply saying I've met Jews who are such by conversion. Vietnamese too, for that matter, and it would be equally silly to write an article about "Vietnamese Jews" as though they constituted an identifiable (by Jewish/halakhic/community-specific-minhaghim standards). About that we are in complete agreement. If, however, as you say above and Brian says below, "History of the Jews in XXX" covers history from time immemorial up to the present, including not only of the Jewish community or communities in XXX, but also the closely related subject of their specific traditions, covering the "Judaism" half of Jewishness, then how, pray tell, is "History of the Jews in XXX" better than "Jews in XXX"? As I said before, "history" should only be cast out of the article in the event that the History section becomes sufficiently large to stand on its own as an article. "History of the Jews in Algeria" makes a much poorer title, IMHO, than "Jews in Algeria", despite the fact that the bulk of the article at my preferred title would, of necessity, discuss history. To remind you again...this whole "History of the Jews in XXX" was a result of copy-paste "editing", and the well-founded sentiment that Jewish history, according to those articles, appeared to have come to an abrupt unexplained halt sometime late in the 1800s. Kol tov, Tomertalk 15:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If I may put my two agorot in... It seems to me that "History of the Jews in XXX" implies an article about the entire history of the Jewish people in XXX, including their present status. "Jews and Judaism in XXX" might be interpreted to imply a discussion only of the present situation (which in most countries would be meaningless as they have negligible or no Jewish presence). I tend to agree with IZAK regarding creating new "types" of Jews with article titles. If a Japanese person is converted to Judaism and takes up with an Ashkenazi community, is he not Ashkenazi? I disagree to a certain extent- if a group of converts were to establish a separate, unique identity (such as the Abayudaya, Benei Menashe or the Inca Jews, that would merit a separate article in my opinion. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you know

Updated DYK query On 8 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Baal teshuva movement, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 talk 10:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you, much appreciated! IZAK 10:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for cleanup

BrownHairedGirl has advised me that I may ask you to remove all your postings regarding my alleged use of vulgarities, obscenities, and four-letter words. Please consider this such request. I think such issues, which substantially and allegedly took place elsewwhere are an irrelevant distraction and cast improper doubt upon my judgment and work at Wikipedia. I therefore request that you do what BHG said you have the authority to do - namely, cleanup the Talk page of that distracting material which is also an unfair attack on my character. Thank you. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 23:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ludvikus: Thank you for contacting me. I find your request rather odd. Are you willing to withdraw your usage of multiple ethnic slurs and insults based on the most vile of stereotypes, and the racial and national epithets you have plastered all over Wikipedia whenever you bump into editors you disagree with? Let me cite you verbatim examples of your words and interactions:

  • Talk:Jewish Bolshevism#Article title vs.content: "You seem to have poor understanding what other people say: I am against the topics "Somebody and communism". And I am reminding you again, please drop your derisive tone, if you want to be taken respectfully in discussions. `'Míkka 04:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC) What, exactly, do you find derisive about my writing? I find your invention of Titles for Wikipedia articles extremely derisive and in violation of Wikipedia policy: what you do is no different than starting and article called, Stupid Poles. Then we would just look al over the world, on the Web especially, anything that had a statement with the two words, "Stupid" and "Pole." And then I would say, see, Mikka, I have references. So the Stupid Pole article must stay. And you expect me to take you seriously! --Ludvikus 04:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Here Mikka, with Google I found 1,190 hits for "stupid Poles": [1]. So why don't you start an article about it? Will you also consider it peculiar? --Ludvikus 04:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)...I am no longer talking to you on this page, since your goal seem to be confrontation. `'Míkka 04:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Mikka clearly does not appreciate that "Jewish Bolshevism" = "Stupid Poles." He wants me to talk calmly about the Former, but he cannot talk about the Latter. Let me inform all the other Polish editors that I am very well aware of the contributions that Poles made within Polish logic - and that this subject most likely deserves a special article of its own on Wikipedia. -- Ludvikus 05:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)...I do not wish to insult the Polish people by the above example; so let me say that I am very much aware of the contributions which have been made by Poles to Modern Logic; yet there is no such Article as Polish logic, Google produced 1,780 hits for it as follows: [2]. --Ludvikus 05:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)"
  • Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion#Żydokomuna: "...Please lets keep the latter ethnic slur back in Poland, and among the Poles, or "Pollacks" all over the world." (You know it's slur, yet you are still using it to illustrate a point.)
  • Talk:Chinese in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War#Iona Yakir not first to use Chinese mercenaries? "...No more discussion or insults of other editors. From now, we discuss only actual facts. That will be more productive and less wasteful of time. Badagnani 00:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)" (many more warnings like this)

These are just a few examples, of when you wish to utilize ethnic slurs (even for the most "noble" of reason to "defend" the Jews), you have no problem knocking the Poles or Russians especially, but heaven forfend if any editor has an opinion that you don't like. So here is my suggestion: If you can go back and clean up all the times and places you used negative ethnic slurs, even if it was to illustrate and emebelish arguments, then I will certainly consider what you have to say. But until such time as you shape up, I see no reason to ship out what I have asserted. Thank you, IZAK 05:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear User:IZAK,
  • I'm extremely surprised that you fail to distinguish between use and mention.
  • I'm saying the following: "Jewish Bolshevism = Żydokomuna = "stupid Pole" = Polack".
  • Why is it OK to mention the former two Jewish slurs but not the latter two Polish ones?
  • Your position seems truly incomprehesible and illogical to me.
  • I was discussing the usage by Poles, mostly in Poland, of an antisemitic Polish usage in an article about a Polish antisemitic slur. That's all I was doing.
  • To do so I may use one, but not the other? why?
  • How is it that you deprive me of the most persuasive argument that there is,
that: "Żydokomuna" is as much an ethnic slur as "X"?
I was forced to put in the "X" above because you will not allow me even to mention any other ethnic slur which
does not involve the Jews.
  • It seems to me that you think it's OK to mension "Jewish Bolshevism,"
a derogatory attack on the Jewish people,
asserting that Bolshevism is fundamentally Jewish,
but you will not permit me to offer an appropriate counterexample
to illustrate the error in subscribing to the antisemitic usage.
  • It seems to me that there's a double standard here,
one for Jews and one for Christians;
in the case of Jews its OK the write down those ugly words,
but when it comes to non-Jews, like Christians, or Poles,
you are extremely protective;
you treat these other hateful words like
as in the Jews religious practice regarding the word "G-d"
(deliberately omitting the letter "o" in the foregoing).
  • One day, maybe, all these ugly words will disappear (I hope).
  • But until then we should demand equality for all.
  • Finally, please assume Good Faith on my part.
Shalom. --Ludvikus 15:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprized you have not made any effort to consider my reponse. And I'm shocked that you do not see that Żydokomuna = Stupid Pole.

I noticed that posting on your page, Oh, Jerusalem, should I forget thee....
Yet you insist on shooting yourself in the foot by attacking me, your natural ally. Heaven help Jerusalem!
You really do not understand my point? I'm trying to say that the two ethnic slurs are the same.
So I expect you to retract your attack on my person.
You are absolutely, 100%, wrong about my usage of "Stupid Pole = Żydokomuna".
My analogy is absolute relevant.
Your continued refusal to at least acknowledge your mistake continues to tarnish my reputation on Wikipedia,
and that in turn severly limits my ability to rid Wikipedia of its Antisemitic trash - something which I know you wish to do too.
So please Stop shooting yourself in the foot!
Shalom! Yours truly, --Ludvikus 03:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ludvik: Saying: "I'm saying the following: "Jewish Bolshevism = Żydokomuna = "stupid Pole" = Polack" " is what is wrong with your approach. There are better and more humane ways of saying that without violating Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia is not a battleground, Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point and No personal attacks. And I do not want to dwell on Wikipedia:Don't feed the trolls. Thanks a lot. IZAK 03:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - did not notice your comment: I'm surprized you have not made any effort to consider my reponse. And I'm shocked that you do not see that Żydokomuna = Stupid Pole.

I noticed that posting on your page, Oh, Jerusalem, should I forget thee....
Yet you insist on shooting yourself in the foot by attacking me, your natural ally. Heaven help Jerusalem!
You really do not understand my point? I'm trying to say that the two ethnic slurs are the same.
So I expect you to retract your attack on my person.
You are absolutely, 100%, wrong about my usage of "Stupid Pole = Żydokomuna".
My analogy is absolute relevant.
Your continued refusal to at least acknowledge your mistake continues to tarnish my reputation on Wikipedia,
and that in turn severly limits my ability to rid Wikipedia of its Antisemitic trash - something which I know you wish to do too.
So please Stop shooting yourself in the foot!
Shalom! Yours truly, --Ludvikus 03:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I did not notice your comment. Soory. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 03:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are "so busy" that you are content in a "personal attack" on me as a troll. That is absolutely untrue. And I guess you must find your work so important, that it's OK for you to enage in such a personal attack. I think it is your responsibility now to admit that that's not the case. I never was, and am not now a [[troll]. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 03:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi again Ludvik: I read your new message, and again, saying that "Żydokomuna = Stupid Pole" in the way you say it only makes matters worse. You obviously fail to see how your wording and manner is viewed as being hateful and not presented in the manner of peace. If, as you say, you wish "to rid Wikipedia of its Antisemitic trash" then please STOP posting so much of it on Wikipedia in the first place -- even though you have created a self-serving allibi of "exposing it to the sun light" -- not all vermin needs to see the light of day. That is why burials were invented. Think about it. IZAK 03:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, when I stated that I do not want to dwell on Wikipedia:Don't feed the trolls I was worrying that if this is what is going to happen here then I will not have much more to say. IZAK 03:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you. Finally we have some communication. We have two separate and distinct issues here. And I think they are both extremely important. I think the one which Tarnishes my reputation at Wikipedia is the easier, so please let's try to solve vthat first. If you really want to do good for the Jewish people (as I strongly believe you do) then you will go back to those three articles involving Jewish Bolshevism and you will find that it I - and I alone - who has succeeded in significantly reducing this article's unjustified Antisemitic tone. But that job is far from over. I urge you to study very carefully my argumentation there. If you do, you will have no choice but admit that even if you disagree with me - I was not Trolling!
    • Let's finish this, and then let's get to the harder one, please. (Feel free to contact me by Email on that one. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 04:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    • PS1: It seems that I have to remind you that you are required to assume Good Faith. All this stuff about Feeding the Troll clearly indicate the contrary. Please assume GF on my part. Thank you. --Ludvikus 04:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    • PS2: I've just read about "trolling" thanks to you. Here's what it says: "It necessarily involves a value judgement made by one user about the value of another's contribution." Clearly, by calling me a "Troll" in my sincere effort to communicate with you, and so describing my other contributions - you have just committed "trolling against me. I hope you acknowledge that so we can move on. Shalom. --Ludvikus 04:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I hope we can ressolve the above, because what is ultimately more critical is this remark of yours from the above:
    even though you have created a self-serving allibi
    of "exposing it to the sun light"
    -- not all vermin needs to see the light of day.
    That is why burials were invented.
  1. Here we have first, your Trolling against me (the meaning of trolling having been learned just now thanks to you).
  2. But the second sounds like it's some Talmudic wisdom that may be an error on your part. Burial, in Judaism is for the dust to return to dust. The full significance of that I'm not familiar with. On the other hand, we all know, more or less, what vermin is, but that metaphor is not helpful at all. The better metaphor, I think, is a biopsy of the disease. My idea is that we should be doctors, and train the world to be so as well. You thing is not to bury it, but to hide it under the carpet - were it can easily be discovered and used again against the Jewish people. The other metaphor I used is that of immunology. In that what doctors do is use the very germ that cause the disease to prevent people from caching the disease by injecting them with a weakened version of that very same germ. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 04:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually did send a brief reply at the talk page of User Yidisheryid (talk · contribs) [3] where I express the desire to keep our communications brief, to the point, and on the record, as that helps to engender focus. Get this: antisemitism is not reduced in any way by goading others and by name-calling of any sort. You are actually making matters worse and raising the fear of antisemitism by creating a heightened atmosphere of ethnic and racist tension (do you think that you are making Polish or Russian people happy? Or Jewish ones for that matter?) Your ways are not in keeping with the ways of Judaism, see what Hillel the Elder said : "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn. (Babylonian Talmud, tractate Shabbat 31a. See the ethic of reciprocity or "The Golden rule".) See also: Two wrongs make a right: "a logical fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that if one wrong is committed, another wrong will cancel it out. Like many fallacies, it typically appears as the hidden major premise in an enthymeme—an unstated assumption which must be true for the premises to lead to the conclusion. This is an example of an informal fallacy. It is often used as a red herring, or an attempt to change or distract from the issue. For example: Speaker A: President Williams lied in his testimony to Congress. He should not do that. Speaker B: But you are ignoring the fact that President Roberts lied in his Congressional testimony! If President Roberts lied in his Congressional testimony, that does not make it acceptable for President Williams to do so as well. The tu quoque fallacy is a specific type of "two wrongs make a right". Accusing another person of not practicing what they preach, while appropriate in some situations, does not in itself invalidate an action or statement that is perceived as contradictory."

No-one can hope to use the methods of Julius Streicher and Der Stürmer to "fight" antisemitism, which would be like saying, let's join the Nazi party to fight the Nazis, a very Woody Allanesque-like scenario. Furthermore, how on Earth can spreading antisemitism, by writing multiple speudo-articles about the "Bible" of modern antisemitism be "good for the Jews" or help anyone, except the very antisemites you claim to be "fighting"? You use worse false logic than those you constantly accuse of doing so. You did not have to write thirteen articles about one work when one would have been more than enough in this case. You have bloated the subject of the "Protocols" beyond Wikipedia's scope. Why not create your own website or a blog for all those things? because Wikipedia is not a webhost, see Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site. I have already said too much. Please consider what I have said and withdraw your multiple antisemitic articles based on the "Protocols" ASAP. Thanks again, IZAK 04:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The ringworm children affair

Hi IZAK, I think you should look this article it is evident for me that it's a hoax, most famous hoaxes should have an article in the wikipedia but this one is not. Regards --Kimdime69 00:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Izak, we've get big problems with the author of this article Morfal, he have at least 4 sock-puppets in the french wikipedia with problematic editions, I've made a list of it here some of them are related to judaïsm, for exemple POV pushing about the Kazar origin of ashkenazim. He is realy active in the fields of Conspiracy theories, antisionism (or antisemitism as you like) and paranormal. He will probably take sockpuppets in en:wiki maybe he still have. Regards--Kimdime69 22:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Kimdime: Good to hear from you. In the case of The ringworm children affair it is a real subject although some bloggers think that it is a "conspiracy theory" -- it was actually a huge mistake and scandal, and there are reliable sources. I have re-written the article with some reliable sources. About the Khazars and whatnot, sounds foolish, but I am not a French speaker so I can't do anything about it on the French Wikipedia, if it gets into the English Wikipedia, please let me know. Be well, 09:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi IZAK, effectively I realised it's true story but I don't think that the movies made aboute this fact are enough notable to be added in the article, in my opinion it would be better to focus on the scientific facts provided in the Israel project. An article of Aaretz is also available [4]. I wasn't asking you to intervene in the french wikipedia ;) we are managing it well, just to keep an eye here. Regards --Kimdime69 01:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Kimdime: The article was improved. The "movies" are documentary films so they are important journalistic sources, and I added references from well-researched academic sources. No doubt that there are even more reliable sources. All the best with the French Wikipedia and thanks for your faith in me! IZAK 03:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


You seem to be a bot run amok! Stop putting inappropriate "other uses" tags on every article in sight, please! Dicklyon 08:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Dicklyon: Cool it, I ain't no bot, I got a brain! I only placed the ({{otheruses|Diaspora (disambiguation)}} tag on all the articles listed in the Diaspora (disambiguation) page (about eleven articles), and the {{otheruses|Exodus (disambiguation)}} tag on the pages listed in the Exodus (disambiguation) page (about 40 articles) almost all with the one name "Exodus XYZ" in them. If articles are listed in disambiguation pages they are eligible for such tags. Instead of getting so excited you should have either asked what's up or thanked me for the thankless labor of love I undertook manually. Sincerely, IZAK 09:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that at 3 per minute you might be human. But why did you do this? Nobody is going to end up at Exodus Communications when looking for Exodus. Dicklyon 16:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dicklyon: To answer your question, if someone is reading an article about "Exodus XYZ" then it is of service to the reader to be informed that there are many other articles that are derived from the topic of "Exodus" and on a somewhat deeper level, since the words Exodus and Diaspora are key parts of Judaism and Jewish history, they deserve that extra amount of attention and annotation when appearing in other topics, especially as headings, hence the placement of the tags on those pages with headings starting with "Exodus" or "Diaspora" as applicable. IZAK 03:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Wales

Hi, I am working on the Jewish history of Wales. I have a few useful references, and helped create category:Welsh Jews, in order to differentiate them from "British Jews" in general.

Northern Ireland is covered by Ireland, since it is merely the part of Ireland that the British State holds onto (hopefully not much longer)... I have already written most of the Scottish equivalent. --MacRusgail 15:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi MacRusgail: Thank you for your help. I am also not making a judgment about the Ireland/Northern Ireland issue at this time. It needs careful WP:NPOV handling from all sides as it's a highly delicate and volatile subject. Thanks again, IZAK 02:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, Six Counties/Northern Ireland + Twenty Six Counties/Republic of Ireland = Ireland... However, I don't really know what can be said about Jews in NI, which isn't covered by the Irish article, which covers pre-partition Ireland (all of it) fairly well. I think the Jewish population is nearly all in Belfast, and it's not a big one at that, not to mention the fact that it's shrunk since NI came into existence. I suspect that they are the largest non-Christian minority in NI (other than the unreligious). --MacRusgail 17:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi MacRusgail, thanks for giving this some good thought. I think you have just inspired the solution. The article should say what you have just said here. It should start out by saying something like:

"The History of the Jews in Northern Ireland has historically been tied to the history of the Jews in Ireland in the same manner that the history of Northern Ireland is intimately bound with the history of Ireland. Until the Republic of Ireland received its independence the history of the Jews on the entire island of Ireland is a united history, see History of the Jews in Ireland. Following the establishment of Northern Ireland in 19__ the history of the Jews in Northern Ireland has been marked by a decline in its Jewish population. The largest part of the Jewish community continued in Belfast. Jews have been the largest non-Christian religious and ethnic minority in Northeren Ireland."

I think that that has the making of a very good stub and if you could find a little more information and just cite a couple of sources we are well on our way! Well done and thanks a lotIZAK 10:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I just took a look and it looks like a few editors have just done it today! Great minds think alike I guess. Maybe you can see what you can add. Thanks again. IZAK 10:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


Could you come to the discussion here and explain how you know the account is a sockpuppet. Cheers. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Theresa Knott: I have given a full reply over there. Sincerely, IZAK 05:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
So there I am telling him that experienced users don't template each other 'cause it's rude and then you go and template him a welcome message even though he is not a newbie! What gives? I removed it from his talk page. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 11:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure it was a simple oversight and that IZAK mistakingly assumed the user was new... El_C 11:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Theresa: I assure you I was following WP:AGF and simply thought, in my innocence, that User Basejumper2 (talk · contribs) is new, but now as I read his comments a little closer, and in fact I have just now gone back and looked over many of his edits in his previous incarnation as User Basejumper (talk · contribs) (without the "2" suffix) I see that he has quite a history of posing disruptive and provocative questions in the manner of a Troll (Internet), in addition it looks like he is probably also User Lookzar42 (talk · contribs) who grants himself "permission to troll": This is a legal puppet acount not used to edit. See puupet policy. See my words of warning following my welcome at User talk:Lookzar42 now that I realize that we are up against someone determined to cause WP:DISRUPT to the maximum at this time. Thank you El_C for understanding my reactions. The way I see things unfolding, dear old User:Basejumper and all his sockpuppets is headed for a block sooner than he thinks. These are what we call first class Nudniks. Thanks again, IZAK 12:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
NOTE: I must now suspect that perhaps User Yidisheryid (talk · contribs) is involved as a possible suspect since he has also recently been blocked for sockpuppeteering, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Yidisheryid, and of all things he finds it worthy to leave messages of "comfort" to both User:Basejumper2 [5] and to self-admitted sockpuppet User:Lookzar42 [6]. So much for his antics. IZAK 13:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Please don't be foolish not everybody who is accused by u as sockpupet and trolling is a puppet its time to stop using those black eye glasses and see that others are also human and they do get offended when u accuse them of being disruptive and being a sockpupet and being a troll. me it does not bother anymore but i am afraid new users can be ofeneded so i felt important to comfort him. i would have done it through email in private so not to offend u but he does not have email--יודל 13:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I am certainly not "foolish" -- at least not foolish enough to get into a long discussion with you right now -- when you have nothing to say. IZAK 13:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
yes i have nothing to say but hopefully u read my email. have a good day.--יודל 13:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Your Email only confirms that you plan on violating Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikistalking, Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and that you are a Troll (Internet) -- and I assure you, you will not get away with any of that. IZAK 02:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I answered in email--יודל 20:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
...With more threats unfortunately. Sad. IZAK 20:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


Hi Izak. My intention in nominating those articles for deletion was not to pick a fight or to delete valuable information. Someone posted notices questioning the notablity of these articles on the WikiProject Texas page so I took a look at them. I am a member of WikiProject Biography too, and I'm a big proponent of WP:Verify and reliable sources, and meeting WP:Notability. I honestly don't see how you can argue that the articles in question meet any of those guidelines. Most of the sources cited are geocities or earthlink user webpages, which are not considered reliable, and those valid sources (articles, Handbook of Texas), barely mention the subjects. If you really think that the sources are reliable, then make those arguments at the AFDs rather than blanketly stating that they are okay. Otherwise, if you can find reliable sources that discuss the importance of these people, then please incorporate them into the articles and see if you can convince others that the subjects are notable. Being a member of a minority religion or being a locally successful businessman (or both) doesn't make one notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Karanacs 19:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Dear Karanacs: Thank you for contacting me. I respect your expertise about Texas. I am not an expert on either Texas or about Jewish history in Texas. I also agree with all the principles you cite, however, I do not agree with the way you went about applying them in this situation. Please let us be very clear, in no way am I advocating that "being Jewish and being from Texas" or from anywhere is what makes such people notable by Wikipedia's standards. Futhermore, quibbling about reliable and verifiable sources and their acceptability is part of the give and take of life as a Wikipedian and these matters can usually be resolved. In one of the votes, I have summed up where I think you went awry here, and I shall repeat it here: So then the correct thing for you to have done was to (a) contact the editor/s of the articles you had questions and doubts about and (b) to try and work on combining them into more unified topics, and only as a last resort, (c) requested that they be merged into the History of the Galveston Jewish Community and History of the Brenham Jewish Community. Since these are non-controversial topics it should have been a fairly straightforward thing to do. Thank you very much for your sincere efforts, IZAK 20:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • The editor was contacted about the notability questions and simply stated that the articles were important to Jewish history. I then googled each of the topics, and could find no reliable sources about them; therefore, they appear to fail the notability criteria. After that I prod'd most of the articles, and (s)he again repeated that they were important to Jewish history, and refused to discuss on the talk pages why that was when I asked for clarification. Most of the articles don't even attempt to establish that they are important in the local Jewish history, they just mention that the person was Jewish . Because articles that can't establish notablity don't belong on Wikipedia in any form (even if all of the information on the Toubins and the Simons were compiled into a single article, it could not estabilish notability), I brought them to AFD. I'm trying to WP:AGF, but I feel that some of your comments on the pages are implying that I brought the nominations in bad faith. It is the responsibility of the editor of the articles to establish notability, and (s)he refused to do so after being given several opportunities. Karanacs 20:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Hi Karanacs: I only came upon these articles when they were posted on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism, as have a few other editors, so it was impossible to know why all of a sudden someone had nominated for deletion an entire group of articles, which in turn raised some concern about why this had come about. I see that you were following the path that you felt was best and correct. But there may have been, and perhaps still are, a few other avenues to be followed. One is that you could have posted requests for clarification and help with your editorial dispute at both Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jewish history and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. The latter project is the most active and there are always a few excellent active editors there, some of whom are admins, who have both the technical and policy expertise as well as some insight into such topics. I am thinking of editors/admins such as TShilo12 (talk · contribs) Shirahadasha (talk · contribs) and User MPerel (talk · contribs) -- but I know, it would be hard for you to know this. The main point being is that there are other experienced and reliable editors familiar with Jews and Judaism topics of all sorts who can offer editorial assiatance to resolve disputes. It is still not too late to seek help from them and others like them. Thanks for giving this thought. IZAK 21:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
      • P.S. I will ask for some help from them now. Sincerely, IZAK 21:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Continue further discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Nominations of Texas Jews articles for deletion


I just split the AfD to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi intelligence (2nd). Cheers, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Texas Jewish AfDs and Ashkenazi intelligence

Hi! Thanks for your notes. I expect to get to the AfDs later tonight. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Shira: Ok, thanks a lot. IZAK 22:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Not grasp the concept...

User:IZAK please slow down. You have asked some major questions and made some very serious negative accusations (OR, POV). They are unjustified but it is going to take me time to respond. And you of all people should be sensitive to my time constraints - I have about four hours until Shabbat.

It is not constructive to start a discussion about categories by saying "You don't understand what they are for". We may disagree on names for a category, or on usefulness, or on citability. Saying I don't understand the concept of categories invalidates me as a discussion partner before we begin.

It is not my style to push POV or engage in OR. If I know something is citable and don't have the exact source, I will even post my own {{fact}} tags - either to remind myself or ask for help from someone who has better access to resources. So a little bit of a benefit of the doubt is in order here.

As for the specific issues of Reform/Liberal/Progressive Judaism. Please keep in mind that you write and read from the outside and I write and read from the inside. My common knowledge is not your common knowledge. You have grown up with certain assumptions about progressive judaism that are not held by progressive/liberal/reform Jews themselves - including your assumption that "progressive judaism" is OR and "reform" is the normative term or that "reform" is somehow in opposition to "progressive" (cf. your comment about Moses Mendelsohn or the CCAR objecting to being called a progressive organization). Some evidence you might want to consider over shabbat:

  • The congregational body of North American Reform Judaism, the Union for Reform Judaism, is a member of the World Union for Progressive Judaism.
  • The The columbus platform, a statement of guiding principles published by the CCAR in 1967, begins: In view of the changes that have taken place in the modern world and the consequent need of stating anew the teachings of Reform Judaism, the Central Conference of American Rabbis makes the following declaration of principles. It presents them not as a fixed creed but as a guide for the progressive elements of Jewry..
  • The The Pittsburg platform of 1999 , the CCAR's revision of the 1967 platform, again affirms the close relationship between American Reform Judaism and worldwide Progressive Judaism: We are committed to promoting and strengthening Progressive Judaism in Israel, which will enrich the spiritual life of the Jewish state and its people...We are committed to furthering Progressive Judaism throughout the world as a meaningful religious way of life for the Jewish people.
  • Or consider this article on UK judaism by the weekly teen torah newsletter of the Union of Reform Judaism. In an article titled, What is Progressive Judaism in Great Britain all about? What is it like to be Jewish in Great Britain? How is it different from being Jewish in North America?, Adam Langleben explains to US Reform teens: Progressive Judaism in Britain is a very vague term, because in Britain, we have two progressive movements: Liberal Judaism and Reform Judaism. Liberal Judaism is most similar to what you all know to be Reform Judaism in North America. However, Liberal Judaism represents only a little over 1% of the Jewish community of Britain. Reform Judaism in Britain is still progressive at its core, but is slightly more traditional in its values and practice. An example of this difference is that British Reform Judaism currently does not accept patrilineal descent to define who is a Jew, while Liberal Judaism does. Reform Judaism is quite a lot larger than Liberal Judaism, having about an 18% stake in British Jewry. There are 280,000 Jews in Britain. - The author of this article clearly sees the three as synonymous with progressive Judaism being the most inclusive term.

I agree completely with you that the current arrangement of articles is a mess and something needs to be done about. But it is not just a simple issue of merging everything onto Reform Judaism:

  • To some extent, the Reform Judaism article tries to describes the world wide movement but it is named using a term that is not universally accepted. Material that describes the share history of progressive jews around the globe should be described in at article that uses a term that is mutually acceptable.
    • As the above citations illustrates, everyone is happy with the "very vague" term "progressive", but some get quite particular about the terms "liberal" and "reform".
    • the terms Liberal Judaism and Reform Judaism are location specific and cannot be used to describe bodies of belief or practice. Neither the Reform Judaism nor the Liberal Judaism article make note of that. In pre-WW2 germany Liberal was to the right of Reform, but in the UK at the same time Liberal was to the left of Reform.
    • the Liberal Judaism and [Reform Judaism]] articles completely ignore the fact that a well known "classic" book by Eugene Borowitz describing US reform Judaism is called... Liberal Judaism. This book is required reading for first year rabbinical students from the US, UK, and Germany (all of whom spend their first year studying together on the Jerusalem campus of the Hebrew Union College). Eugene Borowitz is noted and well respected progressive Jewish philosopher His book [7] layed the intellectual foundations for the current openness to tradition within the American movement.
    • In this vein it should also be noted, that the Israeli progressive movement has very strong negative feelings about the term reform, partly because of its strong US association and partly because the word reformim is often used pejoratively in modern Israeli Hebrew.
  • Reform Judaism conflates much of the history Haskalah with the reform movement. Much of the article on Reform Judaism concerns itself with the German Reform movement. This movement is not the sole property of UK or US Reform Judaism. Also many of the thinkers to which progressive Judaism owes its intellectual grounding were very much against any kind of separatist movement - they hoped to reform Judaism from within. Much of the historical-critical school falls within the area. I suspect many orthodox would get upset if someone were to claim that Marcus Jastrow is Reform. Yet many progressive scholars would say just that.
  • Reform Judaism conflates material relevant to the world wide movement with information relevant only to the USA. For example, all progressive congregations owe their intellectual foundations to people like Abraham Geiger, Marcus Jastrow, Ismar Elbogen, and Leopold Zunz. However, only the US movement embraced the ideas of Samuel Holdheim
  • Nuances of development are overlooked. In many countries (US, UK, Germany) the progressive movment split into a conservative and radical group. In countries like the UK and Germany, both halves have either reunited or at least welcome the common designation of "Progressive". In the US however, this difference lead to an organizational split into Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism. Arguably this is a reflection of American religious politics - at least one scholar has commented that the US tended to foster organizational religious splits to a degree not seen in other countries (scholar in question taught history of american religion at Princeton, but I've forgotten his name)

IMHO, the best solution would be:

  1. Develop an article on the reform movement in Germany and their after. Use this to trace the thought history and the influence it had on the development of various streams and organizations within Judaism. It would be ideal if all of the active editors were involved. There is much we need to learn from each other. The reformers are not the property of any one movement. I suspect you would take exception to my calling Jastrow (of dictionary fame) a Reform Jew, but that is how progressive Jewish scholars see him.
  2. Convert the Reform Judaism article into a disambiguation article with links to sub articles for every country where (a) there is an active congregational association that belongs to the World Union for Progressive Judaism and (b) at least some portion of the community that now identifies itself as progressive Jews does or did at one time use the name "Reform" to identify itself.
  3. Do a similar thing for the article on Liberal Judaism, and of course add a link to the book by Eugene Borowitz.
  4. Move information that is common to all progressive jews around the world into the article Progressive Judaism. The article should, of course, also discuss briefly regional differences and provide links to articles on specific regional organizations.

As for the specific edits to which you object, I will address those after shabbat. Shabbat Shalom, Egfrank 11:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see my response to you and User:HG on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Progressive Judaism#Is Progressive Judaism OR?. Shavuah tov, Egfrank 16:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Egfrank: I have re-moved that discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Concern about duplicating Reform and Progressive labels where more editors can chime in on this key discussion. Your project is too new, limiting and limited at this time. I was actually hoping to get a more focused discussion going between the two of us, but once you threw it out of your talk page, it belongs in a place where more Judaic editors can see it, not less. See also my comments here: I fully agree with User:Shirahadasha; User:Jon513 and User:JFW that splitting up Judaism projects based on the Jewish denominations has bever worked over the long run on Wikipedia . Thanks a lot, IZAK 07:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


Izak, please stop make disparaging comments about my motives and the process for nominating the articles for AFD. First, you are not assuming good faith. Second, you have no proof for your accusation, especially considering that I took the time to explain to you the steps I took to try to avoid an AFD. Third, you appear to be ignoring the question of whether the articles in question are actually notable and instead are trying to focus the debate on whether I followed the proper process. If an article makes zero verifiable claims of notability, there is no point in leaving it with tags added or trying to merge the unnotable information into another article. Please stick to the actual topic at hand - do these articles meet wikipedia notability guidelines. Karanacs 14:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Karanacs: Let me answer your last question first, as to if the articles meet WP:Notability guidelines -- and my answer is: I honestly don't know, because as I have told you I am not an expert in the area of the history of the Jews in Texas! Only someone who knows a lot about the what, when, how, why, who and where of the Jews in the general history of Texas could really give you the real answers you seek. My concern is that in histor ical studies it is known that quite often there are small pieces to a larger picture that will fall into place in time. You seem to be misreading me. I have the highest regard for ambitions and desires to raise the standards of articles. But when a conflict arises between the outlook of an established editor versus the efforts of a newer one, there are important additional considerations to help articles develop, otherwise Wikipedia would not get started with many topics, that can and do develop over time. That is why there are templates such as {{tl|Refimprove]]; {{Citations missing}}; {{Unreferenced}} (see more examples in Category:Citation and verifiability maintenance templates) so that there are a number of options to deploy before asking that articles be deleted, particularly when they are so uncontroversial. Let me repeat, it's the editors of the Texas Jews' articles you nomimanted for deletion who feel that you have not practiced WP:AGF with them and that you have not given them a fair chance at developoing the articles to meet Wikipedia's standards, and in the prcoess you may have not been sensitive to WP:BITE, so take it up with them and see how the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Nominations of Texas Jews articles for deletion is progressing so that you can add your views. Thanks a lot, IZAK 05:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Unilateral decisions

Please visit Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Progressive Judaism#Is Progressive Judaism OR? for my response. Egfrank 07:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see my response here: [8] Thanks, IZAK 08:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Article naming question.

I don't know for sure what the rules are on this, but I'm thinking Rabbi Itzhak Yehoshua belongs at Itzhak Yehoshua. I would appreciate your input. Regards, Tomertalk 00:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Tomer, names of modern-day personages never have their title of "Rabbi" in it so I moved it to Itzhak Yehoshua, feel free to do the same whenever you spot such a thing in the future. Usually it is only rabbis from the era of the Tannaim that sometimes get "Rabbi" in their article's name. IZAK 02:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


You just wrote to User:A Sniper that there is no "attack" in a request for clarification. I agree. I have seen you defend me in the past, so I know enough to read between the lines and I'm sure you didn't mean anything to be an attack. But I think we both come from a religious tradition that begs us to look at how we speak and not just what we say. Sometimes the way we speak can overwhelm our intent.

I think your response would have come across as more information seeking and less of an attack if you had done two things:

  • tried to figure out why I might (in good faith) be using the term progressive.
  • refrained from lines like "solo revisionist campaign"

For example, you could have said something like this:

I noticed that you frequently use the term "progressive" when you create categories and name articles. I am not familiar with this term. I wonder if you could help me learn more about it. How does it relate to the term "Reform" with which I am familiar?

This would have accomplished the goal of clarification without giving offense. Instead of fighting we would have had the opportunity to learn from each other and gain trust. I, for one, am sorry we missed that opportunity. And BTW, for future reference, "egfrank" is a "she". Egfrank 03:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Ah, I apologize, I never like hurting a lady's feelings. So there you have it then, the answer to one of the issues we are having is solved, and it has nothing to do with religion, it's a clear case of "Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus" since they communicate differently. Women have a lighter touch and men tend to be more heavy-handed, so that now I will know to whom I talk. By the way, you may not believe this, but we are not "fighting" we are having a discussion and I am all ears wanting to hear your views. You made a huge mistake by moving what I initially asked from you on your talk page to the Progressive Judaism talk page because I did not want to go there, you pushed me there without asking me, or even at least a tiny comment. So next time, before you move any users' opening comments from your talk page to another spot, make sure that the dialogue has really commenced and is on a strong footing so that the other person will clearly understand what you have done. I did not know what you did or why you did it, just that I did not want to go to the Progressive Judaism talk page, and so then I did the next logical thing by moving the entire discussion to the main WP:JUDAISM talk page where the main Judaic editors congregate and give their wise views. Once again, please accept my apology for any hurt feelings, but Wikipedia editing often moves at high speed and when issues have the potential for controversy mistakes can and do happen and not everything can be said or done in a plu-perfect way. But hopefully we can try our best for the common good. Best wishes and be well, IZAK 03:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Apology accepted. And you are right I should have asked about venue. However, as a general rule I don't discuss articles on user pages. It leaves out other editors who might have something to say. No wiki article is ever a solo project. As for the future, I will keep in mind that you prefer the wider Judaism project for multi-article conversations and will put a notice on the progressive Judaism project about the discussion rather than the reverse. how does that sound? Egfrank 04:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Question: So what do you discuss on user pages, especially if someone like me who had wanted to speak to someone like you (without taking it to Email) wants to talk more directly with you specifically? One cannot "control" how other users wish to have their dialogues (just look at you and Sniper, so determined to have your own discussions and you have every right to do so, but others do not have to be forced to go where they do not wish to go or be put.) In any case, who says that third parties cannot comment on discussions at user's talk pages? It's done all the time. Methinks you are making up "policies" that simply don't exist. IZAK 08:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • P.S. If I wanted to read up on what Progressivism is I would start by reading the Progressive Judaism article (to which you have recently added.) But upon reading it, I find that much of it is nebulous and even violates WP:NOR, something which I hope we can get to in good time. Please take these as matter-fact-statements from me and not as any type of "personal attack" because as you often say, this is not about our personal views but about the content and quality and accuracy of articles and categories etc. Thanks again, IZAK 04:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    • If you feel that way, I recommend you put that comment on the talk page of the article. As I said, I'm not a fan of discussing articles on user pages. I'll be happy to respond over there. BTW, before making claims of original research, you might want to check sources or read up on the subject. I'm happy to recommend sources. I don't at all get the impression this falls in your area of expertise (no offence meant - you probably know lots of stuff about certain parts of the talmud I've never met even in bikkiut). Egfrank 04:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
      • A couple of points. Firstly, I am not offended. I am loving this discussion. Secondly, I was actually trying to be kind, and I did not want to reach for the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion knife in dealing with the duplicated categories without first discussing it with you and getting some input since you created the Progressive categories and no-one else, so why is that so abnormal to approach the creator of the categories one is questioning on their own discussion page? Had I gone straight to nominate them for deletion, it would have been more provocative and painful to you, but it would not have stopped me, yet I did not want to go about it that way, so therefore I wanted to give you more time to explain yourself. So at least thank me for placing the question on your talk page and at least understand why I was actually insulted that you brushed me off by deleting my detailed questions and moving them to the Progressive Judaism project talk page. Thirdly, thanks for offering to help with a reading list, but sometimes the fresh perspective of an outsider, who is well-informed about Judaism, can help you break away from your preconceived notions on what you hold most dear. I have had to defend the views of Judaism against all sorts of attackers but it has never bothered me to learn from them. And I am not calling you an "attacker" I regard you as a friend, just that quite honestly, as you may have seen, I have not done anything yet, just asked questions, so that I can get a better idea behind your reasoning and why you created the new Progressive categories that seemed to be mirroring the Reform ones. Finally, you may wish to know that my interests go well beyond the Talmud, as you will find out, and I am always happy to learn as long as what I am being taught makes sense and is not illogical. Unfortunately, a lot of what I read on the Progressive Judaism page is nonsense (no offense) as it makes it sound that the Progressives are upholding a great Torah and rabbinic "tradition" when it is just a movement to rationalize why pork can be eaten by Jews, that God probably did not give the Torah to Mosheh and that the mitzvot do not have to be observed by Jews. Just a few small things. Let's keep perspective and not fall prey to believing our own propaganda, something I repeat to myself every day, and I highly recommend it to you as well. Be well, IZAK 05:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
IZAK, "just a movement to rationalize why pork can be eaten by Jews"? Do you really believe that? Are you willing to discuss this in open court on the wiki project judaism page? I would like to do that. I think it would be a very healthy discussion. Thanks. 08:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egfrank (talkcontribs)
Egfrank: I am not ready to make a "federal case" out of it yet over there, but I think I am getting there... User's talk pages are more open and less formal. We can speak in generalities. If I wanted to say that on that page I would. I am still trying to feel you out -- without getting a long-winded research-paper as a response. So tell me the truth, do the Reform and Progressive movements forbid the eating of pork and is there any difference between their policies on the eating of pork by Jews? Just a simple question, that may illustrate a point that they are not the heirs to Judaism's heritage as the main Progressive Judaism article portrays them to be. A question that will reveal either the nonsense or wisdom of the Progressives. IZAK 08:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I do not want to subject you to too much agony. I can sense your discomfort. So let me simplify matters. It is well known that Reform Judaism does not believe that the Torah was given to Moses at Mt. Sinai by God. Thus, to them, the mitzvot are not divine and were just man-made social rules in response to various situations of ancient times. There may have been a time that eating certain foods was unhealthy. But now, that there is good hygene, and that the Torah's commandments are regarded as concocted by mere mortal men in any case, the dietary laws do not apply, except perhaps as quint "customs" if so desired (like eating a latke or two on Hanuka), but there is no obligation by Reform Jews to keep the Torah's ancient dietery laws. That includes the prohibition against eating pork, which for Reform no longer applies. Thus no Reform Jew is obligated to not eat pork, and indeed many a Reform rabbi enjoys a hearty breakfast of bacon and eggs with her non-Jewish partner. Have I missed anything here? Tell me, please! So now, having clarified that, and not expecting a denial from you, can you please tell me what is the "official" policy about Jews eating or not eating pork by Progressive Judaism that differs in any way from what Reform, teaches, practices and does without any apologies? Thanks so much, IZAK 08:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I very much want that conversation over there. I do not feel safe having it on a user page. best, Egfrank 08:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Ok, so let's take it there. I am really a nice guy, I promise! See below, as you requested, but I may be a little slow to respond to everything. Thanks again, IZAK 09:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion continues at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Differentiating between Reform and Progressive Judaism

Systemic bias

Of course I posted something immediately after I asked for help. You might want to try a diff on the talk page to verify -look for the edit marked "request for calmer eyes". It is about the middle of the page. Posted at 9:06, 16 minutes after I made the request for help. If you would like to mark it more clearly go ahead. Egfrank 11:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Ok, I was concerned and I have brought it to the attention of a few editors who have dealt with this and who may want to take a closer look at what you are up to over there. Thanks, IZAK 11:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, since you also worded your request to Shirahadasha and HG in a way that made it seem that I had made the request without posting a notice, may be you will want to go around to those editors and tell them that I did indeed post a notice. Thanks, Egfrank 11:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Will do. My message is now neutral. Thanks, IZAK 11:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Izak and Egfrank. I think your discussions on the Project page are going overboard. Pls see my comment there. Maybe you all can be more, as we used to say, mellow? HG | Talk 16:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


I'm trying to expand and bring the Eilat page up to date. From the history/talk pages you have been there too, so please come and see what we can do to make it even better. Thank you, Shir-El too 23:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Shir-El too: Thanks for inviting me over there. It has been a few years since I looked at it. I did my best to fix up links, and to improve the Category:Eilat as well as adding a "See also" list with links to many related articles. Thanks again, IZAK 07:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Izak, I saw you are working on some of the same pages I've been puttering around on and wanted to point out that many of the "see also" links you added, in Eilat, for example, are already linked in the article. The "see also" section is generally for material that is related in some way but not mentioned.--Gilabrand 07:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Gilabrand, thanks for contacting me. About the function of "See also" it's not a hard and fast rule, as sometimes it can be a way of summarizing the connecting articles too, and quite often articles in the "See also" section were not openly evident having been covered up by other wording, see Wikipedia:Piped link. At any rate, it's not a life and death issue. Thanks again, IZAK

Good thinking!

Just wanted to say that your idea of posting a notice of discussion on Reform Judaism, Liberal Judaism and Progressive Judaism was a great idea. Thanks for thinking of it and following up. Egfrank 10:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks, it is important that editors involved with those articles/subjects/projects should at least see that something important is cooking and have a fair chance of having their say. Be well. IZAK 10:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Offending comments

IZAK, I'm sorry that you feel that my comments were a personal attack. I tried to be careful not to misrepresent what you wrote, and I believe that I did that.

At User talk:Egfrank#Wikipedia's systematic Orthodox bias I wrote that you "used the word Judaism without any qualifier to refer to Orthodox Judaism, which is simple (though possibly unintended) honesty on his part". Did you not write:

This is the clincher: "In sum, non-Orthodox American Jewish spirtuality, in ways typical of every modernized Jewry, now sought human fulfillment through Western culture rather than through the Written and Oral Law...We are searching for a new understanding of the transcendent ground of our ethical and ethnic commitment; we have made a postmodern turn to our people's millennial Covenant" a verbatim quote that confirms Borowitz is an apostate Jew according to Judaism. (my emphasis)[9]

How is one to interpret that, except as I described it: the use of the word Judaism without any qualifier to refer to Orthodox Judaism?

At User talk:A Sniper#IZAK and Wikipedia's systematic Orthodox bias I also wrote that you "described the function of Reform Judaism as a rationalization to eat pork". Did you not write:

Unfortunately, a lot of what I read on the Progressive Judaism page is nonsense (no offense) as it makes it sound that the Progressives are upholding a great Torah and rabbinic "tradition" when it is just a movement to rationalize why pork can be eaten by Jews, that God probably did not give the Torah to Mosheh and that the mitzvot do not have to be observed by Jews. (my emphasis)[10]

Does that sentence leave room for other interpretations?

I took great care in my comments not to misrepresent what you wrote. I'm sorry if my comments have offended you, or if you feel that I have quoted you out of context.

In my messages to Egfrank and A Sniper I don't think I described any of your contributions to Wikipedia articles as biased, and I sincerely apologize if I was not 100% clear in that regard. If you think I left that mistaken impression, please let me know and I will edit my messages to make my meaning clear. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Malik: Thanks for getting back to me. Honestly when I was typing about Borowitz I was not that careful and I was frustrated that instead of a specific answer from User:Egfrank, I was being given sermons from some writer's books, so I was not looking that carefully and you are reading too much into my words. This is not "therapy." Also please note, the quotes you bring here are from talk pages and have at no time been entered into the body of articles, so let's be very clear about that. But now that you have brought up this subject, and I know this may come as a surprize to you, but there really is only one Judaism in the absolute sense. Like there is only one United States even though there may be fifty states. That's the way it has always been with Judaism since Moses received the Torah at Mount Sinai over 3,300 (yes, that's three thousand and three hundred years ago) and Judaism has always been defined as that religion or way of life that submits to the Torah, the 613 Mitzvot as explicated in the Oral Torah and preserved in the Shulkhan Arukh and the Halakha. Whenever a movement has arisen in Jewish history that has wanted to change that status quo it is automatically defined as a breakaway movement from Judaism, regardless of how it self-describes itself, see Schisms among the Jews. Thus Judaism was always, well, err, Judaism, but at various points other breakaway movements come along and tried to confuse this historical fact and truth. Thus, some in the modern Reform movement (it only started very recently in the 1800s!) in their attempt to justify their break with normative Judaism as it was universally practiced for thousands of years, slapped the derogatory term "Orthodox" (to imply something like "Orthodox Christianity") on those who did not wish to join their rejection of Jewish law and life as it was practiced till then. There is a little about how this came about at Orthodox Judaism#Origin and definition of the name "Orthodox" so that it would not be untrue to say that it is Orthodox Judaism that believes itself to be Judaism, and that it is not something that "I" made up on the spur of the moment. As for my statement that "Unfortunately, a lot of what I read on the Progressive Judaism page is nonsense (no offense) as it makes it sound that the Progressives are upholding a great Torah and rabbinic "tradition" when it is just a movement to rationalize why pork can be eaten by Jews, that God probably did not give the Torah to Mosheh and that the mitzvot do not have to be observed by Jews" -- I stand by it, but with the qualifier that it was part of a dialogue with a user in the context of debate and discussion and I was trying to make a point, and that this is not "my" critique but it's one of the oldest critiques of the entire Reform movement, that they wished to rationalize away all of Jewish observance and the rituals to free themselves of the guilt and restrictions of the Torah and its commandments so that they may eat forbidden foods, inter-mingle with gentiles in ways not sanctioned by Judaism theretofore prohibited by Jewish law, and even to open the road for mass apostasy and mass conversion to Christianity as happened in Western Europe and as is presently happening in the USA. This is not "my" view, it is sort of "Judaism 101" or should we say "Orthodox Judaism 101" see Heresy in Orthodox Judaism and Relationships between American Jewish religious movements so I hope this clarifies your misconceptions. But may I say, I do not believe it is your job to subject me to WP:LAWYERing based on the fact that I am conveying the views of some streams of Judaism that others may know little about or disagree with, and certainly I should not be subjected by you to WP:HARASS for stating those views. If you wish clarification, as you asked for here, I will answer you gladly, but please do not violate WP:NPA and of accusing Wikipedia of having an "Orthodox bias" when on the contrary, you should commend the fact that with so few editors who may seem to be Orthodox so much NPOV work gets done and that they are pretty scrupuolus with all their work. I have been in the forefront of combattting extremist editing, but I do not believe that I have violated any of Wikipediaa's cardinal rules the way you have implied. Thank you, IZAK 05:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Izak. I respect your work here. I also appreciate that you picked up on the apparent shortcomings of some of the efforts made regarding Progressive Judaism. However, I feel like you are coming on unnecessarily strong. For instance, you just posted your set of challenges yet again, this time on Egfrank's Talk page. Please, can you sit back a bit and chill out with this? I feel like you're breathing down the necks of comparable newbies and, to my view, it looks like you are pestering them -- plus those of us who are watching or trying to comment and figure this out. I realize that you're raising substantive policy concerns -- still, there are civil ways to broach an issue with fellow editors, and then there are ways that are just too much. Now, I'm not saying this to defend their words or editorial judgments, but their faults do not justify your over-the-top intensity with all this. I guess I count on you to exercise leadership, but not as a drill sargent. Ok? I'd really appreciate your lowering the volume here. Thanks, Izak, please give this some consideration. HG | Talk 07:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi HG: Thank you for contacting me. Even though I do not agree that I am coming on too strong, but because I see that editors like yourself are willing to really tackle a number of core issues here, I will lay off for one week, unless it's something highly unusual. Hope it helps, and in any case I am behind with some of the editing I was working on. Thanks again, IZAK 07:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Really, IZAK, thanks you for being so responsive (and responsible). If you feel there is something highly unusual (I can guess at what you might mean), perhaps even then you don't need to intervene yourself. One idea would be to contact another active Judaism editor (or me, if I'm around), another idea would be to request a neutral admin via the usual open channels. Enjoy your editing. Kol tuv, HG | Talk 07:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, you may think I am being altruistic, but I can't take the circular argumentation, stalling, repetative spinning of wheels and personalization of argumentaion rather than responding succinctly in a mattter of fact manner. I wish you hatzlacha. IZAK 07:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Umm, hey, IZAK, what's up? The week isn't up and there's no unusual need to post, le-havdil. Give me a nudge on my talk if you think we need help with responses or non-responses, ok? HG | Talk 14:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there HG: Yeah, I know, but I took a look and it seemed that Egfrank was moving to "close the motion" based on her own interpretation of things whilst I wasn't around (who asked her to sum up for me or anyone else?) I didn't say I was going to have a lobotomy over this either. At any rate I have made some positive suggestions [11] [12] [13] about how to solve my initial questions. Have you seen them? If not take a look and tell me what you think. Talk to you after Shabbos. Thanks, IZAK 14:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

IZAK, I want to apologize to you. When I wrote to Egfrank and A Sniper it wasn't my intention to insult or attack you, but I can understand why you might have interpreted my messages differently than I intended. You and I don't always see eye to eye, but I have a great deal of respect for you and your opinions. I'm sorry if my messages hurt you, and if you feel that they are personal attacks I will edit them to remove any references to you. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 06:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Malik: As I have pointed out previously I do not really recall seriously crossing swords with you at any time, so I was rather surprised that you jumped in with comments critical of not just me but of editors on WP:JUDAISM for being biased in favor of "Orthodoxy" and indeed I had to stifle myself from not bringing the subject up with them of your unfounded accusations against them but I wanted the matter to calm down first. So I am glad that you have now sent me this message and feel free to do as you wish with your past comments. In the future, if you feel that if a group of editors is too this or that then bring up the subject with them. In any case I assure you that you are in the company of very broad-minded and clear-thinking editors who are pretty good at team-play and who do not run around rocking the boat against non-Orthodox editors, so I am surprised that you have that perception. Feel free to be in touch with me at any time. Thanks again, IZAK 06:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Serious discussions about using the names Reform vs. Progressive Judaism

Sorry, I know so little about either movement that I could not make any useful contributions. —Dfass 11:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your response. Best wishes, IZAK 12:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


Daniel might be back. See here for more: User_talk:Yossiea#Daniel575.3F Thanks. Yossiea (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, one can always tell if he curses people. IZAK 14:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Yep, just one person to look out for. Yossiea (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I looked over User Motz5768 (talk · contribs) history but I can't make out what he's done wrong. What are the specific complaints? You know, he does add good stuff to articles about Haredi Judaism, but when it comes to his anti-Zionism Jihad it's sicko incorporated the way he will abuse people and curse with the vilest language. Never a dull moment. IZAK 14:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't see anything that stands out too much, but I do see a bit of his style. That, and his userpage sets off red flags. Not enough to warrant a case, but enough for me to be on guard. Yossiea (talk) 14:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • If User:Daniel575 is banned from editing Wikipedia, he should be stopped from doing so. If we take the following [14] we can see his link to Dushinsky (Hasidic dynasty)‎ which User:Motz5768‎ has edited [15]. I agree, they are useful additions. What I was perturbed about was the way he gives the impression about what orthodox Jews think about "the cursed and wicked invididuals who invaded Jerusalem". I don't think his rantings on Wikipedia help paint a positive picture of Jews. I am not calling for censorship per se, only noting that if it is Daniel575 he should be blocked. Chesdovi 15:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, that one certainly sounds like Daniel. :) Yossiea (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chesdovi: You are 100% correct. In my case it is only when I cross paths with problematic editors that I get involved, and since you are now the one to come across this, you may want to do the following: See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Daniel575 for the seven official cases plus more, thus far. Look over what was done at the seven cases: 1& 2 Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daniel575; 3 Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daniel575 (3rd); 4 Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daniel575 (4th); 5 Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daniel575 (5th); 6 Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daniel575 (6th); and 7 Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daniel575 (7th). Then go ahead to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser and start a new case which will be called Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daniel575 (8th). Sincerely, IZAK 16:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Edits are extremely suspiciously similar to User:Eidah and User:Daniel575. User:Motz5768‎ is currently indefblocked, although he may appeal on his talk page. -- Avi 16:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Note: There is no need to start a new case when it is obvious. See the first unacceptable case in WP:RFCU. -- Avi 16:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Suspected vs. confirmed

IZAK, please clarify why some of those are "suspected" and others "confirmed". Thank you -- Avi 17:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I have gone through each one and categorized it based on evidence supplied and contributions. I have also updated each user page with the appropriate templates, and set up the suspected and confirmed category pages. Please read either one. Next puppet, there is no need to list it on a page, proper tagging will take care of it. Thanks. -- Avi 18:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Avi: The "Suspected vs. confirmed" was not my nomenclature, I found those headings on the page when I came upon it. Thanks for the clearing up work. IZAK 04:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello IZAK

IZAK, first, thank you for your contributions to the dialogue on Jewish Texan articles. On a different note... I have started on an article concerning the case, "American Jewish Congress v. Bost." If you have time do you think you could review it, I believe it to be relevant to the article History of the Brenham Jewish Community‎. The article can be see at, American Jewish Congress v. Bost Thanks and take care. Bhaktivinode 23:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

AfDs on Jewish Texan Articles

IZAK, how long do the discussions on the Jewish Texan articles up for deletion last? Thanks. Take care. Bhaktivinode 01:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Bhaktivinode: Only a third party neutral admin can make the final decision and close the AfD. If a discussion reflects a lack of clear consensus either way, then closing admins are reluctant to swoop in and close off the discussions, so that is one reason that admins may grant extra time to a discussion. Another factor may be that admins are often busy and not always available to read through the entire discussion, which they must do, in order to make a well-balanced impartial judgment for which they will not be criticized. So sometimes things take a little more time. But it is not advisable for users to ask for closure, since that is a job that only admins can and do take care of in their own way. It is ok to complain if a debate gets closed off in a hurried and premature fashion, but it is not acceptable to complain that things are being dragged out too long. Those are my perceptions based on experience. Hope that helps. IZAK
    • Thanks, that helps me understand the process. I will just let it work itself out. I appreciate your help and advice. I'm starting to work on new articles, moving at a slower pace and getting any new articles well sources before lifting the "underconstruction" banners. This is quite a learning experience, but still fun. Take good care. Bhaktivinode 11:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Massacre of Uman

Shavua` tov, IZAK. I just listened to a program of Gavriel Aryeh Sanders' (http://www.gavrielsanders/com/) on Uman, and went and looked up the city article, and found a link to this article, which seems to have no references and a lot of weaselwording. I don't know whose attention it would be best to bring this to, to effect some improvement, so I'm hoping that by bringing it to your attention, that you will know whom best to contact. Kol tov, Tomertalk 01:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Back to work

Dear IZAK, I'm trying to devote much less of my time to Wikipedia this time around, in deference to my work schedule, and am also trying to work on articles that aren't viewed by lots of people who have all kinds of opinions about what Judaism stands for. (I just decided to give up on the Simchat Torah article, as the Conservative and non-religious American Jewish editors on that page kept telling me that the practice of jumping up and down for Moshe emes u'Toraso emes during the hakafot is not widespread [though I've seen it in every shul and yeshivah minyan I've attended in Israel], and that what is widespread is drinking in shul during hakafot [which I have never, ever seen].)

I appreciate your asking me to work on articles rather than vote on issues, because that is something that turned me off from Wikipedia a year ago. FYI, I am not a chassidah, but I work for a publisher of Breslov books so I am very well acquainted with that chassidut. My education and lifestyle is charedi, Litvak, yeshivish, so I enjoy adding the charedi viewpoint to articles. I'll look at the articles you suggested when I have time, but I am also looking to rewrite the Shmita article, which we here in Israel are having plenty of experience with this year! Kol tuv, Yoninah 21:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

IZAK, thank you for all of your input into the recent AfDs on Jewish Texan history. Without your help I believe that most of the articles would have been deleted. Due to you efforts, Temple Freda, Jimmy Kessler and Simon Theatre, to name a few, have survived these deletion attempts. Also, I believe the History of the Brenham Jewish Community article has improved as well - thanks to your efforts in archiving those many articles on its talk page. Please do know that I appreciate all of your hard work and guidance. Bhaktivinode 01:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:Massacre of Uman

I'd suggest posting this at WikiProjects Poland (doubles with Polish noticeboard), Ukraine and Jewish history.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 02:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


Hi IZAK. I redirected Jaakobou's user page to his talk page it was annoying to click on his signatuire, getting the "Edit user page" box (as it was a red link and took longer to load) and then getting to his talk page (see my explanation to Jaakobou here (my next edit after the diff you provided). пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Number 57: Thank you for getting back to me. In my view you did the wrong thing. A user page is there to tell us more about the user (if he so wishes, and usually that is so) and not for what you did. Imagine if all user pages worked like that. Besides, if he did something annoying, he should have been corrected for it and not helped out in a way that reinforces his erroneous ways. Can you change it back please and ask him if you can help him fix what was causing you the bother. Otherwise it looks suspicious that there is something else afoot. Thanks a lot, IZAK 09:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    • To be honest, I have seen plenty of User pages which are just redirects to the talk - I assume that's where I got the idea. There wasn't a problem with his userpage (there wasn't one), but I just thought it might help people get to his talk page quicker. I'm afraid there isn't anything to change it back to - it didn't exist before I turned it into a redirect. Do you want me to ask him to delete it? As for it looking suspicious, I'm sure anyone having a closer look at my relationship with him (see this as a standard encounter between us) would see that there is definitely nothing "funny" going on. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Hi Number 57: The suspicion is not about you. Could you just revert it back to a regular "normal" user page (and if it's blank, he should be requested to fill it in) and let him take the heat for whatever it is or is not. Hopefully it will encourage him to put some information about himself and his interests on it like the rest of the Wikipedian world. He should be able to say something for himself on his user page without you enabling him to effect a cop-out of normal protocol. Thanks a lot. IZAK 09:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
        • OK, no worries - sorry if I sounded defensive, but I did originally think you were leading up to accusing me of being a sock of his (or the other way around) given your recent conversation with him. I have actually speedy deleted the User page per WP:CSD#G7 (Author requests deletion - as I am the creator and only editor I assume this is not an issue), and I will notify Jaakobou. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Thanks, IZAK 11:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

era categories....

Please comment at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Time#era categories.... I think you've created entirely too many categories — so many that I can't figure out which ones you've recently created and which ones have been around for a while and have some consensus. Please discuss in WikiProject Time, even if it's not a very active project. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed quantum field theory from Category:Centuries of the future. I have no idea why it was included. -- KarlHallowell 22:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for contacting me. As you requested, see my response at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Time#era categories..... I will be happy to discuss any issues you may have in detail. Thank you so much, IZAK 08:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Please stop rewriting all the century and millennia articles without discussion. I'm tempted to revert all of them to last week's version. I don't think I'll do it, but your redoing the templates, categories, and century articles should not have been done without discussion. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's make that please stop overcategorizing until you throughly read Wikipedia:Categories. You've got a number of 2- and 3- element category loops which do not serve a specific purpose, you've added a number of articles to both a category and a subcategory, etc. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Arthur: My intention was not to be haphazard and I gave each move careful thought. There is justification for such methods at times, see WP:SUBCAT#User benefit rule. THanak you, IZAK 10:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

proposals for cleaning time categories

As a first step, I've proposed deleting Category:Centuries of the future. I still think the era categories are worthless, but I'm not going to nominate them without some idea of consensus. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


Updated DYK query On November 9, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Palestinian Fedayeen, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you, IZAK 06:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Category merges

Hello IZAK! I just noticed that you appear to have unilaterally merged Category:Ships of the Austro-Hungarian Navy into Category:Naval ships of Austria-Hungary. Merging of navy categories into country categories has been very controversial in the past, so I would ask that you please follow the proper procedure before performing such merges in the future. Please swing by Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships if you'd like to further discuss this or any other ship categorization issues. TomTheHand 14:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi TomHand: I have been working furiously to sort out most of the categories in Category:Austria-Hungary, not just about its navy ships. I did not do what you say the way that you say it. All categories have been left intact. The ships area was a total mess, mostly caused by this duplication of categories by different editors over the years (for example, of Category:Ships of the Austro-Hungarian Navy and Category:Naval ships of Austria-Hungary) and I checked to see which way these should be categorized. I did not merge, and I opted for "the lesser evil" of Category:Wikipedia category redirects in the cases where there was a clear duplication should anyone stumble into one way a category had been named they should be able to be redirected to the other more accurate name. If you have any other specific disagreement please let me know. Thanks, IZAK 15:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:SHIPS guidelines are to categorize ships both by the country and the navy with which they served. Category:Ships of the Austro-Hungarian Navy and Category:Naval ships of Austria-Hungary are part of separate category structures and are not duplicates. They are part of Category:Ships by navy and Category:Ships by country, respectively. Though they serve similar functions for Austria-Hungary, for other nations there are distinctions between the country and navy. For example, the Royal Navy is a much older entity than the United Kingdom.
We have discussed merging them many times in the past, but there are many strong opinions on the issue: some feel that only country categories (like Category:Naval ships of Austria-Hungary) should be used, while others feel that navy categories are more accurate (like Category:Ships of the Austro-Hungarian Navy), and others feel that ships should be put into both category structures.
Categorizing ships both ways is the current compromise, and unless a clear consensus emerges, navy categories should not be merged or renamed into country categories. TomTheHand 15:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Again Tom: Ok, I see. I have filled up Category:Ships of the Austro-Hungarian Navy again. I still think the duplication is messy, but it is not one of my areas so if that's what navy editors want they can have it. Is there anything else I can help you with? Thanks, IZAK 15:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm unhappy with the duplication as well, but it's been a contentious issue for a very long time. I think your cleanup of Austria-Hungary related categorization has been great. TomTheHand 16:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. By the way, I just tried to classify Category:Submarines of Austria-Hungary and I see that there is no Category:Submarines by navy why is that? In general the whole subject of the great Austro-Hungarian Empire has been neglected. It's not that articles aren't there. They exist and are mostly very good, especially about its military (during WWI) but it seems for whatever reasons that it has not been knitted together well with rational categories. I have tried to help out, but I can't do much more. IZAK 16:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Category:Submarines of Austria-Hungary should go in Category:Submarines by country because it's a country category, not a navy category. The Category:Ships by navy structure is underdeveloped, partly because the people interested in categorization are only interested in categorizing by country. Category:Submarines of Austro-Hungarian Navy and Category:Submarines by navy don't exist. You could create the necessary categories, or just ignore it and populate Category:Ships by country. TomTheHand 16:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, IZAK, for your BOLD! efforts to bring order to the category structure for Austro-Hungarian ships! As TomTheHand indicated, the dual ships by navy and ships by country categories have been a long and contentious issue. As such, I repopulated Category:Cruisers of the Austro-Hungarian Navy. Please feel free to contact me or WikiProject Ships if you have any questions or issues. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Kralizec: As I mentioned I just stumbled across this in trying to sort out and beef up categories at Category:Austria-Hungary and I am done for now with the military stuff. The most interesting part for me was to connect and fill Category:Austro-Hungarian Empire and World War I which was not even attached to the main category. Take a look, it's quite fascinating to see how many great articles there already existed but just needed to be placed in this category. It's quite a fascinating topic. My main reason for getting involved is that Austria-Hungary was home to millions of Jews and it was a benelovent empire to them. Indeed the rule of Kaiser Franz Joseph I of Austria was one the greatest eras of freedom and success for the Jews in his Empire that exceeded anything they had known until that time. He was not crazy and driven like the German Kaiser William II, German Emperor and was not a misguided and trapped tyrant like the Czar Nicholas II of Russia. When the Austro-Hungarian Empire finally collapsed, from internal rebellions and external wars, it was probably the beginning of the end for European Jewry. Indeed, historians note that the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria in Serbia in 1914 triggered World War I which in turn was the trigger for World War II and the Holocaust 20 years after the end of WWI. So these are very important topics for modern Jewish history. (Of course let's not forget that Hitler was an Austrian subject who enlisted in the German army during WWI and fought hard, lost, took up his battle again causing WWII, and lost again, but at great cost and suffering for humanity.) Thanks again, IZAK 17:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Jaakobou sock allegations

Just wanted to let you know that a user called "Jaakobou" has been active on a non-Wikipedia website for years, has a similar writing style to our Jaakobou, and has been noted for a tendency to report anti-Israel postings to admins as anti-Semitic. So, I don't think that Jaakobou is a sock puppet. They do have a similar writing style, but a lot of it (like forgetting to capitalize letters) is probably explained by thinking in Hebrew and translating to English. <eleland/talkedits> 21:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Eleland. Ok, but I was worried. IZAK 18:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright issues

I noticed on the subcategories that I created, a copyright issue has been posted, however, I do post a link to the source of the information. Is this a problem? How best to rectify it? Cheshvan is one example, however there are many more. --Bachur 16:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Bachur: Thank you for contacting me. First of all you should know that the notice/s you received are not put on those pages by human editors most of the time. It's usually done by WP:BOTs. So it's kind of like having a cyber-golem give a notice and tell you what to do. You are 100% correct that you can cite information as long as you give the source/s so I think it would be ok to remove those notices and to try to edit the pages in a way that they do not appear as an exact mirror that is causing the bots to pick up on it. In any case, there can be no "copyright" to anyone's Yahrtzeits. Hope this help. Best wishes, IZAK 18:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • How would I "edit the pages in a way that they do not appear as an exact mirror that is causing the bots to pick up on it" as you have suggested? Also, is there anything that I can help with or anything that needs to be worked on? Is there a Judaism section where people can take a topic from there and work on it etc.? Bachur (talk) 00:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Hi Bachur: Change the wording or the order slightly. For articles to work on, see everything in Category:Judaism stubs and see Category:Judaism stubs#Subcategories as well. There is lots of stuff to work on. Best wishes and be in touch, IZAK (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Chabad sidebar

I noticed that you protested the removal of all controversy from the Chabad template. I too tried to reinsert in today, but I am being impeded. Chabad editors seem to feel that there is no such thing as a Chabad related controversy. F one reason or another it is always nothing to do with Chabad.

Moshe Shnuere was a bad apple! a black sheep! It is a Moshe Shnuri controversy not a Chabad controversy I supose they would argue.

What can be done about this? In general the Chabad articles I have seen are some of the worst on wikipedia about a major topic, certainly the worst Jewish ones.

There are good bits, which clearly people have tried to source and write properly, but they are buried in piles and piles of guff and nonsense taken directly from's crapoganda. Going through the edit histories and talk pages I see people fighting this but failing simply due to the exasperating experience of dealing with the chabad editors who can obfuscate without end.

The lead on the Chabad article claims that there are 1 million Chabadniks! I mean Jesus H. Schneersohn! 20,000 in crown heights and shluchim comes to a million?

None of the chabad editors, so far as I can tell, are openly messianist, but all wish to defend the position as reasonable, which is odd.

Can we please try and do something about this. It is a great shame that these articles are such a mess. Lobojo (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Lobojo: Unfortunately, Chabad editors tend to follow group think and they seem to feel and act as if Wikipedia should be like or failing to understand what WP:NPOV is about. In recent months I have not seen any Chabad editors involved with topics in Judaism (except Chabad of course.) You need to be politely assertive and get your point across. WP:ARBITRATION may be what you will have to resort to. I will try to look into this some more. I also suggest that you bring this matter up with the WP:JUDAISM project and ask for the input of editors involved with Judaism-related articles and issues. IZAK (talk) 06:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you IZAK. I think they might even be working in a coordinated fashion. It is very frustrating. Lobojo (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Milton Balkany

I am concerned that the recent edits by User:Lobojo to Milton Balkany may violate WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Chocolatepizza (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

  • What? Are you following me around? Libelous? As far as I see every statement is sourced, which is better than the joke before where ever statement was "and they lived hapily ever after (source=goldylocks). Lobojo (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC) 03:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, without looking too deeply into it, the Balkany article has been used to cast aspersions on Lubavitch. IZAK (talk) 06:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Balkany isn't a chabnik i dont think. He dresses like a massive yekker. Lobojo (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


I noticed that you had done some work on the categories relating to Austria-Hungary. You might be interested in WikiProject Former countries, and especially in the topics covered by the task force for Austria-Hungary. Welcome to join up! Cheers, -- Domino theory (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sort keys in temporal categories

I think, here, unilateral action is appropriate, but the keys need to be different in different categories. For example, in Category:Centuries in the future, the templates (as we only have centuries 22-31 and 4th millennium) might not have special sort keys, the actual centuries (21-31) probably should keep their sort keys, but the sort keys for the millennia might either be M n (where n is the millenium number, with (my modification) 10 replaced by 90 and 11 by 91), or the nth the millennium might be sorting by n0x (putting them in sort order by the last year of the period), or {n–1}1z (sorting them by the first year of the period, with the longer periods coming later). (The latter options also having dings for the 10th and/or 11th millennium.) However, the important thing is that we settle on a sort order, and document it on the category talk page, so that automated changes might be possible. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Setting the tone

IZAK, please try to remember that as a founder of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism you carry a lot of respect and your behavior sets the tone for the project. I doubt you want even the marat ayin of creating or endorsing a hostile editing environment or condoning incivil behavior. It is important that all points of view and all streams of Judaism are fairly and neutrally represented in Wikipedia. I'm sure you agree and want to act accordingly. Egfrank (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Egfrank: Thank you for contacting me. Your accusations are false and while it may be convenient for you to attack me here (my skin is thick so I don't mind) I wish you would discuss issues and not "me" at all. Let me be very clear that I agree with you 100% that "It is important that all points of view and all streams of Judaism are fairly and neutrally represented in Wikipedia" -- where have I stated otherwise? -- so I do not know why you wish to even preach that to me here. As always I will be more than happy to discuss facts with you. Writing, as I often do, in a lively fashion, is not "creating or endorsing a hostile editing environment or condoning incivil behavior" so please quit your use of personal attacks, smokescreens, and red herrings, and try rather to deal with the facts and issues on talk pages or in related articles head on. Thanks again. IZAK (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)