User talk:Shirahadasha/Archive Dec 2007

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

Countering systemic bias: Egfrank requests intervention[edit]

Hi Shira: Please take a look at this: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/open tasks#WikiProject Judaism needs help - geographical bias concerns. I have asked for clarification [1]. Thanks for looking into this, IZAK 10:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Jewish canon or Bible Canon[edit]

Hi Shira: I just came across the Jewish canon article. What to make of it is the big question. It draws partially from the Jewish Encyclopedia article. Maybe the entire Jewish Encyclopedia BIBLE CANON article should just be reproduced in its entirety? I will pose this question to the sages @ WP:JUDAISM. Thanks, IZAK 06:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Date style in Second Temple[edit]

This user appears to be trolling random articles changing date styles from BCE/CE to BC/AD. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] I reverted some of his edits (most were reverted by other editors) and he reverted some back. Most of the edits are to articles I don't usually take an interest in, so I'm hesitant to become embroiled in lengthy debates/edit wars about this. One of them was to Second Temple which I noticed you were once keeping tabs on for this sort of thing. Any suggestions on how to proceed with as little fuss and as much positive result as possible will be appreciated. --Steven J. Anderson 23:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


Es chatai Ani MazKir Hayom. You are correct, being a member of the BDT"Z EC is more than enough to indicate significance and require the full AfD. I have restored the pertinent pages. -- Avi 22:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


See my edits to Badatz. I hope you don't feel offended, but I really think you should have done some more research into this subject before writing that article. 'Badatz' simply means Beis/t Din Tzedek. It does not have anything to do with the Edah. The fact that very often, when people say 'the Badatz', they are referring to the Badatz of the Edah HaChareidis, does not change that fact. A Belzer chossid will refer to the Badatz of Belz when referring to the Badatz. Nowadays, also, you see many stores in Jerusalem that prominently display "Be-hashgachat Badatz Yerushalaim" - which means Rabbanut Yerushalaim, not the Edah HaChareidis. Those stores try to profit from the good name of the Edah HaChareidis by fooling non-chareidim into thinking they have the hechsher of The Badatz (which they don't). Thus, next time, please think your edits over once more. You should really have known this. -- 22:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Anon, if you're going to be so condescending, at least have the guts to sign and edit under your main Wikipedia account instead of hiding behind an anonymous ip. --MPerel 23:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the anon is more or less correct on this. I have a number of times started articles on subjects I don't know a huge amount about but thought needed articles, and this was one. "The Badatz" is often used by us ordinary ignoramuses to refer to a particular one, but it's perfectly legitimate to point out that there are others. Being a Modern type from the U.S myself, I indeed don't know a great deal about the various Haredi rabbinical courts in Israel. The anon was astute to notice this. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
What bothered me was the cowardly way he went about "correcting" you. My threshhold for cowardly behavior is low! Best, --MPerel 00:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Could definitely have been a bit more civil. Thanks. --Shirahadasha 00:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Legal aspects of ritual slaughter[edit]

I have found the article by Nisson and Svanberg (Religiös slakt [religious slaughter] - quoted as reference in the Italian Government paper (reference 21 in the article:Italian bioethic comittee Report on Ritual slaughtering and animal suffering). This is written by Åsa Nilsson, a high school teacher of Religious Studies, and Ingvar Svanberg, an Ethnologist at the Department of East European Studies and the History of Religion at Uppsala University. This article gives a good history of the schächten debates, including the anti-Semitic input and is of a high academic standard. Where is the chronological history of shehitah bans? (Nilsson and Svanberg have it). An encyclopedia article should be based on a review of the current academic literature from a neutral stance. Not independent work collecting details of legislation like stamp collecting. And why omit the bans under Hitler? Is this a censored history or something? Regards RPSM 17:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC) Regarding your note on the motion in the Swedish Riksdag 2005: just to point out, this gives the political position in Sweden (that although one Swedish govenment authority says that the New Zealand method of combining shehitah with stunning would be satisfactory from the Animal Welfare POV, legalistic issues prevent it going forward. //The argument used in the motion (that the 1937 debate included a statement quoted verbatim that clearly states that the reason for passing a ban is to pander to public opinion) is borrowed from the article Religiös slakt (used as a reference in the Italian government paper). Here an Ethnologist analyses every argument, including scientific ones, brought forward in the Swedish legislative body and the popular press (including a spate of "letters to the Editor" - which, had public opinion not been cited in the riksdag as a major criterion for banning may have been of only passing interest, and, this argument - that we are western and therefore have higher standards and our customs and traditions are therefore better - may have been obvious in colonial times, but not really today. This argument from the 1930s is reiterated today in opinions given in statements to the government. The main difference between the 1930s and today is that (because of the atrocities in WWII) we now have in place the European Convention of Human Rights that ensures Religious Freedom. As there is no scientific evidence available to show that shehitah, as a method, in practice, causes more suffering to animals than other methods (less, in fact, because effective stunning is very much dependent on operator training and the speed of lines in abbatoirs, and the evidence is that economic factors tend to militate against precision and keeping line speeds down) there is no logical forensic reason to keep the ban in place other than the sensibilities of the non-Jewish population. And this will not pass the test of a modern Multicultural society that Sweden aspires to be. Quite a significant section of the literature written by Historians is devoted to the activities of anti-Semitic societies in the 30s who backed Animal Welfare groups and pushed legislation through. There was no feeling of Political Uncorrectness then: there is now. I fully realise that all the above needs to be documented and referenced, but if it is not mentioned, the article gives a different story than the extant academic literature does.RPSM 09:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Union for Traditional Judaism[edit]

I can't help but notice that you protected this page, then continued to edit it quite a bit. I didn't want to take it straight to AN/I without asking you first, but I was just curious as to why you'd use your admin bit like that. Thanks. ^demon[omg plz] 14:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha, makes sense. I had gotten an e-mail asking me to look into the use of admin tools, and at a quick glance (I hadn't read the talkpage yet) it appeared to me a sysop was a bit out of line. Glad to hear it's proceeding well. All the best, ^demon[omg plz] 15:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Shirahadasha... I looked at what you did, and I don't have a problem with it. Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner, I've been away from WP for nearly a week. Apparently a pretty exciting week even! :-p Kol tov, Tomertalk 04:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

All is well that ends well. (And the conclusion of a matter is better than its beginning.)  :-) Tomertalk 05:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

B"H - Shirahadasha, Hello! Thank you for your comment about the reference in the Intro section. I agree, it is a little conflicting - the reference was meant to give an example of opinion, not a reference of fact. I will find another example. All the best, kt - Rachas 18:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


You wrote on my talk page:

Please see my comments on Talk:Prayer. I would stress the importance of WP:NPOV and WP:RS; it is particularly important to source views and not to present ones own take on things as fact. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

From what I saw, the POV edit you reverted was not from me, nor am I even close to agreeing with what was written in there. Actually, it was Barrylb that wrote this. My name was that on the last good edit to which you reverted.

Today, I do not have time to take part in a lengthy discussion, so I will step aside for the time being (and I also want to take a look at a suggestion I got for the Shinto section) but I will look at the talk page as soon as I can. Thanks for the heads up. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 21:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Baruch Lanner[edit]

I saw you'd commented on starting an article about Baruch Lanner. There's now a stub. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


Here is a Encyclopedia Judaica article you can use (I've got to run or I would do it myself): He had carefully worked out his own pedigree before he left Babylonia (BB 15a) and in order to insure the purity of those remaining there he took with him all those of doubtful or impure descent (Kid. 69b). He was so zealous in spreading the Torah, that rabbis said of him, "If Moses had not anticipated him, Ezra would have received the Torah" (Tosef., Sanh. 4:7). He restored and reestablished the Torah that had been almost completely forgotten (Suk. 20a). He ordained that public readings from the Torah take place not only on Sabbaths, but also on Mondays and Thursdays (Meg. 31b; TJ, Meg. 4:1, 75a). He also had the Bible rewritten in "Assyrian" characters, leaving the old Hebrew characters to the Samaritans (Sanh. 21b). He established schools everywhere to fill the existing needs and in the hope that the rivalry between the institutions would redound to the benefit of the pupils (BB 21b–22a). He also enacted the ordinances known as "the ten regulations of Ezra" (see BK 82a–b; TJ, Meg. loc. cit.) and together with five of his companions, compiled the Mishnah (tractate Kelim, in A. Jellinek, Beit ha-Midrash, 2 (1853), 88). Aside from the book which bears his name, Ezra wrote the genealogies of the Book of Chronicles up to his own time (BB 15a) and had a hand in writing the Book of Psalms (Song R. 4:19). The rabbis identify him with the prophet Malachi (Meg. 15a). He is one of the five men whose piety is especially extolled by the rabbis (Mid. Ps. to 105:2).

THE AGGADAH: Ginzberg, Legends, 4 (1913), 354–9; 6 (1928), 441–7.

(Legend of the Jews is on Gutenberg - out of copyright)

BestWolf2191 (talk) 23:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Progressive and reform movement[edit]

Hello. Sorry to greet you with this, but it would be helpful if you could help out at Talk:Progressive Judaism or wherever the thread shifts to next. I'm not sure what you think about all this, but you seem pretty sensible and help keep things on an even keel. I'm concerned that the ProgJ article is turning into a content fork and the editors there disagree. I think the key question is where the main article on the movement's history, beliefs etc should go. Thanks. HG | Talk 15:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comment at the AfD. FYI, if only to deal with both simultaneously, I also submitted an AfD for Reform Judaism (North America). Thanks. Be well, HG | Talk 23:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent effort at Reform Judaism and the RfC. Sorry about the edit conflicts in my replies. Hope you can continue to help out with this. L'hit, HG | Talk 01:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Just responded to you at Talk:Reform Judaism. Meanwhile, tried something at Talk:Reform movement in Judaism so let me know what you think, please. Thanks. HG | Talk 20:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ezra II[edit]

Hi Shirahadasha,

I've left a comment on Ezra's talk page regarding your edit. Best, --Aminz (talk) 02:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Shirahadasha, for your thoughtful reply. Str1977 (talk) 09:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Pinsk(Hasidic dynasty)[edit]

Please move Pinsk(Hasidic dynasty) to Pinsk (Hasidic dynasty) (space missing). Thanks. --Redaktor (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks --Redaktor (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:SIGNIF vis-a-via WP:N[edit]

That's a very astute set of observations. With the constrast of WP:SIGNIF and WP:N, did you mean "significant" in the sense of "staying on topic?" As compared to N, which only covers the merit of the topic/article title? -- Fullstop 14:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)