Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  Main   Discussion Board   Members   Article Assessment   Templates   Categories   Resources   Manual of Style   To do   New Articles   Articles for Deletion   Sister Projects   Watchlist  

Discussion Board

Discussions relating to Jews and Judaism. (edit) (back to top)

WikiProject Judaism (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Yom Kippur[edit]

Sorry for the late notice, but Yom Kippur is in poor shape. There are long stretches of text without references at all. As it stands, it likely won't be listed on the Main Page tomorrow. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 15:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Howcheng: I'll concede that I should have looked at this earlier in the week. That said, you can't give us notice this short, especially on Yom Kippur, the one day in the year that even people not very observant overall are likely to be off-wiki and in synagogue. It's already Yom Kippur pretty well everywhere in the Eastern Hemisphere, you know.
That said:
  • There are no "section lacking citation" tags. Yes, there are a couple of inline "citation needed" tags. We'll eventually get there.
  • The two longest stretches there without a citation are the "Avodah" portion and the "Temple service" section, which are both entirely served by ref. 20.
Accordingly, I don't see the problem. Given that Yom Kippur is the most significant single day on the Jewish calendar, I would tell you that the level of problems in this article does not rise to the point of taking it off the main page. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
In the end, the listing was removed, notwithstanding my comments. Please see a further discussion at Talk:Main Page. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


Sukkot is going to be removed from OTD if it is not improved. I do not know that I have the time to manage this. If everyone takes one unsourced section and adds a reference we should be good. StevenJ81 (talk) 02:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Howcheng: OK. I think the whole article has sources. They're not all the most wonderful, academic sources imaginable. At the same time, the article is only C-Class, and rightly so: the information is very basic. So there isn't a ton to challenge, either. I think the sources are adequate for the current level of information.
The one thing without a source is the "In Christianity" bit. I wouldn't even know where to begin on that. It's clearly a very tangential subject compared to the whole holiday. If you would otherwise object on the grounds of that paragraph, then we should simply comment it out until the listing passes.
Please let me know if we're good (enough) to go for now. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Excuse my ignorance, but what is OTD? Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 14:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
NP. OTD is the "On This Day" section of the Main Page. Chag sameach. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification StevenJ81. I never check in there, but it stands to reason that if someone thinks it should there, then it should conform to certain basic criteria. Too bad Debresser doesn't seem to be around any more, for this type of issue. I will try and take a look at it sometime. Thanks again for all you do in this area (which is way above my head in technical terms...). warshy (¥¥) 14:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

"Klal Yisrael"[edit]

The expression "Klal Yisrael" was listed in in Jewish greetings § See also, but not linked. There is no article on it, but it appears in the text of many pages, and for all I know may deserve mention there. However, I have commented it out and pointed to this talkpage entry. See Talk:Jewish greetings § Klal Yisrael. --Thnidu (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Merge Article Code and Section (Support)[edit]


I performed a few merge requests for the Portal:Catholicism "To-Do List" page. If you would like to add this section, or learn to perform mergers I would be happy to help.

  • Save
  • Where it says "OtherPage1" and "OtherPage2" replace it with the article title(s), and you may add more (such as |OtherPage3), etc
  • Add the result to the top of the article page(s) and you're done!

Twillisjr (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

An offline app for Judaism-related content[edit]

Hello everyone,

The Kiwix people are working on an offline version of several Wikipedia subsets (based on this Foundation report). It basically would be like the Wikimed App (see here for the Android light version; iOS is in beta, DM me if interested). The readership in this case would probably be in Israel or the US (Kiwix is rather largely distributed in Prison systems in both countries, where users by definition have no access to internet), and we'd most certainly also produce a Hebrew version at some point.

What we do is take a snapshot at day D of all articles tagged by the project (we'll also add texts from Wikisource) and package it into a compressed zim file that people can access anytime locally (ie once downloaded, no refresh needed). We also do a specific landing page that is more mobile-friendly, and that's when I need your quick input:

  1. Would it be okay for you if it were hosted as a subpage of the Wikiproject (e.g. WikiProject Judaism/Offline)? Not that anyone should notice or care, but I'd rather notify & ask
  2. Any breakdown of very top-level topics that you'd recommend? (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Open_Textbook_of_Medicine2 for what we're looking at in terms of simplicity) Usually people use the search function anyway, but a totally empty landing page isn't too useful either. Alternatively, if you guys use the Book: sorting, that can be helpful.

Thanks for your feedback! Stephane (Kiwix) (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Partners In Torah is redlink[edit]

We have a number of references to Partners In Torah in various articles, e.g. in Missionary#Missionaries_and_Judaism, but Partners In Torah is currently a redlink.

We currently have info about Partners In Torah located at Chavrusa#Telephone_and_online_chavrusas

Can somebody please make the link Partners In Torah redirect to Chavrusa#Telephone_and_online_chavrusas, or, if better, make a standalone article for Partners In Torah?

Thanks - (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, they are a subsidiary of, perhaps it can be worked into that somehow? - GalatzTalk 18:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Partners in Torah (note lower case i for in) redirects to Torah Umesorah – National Society for Hebrew Day Schools, is that were these should go?Naraht (talk)
That is correct, for now. There was an AFD in 2008 for PiT, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Partners_in_torah, but I do think PiT should be it's own page, eventually. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
So should the link in Missionary#Missionaries_and_Judaism be changed from Partners In Torah to Partners in Torah?Naraht (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
The official website spells it "in" not "In" but both should redirect to the same place, and I have not fixed that. I know they receive press for things like Mayim Bailik using it, but I dont know if they get enough to meet GNG. - GalatzTalk 13:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Problems in applying the Manual of Style[edit]

Good afternoon, everyone. Regarding this discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 35#Marcheshvan -> Cheshvan ?? and this one:

Debresser's last edit summary was Undid revision 764125960 by Pi314m (talk) This was removed once for good reason. You posted on the talkpage, and nobody else commented. Per lack of consensus, you should not edit war. He's lucky. Others don't even get that far, for these reasons:

  • Debresser tag teams with StevenJ81 to keep opposing views out. They unashamedly admit to discussing tactics off - wiki.
  • If that doesn't work, Debresser will close the discussion himself and - surprise, surprise - the close supports his own view. Example here:[1].
  • If that doesn't work he gets an administrator to remove the discussion from the talkpage and place it in the archive.
  • If a closure review is started he or StevenJ81 will go whining either to an administrator's talk page or to RfPP for page protection. Of course they never mention that they have previously got the article protected and we don't protect both the article and the corresponding talk page at the same time.
  • If that doesn't work one or the other will go whining either to an administrator's talk page or AIV for a block, claiming that anybody who has views different from their own must ipso facto be a vandal. (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

As for WP:CIR I note that on Sunday StevenJ81 removed the standing instructions from WP:AIV. A bot sounded the alarm and an administrator speedily reverted him. (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Look, 80.': The AIV thing was a misclick. I knew it, the reverting admin knew it, and in your heart you know it, too.
That said: If you really, truly want to reopen this ridiculous Marcheshvan issue, then go and open a new discussion. You have been reverted, reverted, reverted and blocked because you keep reopening closed discussions, not because you have a different point of view. I wasn't, frankly, going to advise you of that because I was perfectly content to see you make a fool out of yourself over and over. But you know what? Go ahead and have your say over there. If you open a new discussion, rather than (a) reopening an old one, and (b) pasting old material, then I'll defend your right to have your say. OK? Fair enough? StevenJ81 (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
And while we're at it ... I reversed my objection on the redirects earlier. You are the only person on Wikipedia who has ever, ever accused me of trying to censor. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I just had a thought - the current month must be Marcheshvan, around the 23rd, and checking the article I see I'm only two days out (that's the dehiyyoth for you). I'm here because it was made MoS compliant this morning but an administrator has reverted - so where do we go from here? (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

  • I don't know what is going on, but I have always said that the article name should be marcheshvan. We should have a redirect from cheshvan. People continue the mistake because people aren't corrected. Right now it makes no sense for the article to be cheshvan and the first word is "marcheshven is a month..." Sir Joseph (talk) 14:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Per WP:COMMONNAME I believe it is correct. Most people refer to it as Cheshvan, therefore that's what the page should be. If you look at Bill Clinton or anyone else who has a page that is not their legal name, the bolded term doesn't match the article name. I don't see an issue with it. - GalatzTalk 14:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Struck out earlier comment by IP user evading a ban.
      We've long agreed that regardless of which of the two names ought to be used in body text (and there are arguments both ways at different points in different articles), WP:COMMONNAME makes the article name Cheshvan. We can edit the first sentence of the article so that it makes sense in that light. But please, let's not feed the trolls. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)