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.
This page is within the scope of ||
||This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
|Threads older than 45 days may be archived by lowercase sigmabot III.
AfC submission 2
Hello there! Could I get a hand with this draft? Draft:Pinus Rubinstein. Let me know what you think. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk)
Please comment on the proposed redirect of Hasidic Judaism to Hasidism. Thank you. AddMore-III (talk)
Please express your opinion if the fact that Jerusalem's status as capital of Israel should be in the text of Israel, or in a footnote. Talk:Israel#Capital_wording_in_infobox Debresser (talk) 10:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Eyes needed on Rabbinical Biographies
There is a new user majorly changing some old biographies, such as Ephraim Oshry, Yisroel Spira and Shmuel Kamenetzky. Adding an infobox is OK but he is also heavily modifying the text and damaging the prose. Thanks 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 14:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- I would appreciate it greatly if you would defend your accusations to me directly as a man. Airing them here seems to be avoiding the fact that you haven't shown yet how anything was "damaged." The only "damage" happened when you quickly reverted constructive edits. StonyBrook (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- As an outsider who knows neither of you, I looked at the two side by side columns of your three biographies. I do not think that StonyBrook damaged anything. In fact, in many place he improved the prose and made a better article. His edits were clearly constructive and edifying. However, they clearly had a different editorial view than the older article, Yet the changes were acceptable and not inappropriate POV. As an outsider, I liked many of the changes but some of them I disliked and preferred the older text. This should be resolved on the talk pages working through the points in a civil manner. It should not be wholesale reversions on either side. I am not getting further involved in the pages.--Jayrav (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
CFD:Great Synagogue Article names...
It appears that the article names for the Great Synagogues are a mess.
- There is "of City"
- There is ", City"
- and there is (City)
I'm not sure that I have a preference, but someone proposed an AFC for the destroyed Great Synagogue in Nuremberg and I'm not really sure what the correct title of the article should be.Naraht (talk) 04:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think that (City) make the most sense. Debresser (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think "of city" makes most sense. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 00:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Sir Joseph I'll try to convince you. External sources would add "of city" to distinguish between the "Great Synagogue"s of different city, but each "Great Synagogue" in its city would simply be called "Great Synagogue" without a qualifier, and in such cases Wikipedia adds the qualifier in brackets. Debresser (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think it makes much difference. The title should as closely as possible approximate the wording most prevalently found in sources and redirects should be used if there is doubt. Bus stop (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Bus Stop My opinion is based precisely on the argument that sources are likely to use another name than the common name, for the purpose of disambiguation. If I were to write a treatise about the architecture of synagogues, for example, I would need to say "the Great Synagogue of Paris was build not like the Great Synagogue of London", even tough people in Paris would call their synagogue just "the Great Synagogue" and people in London would use that very same term too. In other words, we really just have two synagogues which are both called "the Great Synagogue". The usual way to disambiguate between two objects with the same name on Wikipedia is with brackets: "the Great Synagogue (Paris)" and "the Great Synagogue (London)". Debresser (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- So you are saying this is like Yeshiva Ketana, or Yeshiva Gedolah, in which a specific yeshiva is not indicated unless a city is additionally mentioned? Bus stop (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Not really, because those often have names. Debresser (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Here we have Yeshiva Ketana of Long Island. This would be an exception? How about Yeshiva Gedolah of the Five Towns? Bus stop (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps that is how they are actually called. Because there are many yeshives. But "Great Synagogues" usually only one. Debresser (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Middle East category for all Jews
Somebody re-opened an old discussion about the question, whether all "Jewish descent" categories should include a "of Middle Eastern descent" category as well. You are therefore cordially invited to partake in the discussion at Category_talk:People_of_Jewish_descent#Middle_East_category_Rfc.
- This discussion is now at the stage where a survey of opinions is being conducted, to facilitate closing the Rfc. If you haven't posted your opinion yet, now is the time to do so. Debresser (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
A new editor has recently added undue material to the lead of the article United Synagogue, regarding the 'Zionist' nature of the organization (with the unstated implication that this is somehow worthy of contempt). I think it is very likely a sock of the editor who was blocked for the same shenanigans a year or so ago. Can some other editors keep an eye on it as I am less active at the moment. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
An editor has currently been adding what I believe to be undue and misleading/incorrect information to the L'Shana Haba'ah page. First the editor wrote that the phrase was "first used" in the 15th century, misreporting a quote from Sefer HaMinhagim. The editor also curiously added "The phase is not found in works such as the Tanakh, the Talmud or any of the Haggadot of the Rishonim period such as Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam", which seems misleading and undue, given that the sentiment of longing for a return to Jerusalem is found all throughout. The editor has also been serially removing the insertion of information relating to the history of the sentiment of longing for Jerusalem. Drsmoo (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
On a related note, this source (http://www.kolhamevaser.com/2014/04/the-meaning-of-next-year-in-jerusalem/) writes that the custom of saying it during passover is first recorded in the 13th century edition of Sefer ha-Minhagim by Abraham Hildik. However this contradicts a few other sources which only place it in the latest edition of the book, the 15th century edition by Isaac Tyrnau. Does anyone have a copy of the Hildik version to confirm? Thanks Drsmoo (talk) 01:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruchoma Shain. -- -- -- 05:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)