Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 33

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35


Adam Wiercinski on AfD

The article Adam Wiercinski is currently in AfD at Tkuvho (talk) 12:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI: The appropriate place to list Judaism-related AfD discussions is Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 12:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
And if it were listed there, would we have seen it here? I for one check here, not there. Debresser (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Move request for Cholov Yisroel

There is a move request in progress regarding this article. Please could members of this project comment on this over at Talk:Cholov Yisroel#Requested move 31 December 2013. Many thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ashkenazi Jews/Khazarian origins theory

This Judaism-related article is currently nominated for possible deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to share your opinion. -Yambaram (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


Does anyone know if this section removal makes sense? The removed text has three sources but non of them are online so I can't easily check them. Yaris678 (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

@Yaris678: The gist of it is true, and common knowledge in some circles, though I am not sure about the specifics and I have no access to the sources. Assuming good faith on part of the original writer, I would recommend restoring the paragraph, minus the unsourced final sentence. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with that proposal. Debresser (talk) 06:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Meaning of name "Caleb"

I'm having a problem on the article Caleb with a new editor who is edit warring what looks to me like an original Hebrew derivation for the name "Caleb". The only interpretation I'm certain of is already referenced to the JE, but if anyone can find anything more substantial in RSS it would help... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's start with the fact that it is you added an Unreferenced section tag to this text on August 17 [1]and a Fact tag on September 3 [2], and then removed it yesterday. [3] The text was added April 8, 2013 by User:Jovensmindstrokes, who seems to be a very inexperienced editor, who has edited only this article.
User:StevenJ81 has already pointed [4] to Talk:Caleb#Origin_of_name, which dated from July 2008 and discussed the removal of much the same information. Debresser (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Debresser, I am somewhat confused by your response. I already know what I did, don't see anything in the least wrong with it, and didn't come here to talk about my actions. I came to see if anyone could find sources on the derivation of "Caleb", and to advise the project about this edit war. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I just summarized some things here. By the way, i have read the explanation that "kelev" is "kulo lev" ("dog" is "all heart") in Jewish literature. But I have not seen the same said about "Kalev". Debresser (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Kabbalistic words and phrases

User:IZAK has recently added Category:Kabbalistic words and phrases to articles about Kabbalistic books? We discussed this a little bit on his talkpage, because I disagree with that, and decided to ask for broader input here. Debresser (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

To cut the chase. I disagree that titles of books, e.g. Sefer HaBahir, become kabbalistic terms in themselves. Debresser (talk) 06:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the titles need to be in that category, considering that fact that Category:Kabbalistic words and phrases has a subcategory called Category:Kabbalah texts. JFW | T@lk 12:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
First of all as creator of the category I was careful to use the words "words" and "phrases" and not "terms" so that, at a bare minimum, the names of texts are definitely "words" even though they may not be "terms" as such. While JFW suggests that the titles be removed from the category, he does not say that the sub-category needs to be removed. Debresser has removed Category:Kabbalah texts as a sub-category of Category:Kabbalistic words and phrases, after he removed all the titles from that category. We had been expecting some discussion here first before deciding what to do. IZAK (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
"Kabbalistic texts" was removed for the same reason, even more strongly so. The idea was a misconception from the beginning. In general, IZAK, I see you continue adding other categories to articles in large amounts. You may want to discuss those things before instead of wondering why you are being reverted afterwards. Regarding Category:Judaism and warfare and Category:Judaism and peace I agree with you, so far, but the idea is that before doing something big you should really discuss. Debresser (talk) 10:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Debresser, you are funny! IZAK (talk) 11:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Blood/blood libel

Wondering if anyone had particular views on whether the concept of "blood libel" should get at least a passing mention in blood or not. Discussion on Talk:Blood about this. JFW | T@lk 17:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Afroyim v. Rusk candidate for TFA discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#Afroyim_v._Rusk.

Thank you for your consideration,

Cirt (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Children of Holocaust survivors has been proposed for deletion.

Category:Children of Holocaust survivors has been proposed for deletion. Anyone interested in commenting can do so here __ E L A Q U E A T E 05:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

A Contract with God Peer Review request

The article for Will Eisner's graphic novel A Contract with God has recently become a Good Article. I'm planning on nominating it as a Featured Article Candidate and would appreciate any feedback to help it get there. The Peer Review is here, so please stop by! Thanks, Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Using wiki pages as platform for propaganda

Editors are invited to visit Talk:SodaStream where a lively discussion is going on. Tkuvho (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

That is just some current issue, which will blow over. Debresser (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Cannabis in the Tanakh

same old - more watchlisters needed. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Update: Can someone with an understanding of WP:RS please assess with Moses' claimed use of cannabis as an ingredient in the anointing oil is or is not supported in neutral reliable sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
In particular we need some input concerning Jewish tradition on this concerning translation/interpretation of the words used for the ingredients. Mangoe (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
One important & reliable source is Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's translation and commentary, The Living Torah: -- -- -- 03:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Kaplan does not cite a source for that assertion ("some..."). JFW | T@lk 22:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Article request

I was wondering if someone could write an article on the History of the Jews in Baltimore? Along the lines of this article or this article. I would make it myself, but I don't think I'm the best person for the job. Thanks. Solar-Wind (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. I started the article. Please feel free to copy edit and to otherwise add your expertise. -- -- -- 05:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Help needed with Sefer haYashar (and Hananiah)

Greetings! The Sefer haYashar disambiguation page has had over a dozen links pointing to it for several months. Any help in fixing those links would be appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

@BD2412: The disambiguation page itself is problematic. If I am not mistaken, three of the entries are actually the same: Rabbenu Tam, Rabbi Jonah of Gerona and Rabbi Zerahiah of Greece are all said to have been the authors of the same Sefer haYashar. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Having gone through all the mainspace links to Sefer haYashar and its redirects, they all seem to be appropriate links to the disambiguation page. Which "dozen links" are you referring to? Or have you fixed them already? הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Somebody has fixed them - whoever it was, kudos! bd2412 T 20:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
While we're at it, Hananiah also has an excessive number of incoming links. bd2412 T 19:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Judaica, 2007 Vs. the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia

Many articles reference the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia which is sadly rather out of date. The definitive resource should be Encyclopedia Judaica, 2007 which is now available online free.

Using the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia should be discouraged. Not only is it out of date but using it also causes articles to sound like they were written a hundred years ago. I added Encyclopedia Judaica, 2007 to resources I would suggest removing the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia

Jonney2000 (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia copyright has expired and it is in the public domain, so we can copy material from it freely, with attribution of course. Encyclopedia Judaica, 2007 is marked "COPYRIGHT 2007 Keter Publishing House Ltd" so we can only use it as a reference and reliable source for citations, with at most an occasional brief quote. In particular, we cannot use illustrations or pictures from the 2007 edition.--agr (talk)
But we shouldn't, and no one is suggesting doing that with the EJ2007. I'd like to see future use of these century old encyclopedias stopped. I also note that I've been told that you can't add citation requests to material copied from these as the material is already cited even though it's obsolete. And don't get me started about the out of date language. Dougweller (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
There are numerous problems with JE. Unfortunately its availability (free, online) means that a lot of material from JE has found its way onto Wikipedia, often reflecting its 19th century Wissenschaft des Judentums bias. Some of the scholarship has been accepted as gospel while it's actually completely outdated.
I think this WikiProject should resolve that no content should be moved verbatim from JE onto Wikipedia, and that it cannot be considered a reliable source without confirmation with other sources of information. JFW | T@lk 19:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm no admirer of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia (see my previous post here), but I believe that intelligent use of its text is good for creating placeholder stubs. Subjects that have not been studied seriously since 1906 (examples that come to mind: Yiram of Magdiel and Joseph Case) can be described adequately with the 1906 text, suitably modernized. All that is required is for the copy-and-paster to have some knowledge of the subject and to do a superficial search to see if there is any more recent literature on the subject.
Even when the 1906 text is not compatible with a modern encyclopedia, the JE's bibliography is usually useful, though the 1906 JE article is not always true to its bibliographic "sources"/references.)
As for using either encyclopedia as a source: I think it is a rather bad idea. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources, and even excellent encyclopedias are using second- (or third-) hand information, which leads to an out-of-context analysis at best and compunded errors at worst. One exception, I think, is using the 1906 JE for simple statements of fact in Jewish life that are unlikely to ever have attracted scholarly analysis, such as a description of the functions of a yad, for example. I don't know how the 2007 EJ compares in this respect. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Incidentally, JFW, I am curious to know what you meant by often reflecting its 19th century Wissenschaft des Judentums bias. Can you please elaborate? הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The scholarly approach of JE is often in stark contradication to traditional sources on a number of things, and they seem to have swallowed whole a lot of speculation by 19th century intellectuals. Oddly, some people have come along on Wikipedia in the last few years to push a POV based on JE that could be disproven by modern scholarship (the late Slrubenstein (talk · contribs) was involved in this). JFW | T@lk 20:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Hasirpad, thanks for the reminder about using encyclopedias. I've said the same thing about the Britannica. It's rare that an encyclopedia would be our only or best source for anything, and encyclopedia articles are as you say often problematic and almost always written from one pov which we end up accepting as fact. Dougweller (talk) 06:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Jonney2000 thanks for the link. Dougweller and others thanks for the commments. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I overall agree with all points as raised and explained above by הסרפד. But I wanted to expand a little bit on Jfdwolff's correct remark about the Jewish Encyclopedia's 19th century Wissenschaft des Judentums bias.
The JE should be actually considered, I believe, as one of the crowning achievements of Wissenschaft des Judentums, as the above entries on WP itself about these two very important previous encylopedias will generally point out. The other crownig achievement of WDJ is, of course, Graetz's magnum opus, his Geschichte der Juden, translated into English as "History of the Jews."
And, whereas I also agree that neither one of the Encyclopedias being discussed here should be considered "the definitive resource" for WP as originally implied above, for the serious student of Jewish history, neither one of the WDJ's crowning achievements mentioned above can or should be ignored either. No, these 19th century achievements at summarizing historical knowledge on a specific subject are still the initial, basic foundation of any posterior attempt at writing a more modern version of Jewish History. The editors of the 20th century Encyclopedia Judaica were themselves very aware of this basic truth when they started and finished editing the new encyclopedia; no entry on the new encyclopedia was published without first checking everything the old encyclopedia had to say about the subject. What was published in the end may have been completely different, but the original entry was first thoroughly studied, and if new sources were added, the sources of the original entry were all also first found and reviewed very carefully. Any new, contemporary serious attempt to summarize the historical knowledge on a certain subject will have to look at both encyclopedias first, and begin producing new entries only after comparing the conclusions on both of them very carefully, one against the other. The 19th century Jewish Encyclopedia is undoubtedly biased and dated. But the 20th century Encyclopedia Judaica is no less biased and dated in its own fashion. But neither can or should be dismissed by any new attempt at summarizing the status of a particular subject in the 21st century. warshy (¥¥) 20:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Funny discussion

Thanks to the user who pointed out that Encyclopedia Judaica (EJ) is COPYRIGHTED 2007 by Keter Publishing House, while the century+ old Jewish Encyclopedia (JE) is 100% in the public domain and can be used at will! How silly that this should be overlooked but of course then picked up on WP of all places which itself spends so much time with clarifying that its materials can be used. And one has to LAUGH as one reads all the comments attacking the use of encyclopedias OF ALL THINGS as if WP has some sort of self-annointed, self-righteous, self-important "papal infallibility" and is "something else" -- clearly a case of "loss of perspective" + "believing your own propaganda" + "the pot calling the kettle black" + ""people who live in glass houses should not throw stones" etc! What will WP people think of and say next?! To Sirpad, what JFW is saying is that the JE has an obvious slant, it has its manner of violating WP:POV, and its something that can and should be fixed or improved, and that is the tough job of WP editors. IZAK (talk) 05:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Genocide definitions, Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Genocide definitions, Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide definitions until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

3 categs nominated for CfD with more to come...?

Please see: (1) Category:Holy Land during Byzantine rule, CfD; (2) Category:Centuries in Israel, CfD; (3) Category:Medieval Israel, CfD. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Pogrom list inclusion criteria

An RfC has been opened at Talk:Pogrom, regarding the appropriate WP:LSC for the events listed. Comments are requested with thanks. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move of Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)

Requested move of Kosher tax (antisemitic canard), discussion. IZAK (talk) 08:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


moved from Talk:Judaism. Thanks Debresser, I'm an idiot

This article is a messy amalgam of three different concepts. I've proposed splitting it and making the page a disambiguation at Talk:Shaddai. Please contribute to the discussion. --Dweller (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

For posts like this we have WT:JUDAISM. Debresser (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Best sources

For information that is widely available, such as that there are two berachos before Kriyas Shema, which types of sources are best to use?

  • The earliest possible - in this case, the Mishna in Berachos
  • A later, widely accepted halachic text - the Mishnah Berurah
  • A modern informational guide -
  • A scholarly encyclopedia - Encyclopedia Judaica

Which types are the most preferable? (feel free to mention any I forgot to list) -- Ypnypn (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

For simple statements of fact, I prefer using a traditional source relevant to current practice (i.e. Mishnah Berurah in this case) and, in the spirit of WP:PRIMARY and WP:NPOV, a "neutral" secular source alongside it (e.g. the Jewish Encyclopedia), to support at least the general concept. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Regarding Mishna and Mishnah Berurah, it's important to note that in the spirit of Wikipedia:NON ENGLISH, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones whenever available. -- -- -- 04:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I'd use a Hebrew-English Siddur. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
That would require determining the beginning- and end-points of each bracha, etc., which could fall short of a strict interpretation of WP:OS. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

If possible, regardless of the language issues, it's always better to cite a secondary source that describes something about a primary source, rather than the primary source itself. It's not always possible, but surely this must be a case where it is...? I'd go for the third or fourth options, otherwise the siddur itself, like StevenJ81 suggests. The Mishnah Berurah (and even more so the Mishnah!) isn't a great choice because in many cases some or all strands of orthodoxy don't follow its rulings. --Dweller (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

@Dweller: On the other hand, at least the Shulchan Aruch etc are secondary or tertiary sources, unlike the Siddur itself. -- Ypnypn (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I think the best sources for such articles are English language books. This is why on kashrut I used the widely respected book by B. Forst rather than just the Shulchan Aruch for referencing the list of determinants of kashrut. For the structure of tefillah, there are a number of books in English that can be used, e.g. Elie Munk's "World of Prayer" or similar works. JFW | T@lk 13:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hillel the Elder

Something weird going on in footnotes 4 and 5. Seems like someone's trying to prove that Hillel said things before the Koran did, but it's poorly explained, in the wrong place, fairly baffling and, it would seem, unnecessary. --Dweller (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems like some editor has fixed this. I also made a minor edit there, the article looks better now. Yambaram (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

High Council of B'nei Noah

Is this organisation actually notable enough for an article of its own? Dougweller (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm quite confident that it is notable enough. I just made a few improvements to the article now. Regards Yambaram (talk) 12:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


An IP, asserting the Jews are not an ethnicity (despite me pointing him here), is making deletions based on this assertion, as here.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Epeefleche. I've reverted the IP and added the page to my watchlist. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Question -- (about "Members" list)

I saw the ["Members"] list at Portal:Judaism/Information and I was going to ask for some advice -- about how to "decide" whether to add my name to that list.

However, when I went to the "Talk:" page there (Portal_talk:Judaism/Information), it was empty, and it seemed to be sorta recommending this page instead.

Any advice? Thank you. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we should just delete that list, it hasn't been touched since 2009, and I'm not sure there's value in having a members list for the portal separate from the members list of the WikiProject.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I did a lot of work redesigning the portal over the past couple of years, and never noticed that page. -- Ypnypn (talk) 01:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
What do you think should be done with these pages then? Yambaram (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I just nominated it for deletion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay. Before it's deleted, maybe we should move the names from that list to Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Members. Yambaram (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

A Contract with God Featured Article Candidate

I've put the article for Will Eisner's 1978 graphic novel A Contract with God up as a Featured Article Candidate. Everyone is encouraged to participate in the review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Contract with God/archive1. Thanks, Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/jicny

Dear editors: Here's an old Afc submission that will soon be deleted as a stale draft unless someone decides that it's a notable topic and fixes it up to the point that it can be added to the encyclopedia. Any takers? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for this post. I decided to take care of this, and just worked on the article and copied it to my name space, where I'll improve it until it meets Wikipedia's standards. It can accessed here: User:Yambaram/Jewish International Connection of New York. Regards Yambaram (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Yambaram. It's great that you have decided to improve this draft. Please, next time though, move the existing page to your user area rather than make a second copy. I've tagged the article for a history merge, and the two should be back together shortly. Then you can work on it at your leisure. Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Alright I see, thanks! Once I finish working on it, do you know if I have to submit it at Afc, or can I just upload it/create it as a new article? Yambaram (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
You can do either. As an experienced editor, you don't have to use Afc; you can just move it to the new title. I sometimes still submit an article if I am closely connected to the subject, just to make sure that it will pass notability, but it's totally optional. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

al-Quds Day bias

I was wondering if Wikiproject Judiasm could review the article on Quds Day for bias. The article describes Qud's day as a protest to "express solidarity with the Palestinian people and oppose Zionism", while giving no criticism over the holiday's links to terrorist organizations and militant antisemitism. Monochrome Monitor (talk) 01:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Assisted help request

CorinneSD has requested help via the {{help}} template at User talk:CorinneSD#Merkabah mysticism regarding a Hebrew translation, more specifically the spelling, at Merkabah mysticism. Would someone more knowledgeable of the subject matter here be able to help them out? Thank you, Mkdwtalk 19:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 06/04

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Handwashing in Jewish Law. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Categories for renaming and moving

Please see:

Thank you, IZAK (talk) 05:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Also relevant, see the following:
Thanks.GreyShark (dibra) 17:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 08/04

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jewish poetry from Al-Andalus. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Holocaust cat changes

Here is a discussion w/regard to changing the cats for Jewish people killed in the Holocaust.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page ( If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 07:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC).

Samaritan High Priest

I'm not challenging the list but it is unsourced, lists 1 to 58 and then jumps to 112 which goes up to the current Samaritan High Priest - why the gap? I note that none but the most recent names have links, which surprises me. Dougweller (talk) 12:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Just noticed that the editor adding the most recent names has been warned for adding unsourced material & OR. Dougweller (talk) 12:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Romemu

Dear editors: Here's an old Afc submission that will soon be deleted as a stale draft unless someone takes an interest in it. Is this a notable topic, and should the page be saved and improved? —Anne Delong (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I have moved the page to my username space for now so it doesn't get deleted, and will decide what to do with it when I get the time. Thanks for informing us, Yambaram (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


I am trying to perfect the references in the article on Aaron; however I am not knowledgeable about the scriptures and other holy writings of the Jewish faith. Could someone who knows these and has some time either work with me or finish what I have started. I am trying to either link directly to the necessary passage like the {{Bibleref}} template does or the {{cite Quran}}, or reference a book that has the passages in it, preferably with the page numbers, so people like me can verify references and such. I do apologize for my ignorance on the subject. speednat (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Holy Incense

Hello, Judaism experts. The above old AfC submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Right now "Holy Incense" redirects to Incense offering. There appears to be some information in the old draft that is not in the mainspace article; perhaps someone at this project will be able to tell if it's useful and properly sourced. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Genealogical star and cross in biography articles of the German Wikipedia

Please excuse me presenting a problem from the German Wikipedia here, but it seems, it requires a broader audience.

In the introductional sentences of biographical articles of the German Wikipedia, since 2002 the genealogical symbols star "*" for "born on" and cross "†" for "died on" are used, according to de:Wikipedia:Formatvorlage/Biografie. The unique use of these symbols has been confirmed in several user polls since 2005, the last accepted poll was de:Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Form der Lebensdaten in der Einleitung von Personenartikeln in April 2014, with a vote of 40.9% : 59.1% against a new form without star and cross.

The cross as a genealogical symbol for "died on" has been used by German Protestants since about 1600, like in Family trees and official Parish registers. By the second half of the 18th century, the cross symbol was taken over by scientific genealogists like Johann Christoph Gatterer. The combination of star and cross is first known from a Handlexikon für evangelische Theologen, Gotha 1891.

Star and cross symbols were used since 1896 in the Deutsches Geschlechterbuch, an extensive genealogical encyclopedia of bourgeois or patrician families from several German regions and cities, issued by the Berlin sited genealogical association Herold. The editions of Deutsches Geschlechterbuch appeared over years with antisemitic prefaces by the editor de:Bernhard Koerner.

However, Stephan Kekulé von Stradonitz, member of the association Herold, a political conservative and opponent of antisemitism, in 1909 proposed a genealogical sign language for general use, including star and cross symbols, which he hoped would be used internationally. Kekulé wrote an entry on genealogical symbols for Meyers Konversations-Lexikon in 1910, and in the 1920, both Meyers Konversations-Lexikon and the rivaling Brockhaus Enzyklopädie started to use cross and star for biographic articles.

After 1945, several general and encyclopaedias in German have been using the genealogic symbols for biographies. However, in academic fields like Jewish studies, Oriental studies, Holocaust studies etc. the symbols are not used. Genealogical symbols did not spread internationally. The fourth international congress for Genealogy and Heraldry at Bruxelles in 1958 proposed abreviations with small letters like "b" for born and "d" for "died" which however have not been generally applied either since.

Several Jews have spoken out against using the cross symbol in biographies of Jewish persons, e.g. in 1978 in Udim, journal of the Rabbi conference in the Federal Republic of Germany. Scholars of Islam like de:Patrick Franke spoke out against the use of the cross too. In particular, the use of the cross for articles on Jewish persons in Wikipedia has been critisized e.g. in 2012 by Björn Beck, member of the Jewish community of Wiesbaden. And in a [ survey] from February 2014, 25 participants have critisized the use of the cross for articles on Jews in Wikipedia, among them several Rabbis, de:Stephan J. Kramer, former general secretary of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, and other relevant persons.

de:Wikipedia:Formatvorlage/Biografie would allow exceptions, when it can't be applied in "usefull" manner. However, it is still close to impossible to write a biographic article in the German Wikipedia without star and cross symbols. A majority of administrators either block the editor who tries to change an article, or temporarilly block the article, usually in a version with star and cross. These administrator decisions are justified by referring the results of the user polls.

At the moment, the problem is part of an ongoing abitration commitee request de:Wikipedia:Schiedsgericht/Anfragen/Verbindlichkeit der Formatvorlage Biografie.

The wmf:Non discrimination policy, approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustee in January 2006, actually "prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users and employees". One question under discussion is, whether this non discrimination policy also applies to the content of Wikipedia articles, and could be used to overrule the use poll results, in the case of articles, where a format with star and cross could be considered as discriminating, Rosenkohl (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The point of any non discrimination measure in a democracy would be to protect the interests of a quantitative minority against the vote of a quantitative majority. So it seems at least the following should hold:

1. wmf:Non discrimination policy applies to content of Wikipedia articles about real persons, and overrules user polls of local projects.

2. External objections, whether stated in the public or addressed at Wikipedia, against the use of genealogical symbols in certain articles, have to be taken into account,

3. Alternative formats without genealogical symbols should be used for an article, if there are valid objections against possible discriminations.

Rosenkohl (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Mashhadi Jews

An IP editor recently made major changes to Mashhadi Jews. [5] The changes are unsourced and written in an unencyclopedic tone, and should probably be reverted, but the older version isn't sourced either. The article has been in this condition since it was first split off as a fork from Allahdad incident on 28 April 2012.[6] Sources exist, such as [7][8][9][10][11][12] The article would benefit from some serious attention from experienced editors. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Who celebrates Mimouna?

The Mimouna article uses the terms Moroccan, Maghrebi, and North African interchangeably. Which one is it? These are three distinct regions. The Maghreb is within North Africa and Morocco is within the Maghreb. --PiMaster3 talk 10:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be Maghrebi, since reliable sources have both Moroccans and Algerians celebrating it (couldn't find anything on Tunisians). There are many more Moroccan than Algerian Jews in Israel, and that and the popular "revival" there may be the reason for the common identification with Moroccans.--Pharos (talk) 12:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Your comments would be welcome

at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#Page move request for Sirach. Dougweller (talk) 11:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jewish Fiction .net

Hello, everyone. Here's another of those old abandoned AfC submissions. It will be deleted as a stale draft unless someone takes an interest in it and edits it. Is this a notable subject that should be kept and improved? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

This seems notable. It was featured in the Jerusalem Post and the Forward, both generally reliable sources. It seems to meet the GNG. -- Ypnypn (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for checking it out. I removed a little puffery and accepted it. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Lack of WP:NPOV in Haredi Judaism article

Discussion at Talk:Haredi Judaism#Lack of WP:NPOV in this article. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Ultra-Orthodox Jews (Social Group)

Leaving aside for a moment the bad name, is this worth developing as a real article on a "social group", separate from the Haredi Judaism article?--Pharos (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I think most definitely not. It is a simple fork of Haredi Judaism, using a name which has been rejected before. I'd propose to Afd it asap. Please post a notice here if yo do. Debresser (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Done. -- Ypnypn (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
You might want to consider nominating the article for speedy deletion under criterion A10. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
@Malik Shabazz: Well, the article's been around for eight months already, and has a plausible (though incorrect) claim why it's not a duplicate, so I think it's worth going through a proper discussion. -- Ypnypn (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Makes sense. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see note at #Lack of WP:NPOV in Haredi Judaism article below. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

AfD of History of the Jews in Nepal

What do the expert editors think of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in Nepal? What should be included or excluded as part of Jewish history? Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

New RfC

There is now an RfC about the name for History of the Jews in Nepal (after there was a vote to Keep the title and the name), see Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal#RfC: Should we change article name to 'Judaism in Nepal'?. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 12:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


There is now an official WP:Deletion review, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 30#History of the Jews in Nepal. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 13:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Three murdered teenagers--Yaakov Naftali Frankel, Gilad Michoel Shaar and Eyal Yifrach

Hello. Is there really no article about the three murdered Israeli teenagers, or is it that I haven't found it yet? If there isn't one, I think it should definitely be created. I'm not quite certain how to name/start it, but I'd be happy to add more info once it is here. I've added a bit about it on Beth Jacob Congregation (Beverly Hills, California). It should also definitely make it to the "in the news" section on the frontpage. Please let me know if you can help.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers is what you're looking for.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 12:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, thank you. I hope this makes it to the front page, as it is all over the newspapers outside Wikipedia...Zigzig20s (talk) 12:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I actually kind of hope not, as the article was taken over by anti-Israel pov pushers, and is now more about the "rational" basis for the kidnapping and the "disproportionate" Israeli reaction than the actual kidnapping and brutal murder. Whatever.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
People on Wikipedia can be a bit antisemitic. There was a whole brouhaha when I suggested Lili Bosse for DYK. Anyway, I asked that it appear on the In The News on the article talkpage before I saw your reply, so we'll see what happens. Perhaps being In The News would lead more common sense editors to remove the anti-Israel POV that you mention.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

History of the Jews in X articles

Considering the Nepal case above and general issues with this type of title, do we want to consider a new standard for naming this kind of culture-by-country article?

Some options that occur to me, that might be broader, or just less awkward:

  • Jews in X
  • Judaism in X
  • Jews and Judaism in X
  • Jewish history in X--Pharos (talk) 06:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I think "Jews and Judaism in X" is most general and therefore best. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Would you support moving American Jews to Jews and Judaism in the United States, for example?--Pharos (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I would prefer "History of Jews and Judaism in X". Otherwise it sounds like the articles are only about the present, while they are mostly about the history. Debresser (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
For a number of countries we have both, e.g. American Jews and History of the Jews in the United States, and that probably makes sense for those countries that both have a major Jewish presence and where we happen to have enough material written for separate articles. In cases where the Jewish presence is minor, or where we just don't have enough material to justify two articles, which one should be the more inclusive "default"? Should that depend on the chronology of Jewish presence in that particular country? In the Nepal case, it has been argued that a History of title was obscuring the fact that the most notable events and activities are quite recent. While in the other cases, e.g., Saudi Arabia, one can make a strong case for History of as almost all of the Jewish presence is in the past.--Pharos (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I support "Jews and Judaism in X", even for the United States. This accords with Category:Jews and Judaism in X. Yoninah (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── NOTE: @Yoninah:, @Debresser:, @Pharos:, @Malik Shabazz:: Please see Template {{Jews and Judaism category tree}} to understand the hierarchy of the naming system for CATEGORIES in place on WP for basically a decade! Do not try to "fix" ten years of hard work that is built on good foundations. You need to understand the nature of the parent category, and the sub-categories and the sub-sub-categories that proceed from that!!! The category names do not match with actual articles all the time for many reasons, but the system has worked perfectly and there is no need to change it now for any reason. Any attempt to change the names will cause mass confusion and havoc and few will be able to untangle or even understand the ensuing mess that would follow or to fix all the loose ends it will unleash like opening a huge can of worms! There are reasons why "Jews and Judaism" cannot be the best category for "Jews history" simply because Jewish history includes events, personalities, including gentiles and secular events and factors that go beyond just Jews and Judaism, but they do fit perfectly in the Jewish history of [[History of the Jews in ____" (continent/region/country/city). See my fuller additional explanation below. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I think "History of (the) Jews [and Judaism] in X" is better in almost all cases, since for most places the modern community is negligible compared to the past. -- Ypnypn (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose name change: All of the articles about "History of Jews in x" are really about that. What's more, many of them make great reading. Did you know about the Jewish community in Kaifeng, China? That the tiny Jewish community of Bahrain is mentioned in the Talmud? Fascinating.
All of the articles, that is, except one. History of the Jews in Nepal is not about the history of Jews in Nepal, because - how many times has this been said? - there is no Jewish community in Nepal and never was. The article started out as a coatrack to discuss Chabad House in Kathmandu, and has turned into a wart that is threatening here to disfigure the face of articles on Judaism throughout Wikipedia.
Let us not allow this article to do that. Do not rename good articles, whose names reflect their content, because of one egregiously bad article which is made up out of the whole cloth. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep the current naming system because Jewish history and Jews and Judaism ARE NOT the same thing!!! and the parent category of Category:Jewish history, with Category:Jewish history by country covers everything including Jews, Judaism, and any related topics that impact Jewish history. There are a few cases where some articles and topics overlap but 90% of the time "History of the Jews in ____" is specific to and covers the Jewish history in that country/city/location PERFECTLY FINE! To change the current naming system would also create massive confusion with the categories because there are distinct and clear categories for Category:Judaism that deals with religious topics such as Category:Synagogues, and Category:Jews that deals with lists and names of Jews, many not even connected to Judaism or to Jewish history. With the current name of "History of the Jews in ___" it connects to and includes things like Category:The Holocaust and other topics, such as relations with Israel and other countries and topics that are historical topics and not related to the religion of Judaism, or to Jews as such, sometimes it is more indirect, and from the point of view of those GENTILES (not Jews and not connected to Judaism either!) who caused it, so it is not about Jews either but its about the Nazis and their antisemitism for example. Indeed Category:Antisemitism does NOT fit neatly into "Judaism" (unless when discussed as part of theology) or only "Jews" (nothing to do with various categories of Jews by ancestry) either but is a perfect topic when in Jewish history. The current system is NOT broken, so please do not try to "fix" it. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

For the sake of understanding the differences between the topics of Jews, Judaism, and Jewish history (not to mention Israel) and to avoid confusing them or "combining" them, and in order to keep the articles and categories relating to them separate and clear, it is important to know and understand the following navigational template {{Jews and Judaism category tree}} produced in full below. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC):

Category:Jews and Judaism category tree:
Main parent category: Category:Jews and Judaism (by country, place, region, topic.) [Main container category.]
Main sub-category: Category:Jews (by country, place, biographies, lists, categories of individuals.) [Main container sub-category.] Main sub-category: Category:Judaism (by country, place, denominations, religious topics, religious texts, synagogues, yeshivas, schools, rabbis.) [Main container sub-category.] Main sub-category: Category:Jewish history (by country, region, era, all secular topics.) [Main container sub-category.]

IZAK, despite your usual style of posting (nobody but you really understands how to improve Wikipedia, and everything you disagree with will cause havoc), I still think that the articles should be called "History of Jews and Judaism in X". Category structure has no influence on naming decisions, and if necessary will have to be adapted. Debresser (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
@Debresser: 1 It is incorrect English to say "History of Jews and XYZ" the correct way to say and write it is "...the Jews" as part of a full sentence in English. 2 While it is correct to say "History of Israel" or "History of [any country/religion]", but the same cannot be said of a people or nationality, the little word "the" must precede "Jews" in this case. While for the category it is correct to say "Jews and Judaism" as a stand-alone title. 3 In fact your suggestion creates confusion, because while it is correct to say "History of Judaism" it is NOT correct (in English) to say "History of Jews" but rather, the correct form in English is "History of the Jews" as any native-speaker of English would recognize and know right away. 4 Another objection is that why drag "Judaism" into a title that has to do with history? especially with the field of Jewish history, and note that it is NOT called "Judaism history" nor is it called "The history of Judaism" -- something entirely different since Jewish history is much more it is NOT just the "history of Judaism". 5 History is all-inclusive, and "Jews" is very specific, we do not need to add a superfluous "qualifier" of Jews "and" Judaism. 6 "Judaism" narrows the focus to a religion, while Jewish history is about not just religious topics, but also includes things and events like secular Jews, secular Jewish topics, and even opposition to and rejection of Judaism. 7 By all mean write articles about "Judaism in country XYZ" focusing only the religious aspect, such as synagogues, rabbis, yeshivas, and other things important to Judaism as a faith in that locale, but 8 that does not preclude having "History of the Jews in ____" that covers everything, including anti-Judaism, secular Jews, antisemitism and anything that effects the Jews that has nothing to do directly or even indirectly with Judaism. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
"History of Jews and Judaism" may miss the word "the", but 1. it can be added 2. titles are often in telegram style 3. the meaning is clear. All the other points you make I don't really see as issues. Debresser (talk) 07:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Victor Herman

I could use help adding this Jewish-American World Record parachutist who was known as the "Lindbergh of Russia" for which he spent 18 years in Gulag, to appropriate Jewish Categories, Projects and back-links. Thanks. -- GreenC 02:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

AfD salvage

Hello there! Would anyone be interested in adding referenced to this nomination? Seems like a valuable article to keep. King's Highway (ancient). Regards, CesareAngelotti (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sara Zyskind

Dear editors: This article was created last year, but never submitted for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Is this a notable writer, and should the article be kept and improved instead of being deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Anne Delong: As far as I can tell after brief searches in Hebrew and in English, she was notable by far; however, the article as it stands is problematic: her main claim to notability, her writing, is mentioned rather inadequately, in list form only. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, it seems that Bus stop has made an edit to the page, which delays its deletion for six months. Hopefully members of this project will take an interest in it and before then it will be in shape to move to mainspace - it doesn't have to be perfect; just notable and with any controversial facts cited. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
It's in mainspace now. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Book of Isaiah era consensus

Hello, A discussion is taking place for era-style consensus for article Book of Isaiah so see the article's talk page. Era-style is inconsistent, and ignore the recent era changes done in the article because there was no consensus approved yet. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Ezra–Nehemiah era consensus

Hello, A discussion is taking place for era-style consensus for article Ezra–Nehemiah so see the article's talk page. The era-style is inconsistent. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Synagogues face mass AfDs

This discussion contains a number of disappointingly ill-tempered and un-collegial remarks. The speculation about IZAK (talk · contribs)'s conduct and motives in raising this RfC is unnecessary and received no weight in the close. More politely-phrased, but just as unpleasant and insidious, remarks insinuating that Namiba (talk · contribs) is an anti-semite are also unnecessary and received no weight in the close. Whether or not you agree with his methods, you can take it to the bank that Namiba's motives are about improving our coverage of synagogues.

The discussion is quite wide-ranging, and goes some way outside the original question. I'll deal with the subjects discussed in what I think is a logical order, which is not quite the same order as they appear in the debate below.

Q: The RfC question assumes and implies that Namiba's AfD nominations are "arbitrary" and headed for "mass deletions". It goes on to suggest that Namiba should discuss and request improvements to articles before beginning AfDs. Is this an appropriately neutral summary of the events under discussion?
A: No. The consensus is that the RfC phrasing does not summarise the dispute in an accurate and neutral way.

Q: Should Namiba be asked to slow down his activities?
A: Although there is no consensus on this point, a number of editors express the legitimate concern that too many nominations in the same area will overwhelm our processes and this WikiProject will not be able to answer them all effectively, to the detriment of the encyclopaedia. I suggest that it would be appropriate for Namiba to focus on what he feels are the worst articles, and tries not to have too many at AfD all at the same time.

Q: Should Namiba discuss and request improvements to articles before beginning AfDs?
A: No. Anyone can begin an AfD on any subject with or without prior discussion. This is not disruptive.

I hope this helps.—S Marshall T/C 10:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Namiba (talk · contribs) aka "TM", seems to have started an arbitrary process of eliminating articles about Orthodox Judaism synagogues from Category:Orthodox synagogues in the United States, he was requested to stop this process of mass nominations for deletions without further discussions and requests for improvement of the articles. So far he has nominated for deletion these articles: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beth HaMedrosh Hagodol-Beth Joseph & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregation Tiferes Yisroel (2nd nomination) & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anshei Sfard (Louisville, Kentucky) & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregation Arugas Habosem that looks like its heading for mass deletions in this area. The nominator was requested to consider WP:DONOTDEMOLISH and WP:CHANCE and to please start a discussion or a WP:RFC if he feels such articles are not up to snuff at a venue of his choosing, or at WP:TALKJUDAISM that would make the most sense. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 03:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should there be mass AfDs of articles about Orthodox synagogues?

User Namiba (talk · contribs) (aka "TM") has nominated for deletion a number of articles from Category:Orthodox synagogues in the United States. It would be best to ask for help from the articles' creators and other editors to improve the articles first or seek input from WP:EXPERT editors here at WP:TALKJUDAISM before resorting to such drastic measures as mass deletions of years worth of work on WP. IZAK (talk) 04:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Support (need for input from wider community first)
  • Support for above reasons. IZAK (talk) 07:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per IZAK --Yoavd (talk) 10:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per IZAK --Bus stop (talk) 11:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per IZAK -- Yoninah (talk) 11:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose (need for input from wider community first)
  • Oppose(The phrasing in this RFC is vague, and it is unclear what "Oppose" means vs "Support") 'If there are various articles in some category (Religious institutions, schools, locomotives, bus routes, or books to name a few) which do not appear to satisfy the applicable notability guidelines, there is no requirement to go to a project or to ask "experts" to help, or to contact the articles' creators rather than just taking them to AFD. No limitations on AFD nominations should come from this RFC. Certainly I prefer that a nominator check to see if sources exist before nominating, and it is good to tag articles as needing better sourcing so that those interested in them can themselves add sources. If someone creates a mass of ill-referenced articles, than they should not be surprised when they get nominated for deletion. If they have their creations watch-listed, then they will see when they are tagged for notability or for reference improvement. It is standard to notify an article's creator when it it tagged for AFD. Edison (talk) 01:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I've been participating in AfD discussions for a decade now, and this isn't remotely the first time that IZAK has raised the specter of anti-Semitic bias, animus or IDONTLIKEIT at someone filing AfDs on Judaism-related subjects; it happens often enough to be a stock in trade. Whether this stems from a persecution complex or it's a delaying tactic, his frequent assumptions of bad faith are uncivil and injurious to the encyclopedia. For someone with as much experience at AfD as IZAK, I am surprised he hasn't realized before now that group or clustered AfDs are common, and there's nothing sinister about it. I've made them myself, and no doubt from the same motives as the nominator on these: that I've found a category of related articles where, upon some poking, many of the subjects fail of notability.

    IZAK’s exhortations notwithstanding, no one filing PRODs or AfDs are required to obtain any WikiProject’s permission before so doing, they’re not asked to jump through hoops not required of them by WP:Deletion policy, they’re not required to wait for a response from the article creators, they're not required to be a frequent contributor to the pertinent WikiProject, there doesn’t need to be a critical mass of active editors from an associated WikiProject, and the only one who seems to be seeking a “war” is IZAK himself ... not for the first time.

    That being said, it’s peculiar that IZAK is using up so much time and energy sounding the trumpets – never mind his outrageous suggestion that we shouldn’t be deleting articles about synagogues because of Israel’s political situation – instead of doing a very simple thing that would guarantee the retention of these articles: source them. Sorry, but sourcing articles is not some vast chore: five minutes is usually all it takes to come up with a couple reliable sources which satisfy the GNG in all but the most obstinate of articles. What’s stopping him from doing so? Why is he using all this time and effort to raise the battle flags instead of bothering? Ravenswing 07:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

    • @Ravenswing: Your response is absurd. The problem is that the original editors of most of the synagogue articles are long gone. I do not usually write on the topics of synagogues but I noticed them listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism. In my case I have thousands of articles on my watch-list and it is impossible to track all of it. There is no way to track PROds, they weren't listed by Namiba on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism either AFAIK. By the time you pick up on it the articles are often gone. The only way I came across the PRODs is by taking a look at Namiba's recent edit history and saw that he had not just nominated the AfDs but also foisted his list of PRODs. If Namiba would slow down or let some active Judaic editors know then they could spend time improving the articles. No one can "jump" to another editor's whims especially if it takes time, and it takes way more than "5 minutes" (good joke, there is so much cyber junk on Google it takes a long time to hit the right sources). Otherwise it is ridiculous to say, "oh I have just nominated 15 articles for deletion or prodding, go work on them". We are not Namiba's or anyone's slaves, we are all volunteers here and we have enough work cut out for us without being flooded by capricious mass deletions. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
            • Well, for one thing, it is not the purpose of deletion policy to make it impossible to delete articles; it is, by contrast, an easy thing to recreate articles when proper sourcing is available: which the original creators were required to provide and should have provided in the first place. Beyond that, no one asked you -- or any other editor -- to put thousands of articles on your watchlist so you could personally "defend" them, or requires you to be a "slave" to properly source them. If neither you nor any other editor wants to spend that time sourcing articles, then so be it; I just don't think it necessarily follows that the provisions of WP:V and WP:GNG concerning the requirement that articles be properly sourced should be suspended because of that. (This quite aside that you've averaged over two dozen edits on Wikipedia per day since you've joined, so suggestions that you lack the time to source articles falls just a little flat.) In any event, if you find five minutes an impossible amount of time to find sources for an article, you're doing it wrong -- it takes me a minute flat, usually.

              That being said, no, my response is NOT absurd: you quite frequently resort to claiming bias, anti-Semitism or other sinister motive to those seeking to delete Judaism-related articles ... unless you're seeking to delete them yourself. Ravenswing 08:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Ravenswing: see my responses below. I reject all your allegations, so far you have not made one constructive suggestion, just bossing around and "issuing commands" and not so veiled threats leaving people no options achieves nothing. No need to duplicate every last word. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose—The process is working. The AfD nominations have focused attention on a set of marginal articles, several of which have now been improved. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I agree the targeting is peculiar (why not a long list of Catholic/Christian churches too?) but as I say below, let's just let the process work. As long as the AfDs are constructive and based on Wikipedia guidelines, we have to WP:AGF. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 13:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Comments (additional views)
  • Comment, four AfDs is hardly a mass deletion. For me, I think that WP:PAPER is a good guiding principle in these situations, there is no harm to wikipedia as an encyclopedia in having articles on local places of worship (although they don't necessarily pass WP:GNG). However, I think that the reaction to these AfDs underline a systematic bias, we constantly get AfDs, Prods and even speedy deletions on local temples and mosques in India and Pakistan. A more consistent policy should be in place, either limiting articles to major structures (say cathedrals, or its equivalent in other religions) and to places of greater historical importance (which would exclude all synagogues in the US, considering that no synagogue in the US would be of archeological interest), or we opt for inclusion of all places of worship. --Soman (talk) 08:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
There are already a lot more than 4, so I agree with IZAK this looks like a targeted mass deletion effort now. Debresser (talk) 08:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
@Soman: thanks for the feedback. Firstly, not four but ten articles were effected (7 have landed up as AfDs, while 8 more --see above-- were PRODed but were deproded after they were either improved or directed to this RfC, and who knows how many more would have faced the music had this RfC not been requested at this time). Secondly, WP articles are deemed WP:N based on WP:V & WP:RS and adhere to WP:NPOV, and to violate WP:NOTMADEUP by suggesting that a new "architectural" standard is somehow a new "criterion" is absurd. Thirdly, the USA is a young country in the New World, officially it starts in 1776 and by your standards there should be no articles about it since nothing is really that old historically compared to the Old World. It is beyond ridiculous to state that WP "would exclude all synagogues in the US"?! on that account. Fourthly, please note that WP:NOTPAPER and it welcomes articles about everything from all times and all places, synagogues, mosques, churches, ashrams, temples, from all ages and any times and what have you included. Nothing is beyond or below or above or unreachable by WP, as long as there is WP:AGF effort being made to improve articles along the lines of more and better WP:V & WP:RS as it strives to grow as the world's largest online encyclopedia about everything. Finally, when setting about to do mass deletions it is always good policy to seek out knowledgeable editors and ask for input and arrive at a sort of WP:CONSENSUS before undertaking radical actions (something that was not done in these instances that may amount to WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior) that then results in courting controversy and a potential for WP:WAR and creation of more headaches than they solve. Thank, IZAK (talk) 10:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I never spoke about architecture, in referring to cathedrals, I was implying the function of the cathedral as a point of major importance, as opposed to a local parish church. I haven't votes neither in favour or against deletion, but a case like Anshei Sfard (Louisville, Kentucky) is hardly unequivocally notable, a local synagogue serving (as of 1971) 300 families. The Dhenupureeswarar Temple (Madambakkam), currently up for AfD, probably has a wider far audience that the Anshei Sfard synagogue and has a way longer history. The underlying tendency, which I wanted to reflect upon, is that Western editors routinely assume that features in the global south would be non-notable, whereas a feature of solely local importance in the US is assumed notable. --Soman (talk) 11:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I've hardly targeted "all synagogues". I've noticed while editing that there are a large number of articles of seemingly only local interest which do not pass the WP:GNG guideline, so I started came upon Congregation Arugas Habosem, which is completely devoid of outstanding claims to notability or outside sources and added the prod tag. Looking further in the same category, I kept digging and came upon others which also seemingly did not pass the guideline. I subsequently nominated them for deletion as well. Lastly, this is a clear overreaction by IZAK. There are no mass deletions planned. All categories deserve oversight. That I've been looking at article quality among synagogues and trying to improve or remove low quality articles is truly the job of WP:JUDAISM members. I encourage you to participate in this effort and not blindly claim that all synangogues are notable based on what some would consider your own WP:BIAS.--TM 11:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Soman: Discounting a synagogue as "local interest" completely ignores the historical notability of these synagogues which made a significant mark on the American Jewish landscape. TM, you obviously didn't spend much time "digging" or you would have found clear notability for synagogues such as Anshei Sfard and Congregation Tiferes Yisroel, which I spent a few hours on last night, adding refs to verify the already clearly-stated facts. Your latest AfD for Congregation Shomrei Emunah is a clear case of not bothering to look into the refs already waiting for you at the bottom of the page to build up the article rather than delete it. Many of your deletion rationales seem very flimsy and contradict Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built, which says in a nutshell: An article too short to provide more than rudimentary information about a subject should be marked as a stub and edited, and expanded, rather than simply deleted. Yoninah (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not sure what "support" or "oppose" mean in relation to the question. IANAWL*, but I think that we should go ahead and consider the AfDs on their own merits and not accuse anyone of targeting because in the final analysis it doesn't much matter what an individual's motivation is as long as they're making a case in a constructive way. Also, as far as this list is concerned, we could also come up with a very long list of American Catholic/Christian churches to put through the same process. On the other hand, I would like to use this opportunity to say that I think that when it comes to cultural/infrastructural organizations of local note all over the world, Wikipedia should act more like an almanac/guide, although even with that there should be guidelines for inclusion. *I am not a wikilawyer. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 13:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. While this is a valuable conversation to have, I don't think it makes much sense to structure it as an RfC.--Pharos (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Namiba:(aka "TM"); @Soman:; @Stevietheman:; @Pharos:; @Yoninah:: quite frankly this is not the best time to start a move to delete any synagogue articles given that the current Israel-Gaza conflict is now so hot that it is spilling over into attacks on synagogues in France, see Protesters scuffle with police at Paris synagogues (AP, July 13, 2014), and the problem is growing, so it behooves any editor undertaking such deletions to proceed with great care in order to avoid any semblance of impropriety until the temperature surrounding the role and place of synagogues as current flashpoints of conflict stops. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

  • And yet another AfD from User Namiba (talk · contribs), see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregation Beth Israel (Malden, Massachusetts). IZAK (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    • IZAK, please stop. The assumption of bad faith here is reaching the heights of absurdity. The RFC was already disproportionate; what do synagogues in France or war in Gaza have to do with all this? P.S. Not all of the synagogues proposed for deletion by TM are Orthodox, so the RFC heading is wrong.
      I see no reason not to believe User:Namiba/TM's explanation for the multiple PROD's and AfD's, though in the future I recommend that he/she discuss multiple nominations for deletion (of articles that are not blatantly non-notable, that is) with the relevant WikiProject in advance, as it does put a certain amount of excessive strain on the members of that project, as Yoninah indicated above.
      (TM: Of course you are right that synagogues are not inherently notable, but please realize that there was once a much greater Jewish religious presence in the American South and Mid-West, so it is fairly reasonable to assume that older synagogues, however unremarkable now, were once notable, and notability is not temporary.) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 23:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @הסרפד: (aka "Hasirpad"), please see above "NOTE: It appears that ALL synagogues are now being targeted by the same user", --- when Namiba started his mass deletion campaign he started with Orthodox synagogues, then he went on to all synagogues in the USA, then he will move on to all synagogues everywhere given this trend. One of the big problems is that we have a great shortage of active Judaic editors in this field, and many of the original editors and creators of the synagogue articles are no longer active on WP, so while Namiba contacts them it is useless because they are not home, that is why his radical moves to delete all these synagogue articles needs to be brought to the attention of any current editors who can contribute and stop this destruction of good beginnings. That's why we are having the RfC. Sorry, no use being an ostrich with one's head in the sand, but what is going on in France effects everyone everywhere because the news carries it everywhere and we are all effected, so it is a controversial no matter which way you slice it and makes it even more worrisome that Namiba has chosen just this time to undertake the deletion of synagogues. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment: So let me get this straight: because this editor has filed on a few synagogues, you claim he's going to target all of them? You think that he's doing so just because of what's going on in France? Bullshit. Just plain bullshit. You're completely going off the deep end here -- never mind that you could safely, by the same token, claim that since Israel is perpetually embattled, no one ought ever to be able to delete a Judaism-related article. You want to save the articles? Then get off your backside and source them. You can use the time you're burning up filibustering this issue in a dozen different venues to do so. Ravenswing 07:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
      • @Ravenswing: Sorry, I do not follow your orders! I am following the procedures and channels open to any WP user, please WP:AGF. Gosh this may come as a shock to you I know but we are all volunteers around here and we try to enjoy our editing and not be painted into corners we do not wish to be in just because someone decides in the middle of the night that hey WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT and gives a couple of flimsy excuses to delete, anyone with half a brain can do that. No I am not globalizing, feel free to write about anything, but don't be surprised that people bleed when you stick controversial hot pins into them. I am saying that right now synagogues are being attacked in real life and that is part of the current news cycle 1,830 Ghits for synagogue attacked (I assume you follow the news, right?) and WP even has special templates to warn about controversial topics e.g. {{Controversial groups}} & {{Controversial}} & {{Controversial-issues}} or for topics that are in the news {{Current related}} & {{Current}} (take a look at them if they are new to you) as you well know. And vulgarity is not a substitute for logic and reason. No one is obliged to "jump to attention" and fix articles that a nominator decides to hammer from out of nowhere. There is no way to respond to PRODs if they are not placed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism (in this case they were not) the only way I know something is happening. Sorry, there is the law and then there is the spirit of law and Namiba's mass nominations of synagogues for deletion, notifying old editors who are long gone and cannot defend themselves, and then just ignoring pleas to slow down is not acceptable. It is not in the spirit of WP:CONSENSUS and it is not WP:CIVIL to PROD articles and no one who is around in a position to do something can respond in time to save the articles in questions. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
        • You have been on Wikipedia far too long not to be aware of a certain rule called WP:GNG. Not having proper sourcing is not only a perfectly SOLID excuse to delete, it's damn near the most solid excuse there is, and your continued personal attacks on the nom's motives is reprehensible ... what right have you to demand AGF of anyone else when your own bad faith is not only manifest, but that mudslinging is a recurring tactic of yours going back to your ArbCom sanction years back? Now no, you're right: you don't have to follow my orders. If you don't feel like attempting to source these articles, don't. It's no skin off of my nose whether they get deleted or not. Ravenswing 08:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Ravenswing: it is really fascinating to hear your lectures about how to use WP, and feel free to dredge up the "Original sin" whilst your at it, if that is what makes you happy, but this is what's going on here in spite of your attempts to derail this discussion: 1 The only thing I DO look at is Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism and on that NONE of the PRODS were there AFAIK. 2 You also know full-well that articles have been coming in from the time of WP's inception when policies were not well-formulated and now even editors who are not experts in WP policy also contribute articles. 3 Many editors are new and we must just WP:AGF and follow WP:DONOTBITE even long after they have moved on their early work remains, and it is the job of more experienced editors to be more careful and welcoming and not act destructively, otherwise this encyclopedia will never be built up. 4 How anyone uses their time on WP is their own private business! In any case a lot of my edits are corrections of minor spelling and typos that I try to fix. I devote various chunks of time to various aspects, and it is not anyone's business to tell others how to allocate their VOLUNTEER and FREE OF CHARGE time on WP, to do so would be a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and the mark of an ingrate. 5 In this instance I see an egregious misuse of AfDs and PRODs that are counter-productive and harmful to developing the subject of synagogues on WP. That someone is WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT is their problem and no one else's. 6 Thus, the problem here is that the PRODs came up so quickly within a day or two 8 articles put up as PRODs in addition to the 7 AfDs to contend with (we do not have supermen and superwomen to edit at such a speedy rate -- your "calculations" to contrary) and the notifications went to long-dormant and inactive users that it was impossible to know about them, let alone try to improve them. 7 On top of that there are few willing and able good Judaic editors on standby in this area who can do the job. 8 That is why my complaint is against the improper brutal and blunt process being deployed here by User Namiba (talk · contribs) by not creating the right venue to start a discussion about improving the articles. It's like having a gun pointed at one's head and then have no choices, that is not called a conducive environment to collegial editing, it's more like slave-driving and walking the plank, terrible manipulation and gaming of the system, the very opposite of seeking WP:CONSENSUS and acting WP:CIVIL. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. These articles on synagogues in general should be kept. They probably should not be deleted, and that applies to most of them. A cursory look at them shows that they are sourced. Are they perfectly sourced? I don’t know. We have guidelines to keep truly marginal works out of the encyclopedia. But these are institutions. In most cases there are a lot of reliable sources speaking about them. As institutions, they reflect the will of many people. These are not the crackpot ideas of one individual. These are virtually pillars of communities, or at least counterparts of important expressions of certain ideas associated with groups of people. Wikipedia can easily host articles on institutions, if they are reliably sourced. The deleting of these articles, or the attempt to do so, is the misapplication of policy, in my humble opinion, and with I think the support of a policy called IgnoreAllRules. Many people do not stay on as long-term Wikipedians. This is the case for many Orthodox Jews. Being a Wikipedian can be a tedious task involving bureaucratically defending your work. Yes, this is a collaborative project. But we can look with a clear eye at what IZAK is referring to here. There is no practical way that the creators of the content on synagogues are going to have input to the sweeping deletions suggested here. Some of the creators of that content have moved on. They are no longer participants in the project. I’m not going to try to substantiate my argument that Orthodox Jews, if they participate in Wikipedia, do so over distinctly finite periods of time. I find that to be the case, but that is just my anecdotal observation. The number of synagogues nominated for deletion is overwhelmingly large. The nominator should consider selecting one, allow a dialogue to transpire, wait for results, and then move on to nominating another synagogue, if need be. I think the present methodology is destructive. Wikipedia is not paper, and synagogues, like museums, schools, and other institutions, are expressions of large groups of people. This is a factor that should be taken into consideration. As concerns well-established institutions, we should err on the side of keeping them. Institutions of all sorts (educational, arts, religious) only exist because a large number of people support them and wish for their continued existence virtually into perpetuity. Institutions are relatively speaking long-lived entities. No matter the sort of institution under consideration we are often talking about entities that span generations. Bus stop (talk) 11:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment with regard to the idea that the size of a congregation's temple is relevant to its notability. While I agree that a large, ornate, or old (even early 20th century) temple may add weight to notability, the converse is not true. Many believe that it's wrong to spend money on an elaborate building instead of using the money for charitable works.
    Additionally, size is relevant. Without looking at the details, on the face of it, Anshei Sfard serving "only" 300 families in Louisville, Kentucky, does not make it non-notable. That could be a significant percentage of the orthodox Jewish families in Louisville. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 15:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, AlanM1, that is all the Orthodox Jewish families in Louisville, because Anshei Sfard is the only Orthodox synagogue in Louisville (fact sourced in article). Yoninah (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Community input has been requested

Serious community input has been requested, see Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Trying to avoid WP:WAR over spate of AfDs and PRODs. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


So far, as of 21 July 2014, the following AfDs have resulted in Keeps or "No consensus":

This shows that with AGF discussions the articles can and are being improved and that it is always best to seek WP:CONSENSUS and input from editors who are willing and able to work on the improvements. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is "Yahweh is a linguistically retarded estimation"

An editor is changing all instances of Yahweh in an artcile to YHWH on that basis. Dougweller (talk) 05:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

"Retarded"? Definitely not. Incorrect, perhaps, but that question is discussed in various articles on Wikipedia. Need help there? Which article is it? Debresser (talk) 09:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I just saw that on the Book of Judges page -- and I notice that YHWH and Yahweh link to different articles, which might be something we can use as an explanation for why to revert. Aristophanes68 (talk) 13:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Debresser, after I saw him doing this on maybe 50 articles, changing quotations, changing "Canaanite god Yahweh" to YHWH, between that and other problems, WP:ANI#New editor with multiple problems, restoring copyvio, changing Yahweh to YHWH in perhaps 50 articles, etc. Dougweller (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Isn't this Lucas Newman, or something like that, who was banned from Wikipedia for his deviating interpretations? Debresser (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Probably not, but this editor has been topic banned. Dougweller (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism or Antisemitism (hyphenated or unhyphenated)

Should we be using the hyphenated or the unhyphenated form of the word? Bus stop (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Abraham A. Massias

My article on Regiment of Riflemen (United States) was accepted. One of the officer's names that I have come across more than once is Abraham A. Massias. He does not have a page but is referenced without a link. Massias was present in the "secret war" in Spanish East Florida (1812-1813) and at the Battle of Fort Peter (one of the battles fought between the U.S. and Britain after we had supposedly made peace in 1814). He was once appointed as a major, but the appointment was negated by the Senate, which leads to some interesting thoughts. There is record, I think, of his will, but I don't think I have access to the database. I don't know if there's enough information available to build a really good page about Massias, but I'd be glad to help with the military aspects.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


Could someone here please look at recent edits to Tekhelet? I only have it on my watchlist because, as a biologist, I like to see binomials such as Indigofera tinctoria formatted correctly. But I believe that the edits by AdamNeira would benefit from expert attention. Maproom (talk) 07:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Ashkenazi Jews picture changes

There has been discussion, and action, to reduce the number of religious figures in the collage from 2 to 1, which is a change from the consensus in 2009. Your collective input as to whether or not consensus has changed would be appreciated at Talk:Ashkenazi Jews#Pictures of religious figures. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 03:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Shofar blowing

Do we need Shofar blowing? It was created by Davidbena after a long addition of his was removed from Rosh Hashanah. In the resulting discussion on Talk:Rosh_Hashanah#Question a shorter text was suggested to add to Rosh_Hashanah#Shofar_blowing, and consensus forming is still ongoing. Now the question is, do we need that article? Debresser (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hasidic "dynasties" or "groups"

Do we all agree to the theme in all hasidic groups to have them titled as "dynasties"? See List of Hasidic dynasties. They are typically described simply as "groups". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

For father-son/son-in-law and father-disciple dynasties, they surely are dynasties. Only Breslov, Malachim and Vien (non-dynastic) are being listed as "groups". This was decided on the Breslov talk page in 2010. Yoninah (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I also agree that "dynasties" is the more correct name and is well-used. Debresser (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, "dynasty" as a synonym for "group" or "sect" is Wikipedian usage only, but now is not the time for a complete overhaul. A Hasidic dynasty (in the sense that reliable sources use it) is the ruling family of a Hasidic group or related set of groups. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 21:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
The articles (ostensibly anyway) are not about the ruling families (in which "dynasty" would be appropriate) but about the hasidic group, its hasidic philisophy, its minhagim, its chasidim, etc. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Isn't "dynasty" a hackneyed term? Isn't simply "Hasidic group" the more contemporaneously common term? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. I therefore also disagree with Hasirpad. Debresser (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Dybbuk category

Would it be more useful to have a category about the Dybbuk (filed through Ghosts, etc.), about adaptations of The Dybbuk (through the Works adapted... and In fiction category trees), or both? Basically, do we reckon there's enough on non-Ansky dybbuks to do the former, and for the latter, would being unable to categorize the original play be an issue? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 19:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Damnatio memoriae

Could someone please take a look at this change, which altered the Hebrew text to be completely different from the transliteration? Thanks! — Sebastian 17:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Reverted. Thanks for noticing this. Debresser (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Return of the unicorn, twice: Badger skins and Tahash

Could be wrong but these appear to be recreated from redirects. See here and here. I think this has happened before and had to be merged/AFDed and an editor blocked, but cannot recall where. Someone else may recall better. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Badger skins was already deleted with the commentary "Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban: creation by Encyclopedic researcher, a sock of Hermitstudy; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michael Paul Heart)". I don't know why Tahash and Tachash weren't deleted as well. By the way, I don't oppose keeping Tahash and redirect Badger skins there. Debresser (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

AfD which may be of some interest

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/After Saturday Comes Sunday (2nd nomination). Dougweller (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Golden Rule

There is currently a dispute about the Judaism section of this article. See Talk:Golden_Rule#Judaism. Input would be welcomed. Paul B (talk) 09:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I also see that many of the editors I remember from 5 years ago are not very active here any more. By the way, if that is true for specific WikiProjects, then that will be even more true for a meta-WikiProjects WikiProject. Debresser (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Iranian Jews edit warring.

Hi. Can I get some help with edit warring over the number of Jews in Iran? I noticed that on several articles, this info was being suppressed. The latest is this re-revert - second (marked "minor") revert by the same user of the same edit in about 24 hrs. Seems to be a concerted attempt to keep the number at 30,000 in Iran - this is what Jews now says without citation, cuz of this edit and the first diff (in this comment) above removed a cited figure of around 9,000. (Based on an actual, official government census). I don't think I'm allowed to do another rollback, unless the re-revert is "vandalism"; can an admin do something? another suppression of this info. another- the last is by an IP that has done 3 reverts in short succession, and is doing nothing but this edit warring. Block for disruption? Yes, I could post elsewhere; choosing to try posting here.--{{U|Elvey}} (tc) 19:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

/24 blocked for vandalism. (diff). Reverting the vandalism now. Could use some admin eyes on the users.--{{U|Elvey}} (tc) 21:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Hebrew-language songs and subcats

I'm looking for opinions on how (or if) to rearrange Category:Hebrew-language songs and its subcats particularly Category:Jewish liturgical poems. (The main reason for if, is I'm not sure I can be NPOV on this...)

It seems to me that the songs that are sung in Synagogue as part of prayers should be grouped together. Category:Hebrew-language songs contains both Yigdal and Ding Dong (Dana International song) (sung for Eurovision). OTOH, Category:Jewish liturgical poems contains Yigdal and Lekhah Dodi. I know that some of this is based around exactly *what* are Piyyutim, but does anyone have any suggestions? (particularly how to group things so that Yigdal and Ding Dong (Dana International song) don't necessarily end up together).Naraht (talk) 11:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The solution seems simple. Per WP:SUBCAT a song that is already in Category:Jewish liturgical poems shouldn't be in Category:Hebrew-language songs any more. Debresser (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Should artist's anti-Semitic statements be included on her page?

Irene Caesar is a conceptual artist of some note. (I don't believe she's notable enough to merit her own page and I've started an AFD here.) On her blog, she makes virulently anti-Semitic statements, including detailed conspiracy theories involving Jews trying to destroy her native country, Russia. I've tried to include some of these statements on her page, but some editors feel this info should be deleted because there are no known secondary sources confirming her views. I would appreciate it if you would read her page and comment on the talk page. Thank you, Scaleshombre (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:PSTS and WP:BLPPRIMARY. In general, we don't use primary sources in writing biographies of living people. There's a narrow exception for self-published sources (such as a person's blog); see WP:BLPSELFPUB.
If this person is barely notable, I doubt if secondary sources have commented on her antisemitism. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I've noted elsewhere that what this AfD (and for that matter the article) needs most is some investigation from editors who are comfortable in Russian, and who can opine on whether Russian-language sources are available about the subject and her viewpoints or not. There's not a lot of secondary material about her in English, but some of it seems to assert that she was/is well known in Russia. (E.g. this notice about a 2012 exhibit she had at the Harriman Institute at Columbia University. [13]) --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Arxiloxos, I saw your other posts about getting Russian-speaking editors involved. I'm sorry I didn't respond, it's just that I don't know any on Wikipedia so I didn't feel I could be helpful in that regard. However, I do know a fluent Russian speaker who's not a Wiki editor and I'm going to ask him to look at the Russian sources. Scaleshombre (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

wondering about federation merger

Have suggested change for Jewish Federations of North America article, but don't have firsthand knowledge on the subject.

  • United Jewish Appeal says "the United Jewish Communities, which was formed from the 1999 merger of United Jewish Appeal (UJA), Council of Jewish Federations and United Israel Appeal, Inc"
  • Jewish Federations of North America article says "JFNA was formed from the merger of the United Jewish Appeal (UJA), Council of Jewish Federations, and the United Israel Appeal"
  • Suggestion: how about the start of that part from Jewish Federations of North America article be changed from "JFNA" TO "United Jewish Communities" (or "UJC")?
  • United Jewish Appeal article only has two references, none a ref that the proposed 1999 merger had gone ahead (the 1999 Feb14 NYTimes ref only said a merger was planned). But pdf at says "United Jewish Communities (“UJC”) was created to merge the United Israel Appeal, the United Jewish Appeal and the Council of Jewish Federations". --EarthFurst (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I have firsthand knowledge on this, as I reported on the earliest merger discussions for the JTA wire service. Basically, the three organizations merged, and the resulting organization was the United Jewish Communities. Later, that organization changed its name to the Jewish Federations of North America. A google of should bring up lots of news reporting. Yudel (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


The following article could benefit from some improvement (including wikification, RS support, and expansion) from any interested experts out there ... Shabbos App. Epeefleche (talk) 08:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

We, I hope, all understand that this article was created to promote this app, which indeed is highly controversial, as admitted in the article. Debresser (talk) 10:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Merge: Hebrew Bible & Tanakh & Old Testament names

Please see the discussion at Talk:Hebrew Bible#Proposed merge with Tanakh. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


Would somebody please explain to Theredheifer (talk · contribs) that when reverted he should not edit war but discuss. We are in argument on many points recently on a few articles, but he does not seem to understand that simple rule, based first and foremost on WP:BRD. I do not want to go into the many content disputes themselves, which we are currently working on solving, but if any editors would want to give their opinions, I would also appreciate that. IMHO, and excuse me if I sound a little arrogant, Theredheifer is a promising contributor to Wikipedia, but a little too insistent on some inferior phrases and sources. Debresser (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Would someone please explain to Debresser (talk · contribs) that he is using WP:BRD incorrectly. When an editor adds material that is reliably sourced from academic publications and academic writers then that does not merit the use of the term BOLD. He also does not seem to understand how non religious sources are used in wikipedia. I have seen explanations to him of what a Primary source is, and of how to incorporate sections that use academic sources into an article, but he seems to reflexively revert and then ask for proof that something is not fringe when the names of the authors and their views can be easily checked. I think that his problem is revealed when he writes that articles on religious topics must be written from an 'insider' POV. This is simply not how wikipedia works, and any attempt to enforce that will result in much good material not being used. Wikipedia is not a religious encyclopedia. All major POV should be represented. If an individual author is not familiar with modern academic findings then excuse me if I sound a little arrogant, but why do they not check rather than revert, edit war and disrupt?Theredheifer (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I regret that Theredheifer decided to post here about part of the content dispute. This post was supposed to be about behavior. In any case, I and USER:IZAK have already tried to explain to him at Talk:Sukkot#RS_material_that_belongs_here that his opinions about how to represent viewpoints are misguided. Whatever his excuse, WP:BRD applies to all posts, even posts which are deemed by one of the sides of a conflict to be "correct". Please also note that WP:BRD says that "BRD is best used by experienced Wikipedia editors", which Theredheifer is certainly not. In addition, I resent the way he is mocking my post here by reiterating my words but for his own arguments, and I would like somebody to point him to WP:CIVIL in this regard. All in all, Theredheifer is hardly an agreeable editor, and perhaps somebody could explain to him that this is related directly to his behavior, rather than to his sources or opinions. Please notice that my next step will be WP:ANI. Debresser (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I can only find one post by IZAK on the page that is linked to, and it has nothing to do with any explanation to me. Can someone please point me to the material, as I cannot find it at that link?Theredheifer (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


I was appalled by the state of the lede and first section of the Sukkot article. I have rewritten them, throwing away a lot of garbage, IMHO. It may be argued that some of the things I removed should have a place in the continuation of the article, but given that the sukkot article is rather short, I doubt it. Perhaps some of my fellow editors with knowledge of Jewish festivals would care to have a look? Debresser (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that some of this doesn't necessarily need to be in the lede, but I think you removed a good deal of reliably sourced information. For instance, this edit removed information that relied mostly on primary sources, contra guidelines, but also a citation to Pilgrimage and the Jews, which appears reliable, without moving the information elsewhere. Similarly, in this edit, you completely removed reliably sourced information about possible regional origins of Sukkot. Based on these edits + your recent edit to add a low-quality source (a personal website), I think you might be confused about WP:RS. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 19:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Roscelese. Thank you. It is precisely this kind of constructive commentary I was hoping for when I posted here.
Regarding the first issue, that in this edit I removed information about Sukkot becoming the time for "state occasions". First of all, that statement said "perhaps". So it is only speculation. I do not think Wikipdia should mention all speculations brought forward by academics. Their speculations are a myriad, but only few make it to accepted academic theory. That general observation set aside, let's continue. Then there follow 3 examples, which - I suppose - were mentioned in that source. First of all, I do not think we need to bring those examples at all. Wikipedia articles shouldn't go in to the proofs of all theories it brings. This is an encyclopedia, and not a scientific textbook. Moreover, if we look at the examples, then regarding the first example it is specifically stated in the Torah that the reason is because the people are anyways gathered for Sukkot. The other two examples, however, are incorrect. The second example is wrong, because the dedication of the first temple took place before Sukkot, including - most interestingly - on Yom Kippur, as follows clearly from the one of the 2 sources provided, 2 Chronicles 7:9, while the other source, 1 Kings 8:2, only mentions that the dedication took place in the month of Tishrei (called - interestingly - the "month of the Ethanim" in that verse). The third example is also wrong, because the source, Ezra 3:6, specifically states that the offerings began on Rosh Hashana. So even if 3 examples would be reason to suppose rule, even by way of speculation, a statement which I would challenge in itself, because of the low number of examples, upon examination of the sources, we find that they are incorrect, and so the whole assumption falls. Debresser (talk) 00:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the second issue, that in this edit I remove source information about possible regional origins of Sukkot. I agree that that information is very interesting. But, again, first of all it would be necessary to see if that is (again) one academician's opinion, or if that parallel is mentioned in subsequent literature on the subject. In addition, the paragraph I removed never said that the connection between the two festivals is the foundation for any theory, like a theory regarding possible regional origins of Sukkot. Drawing attention to a link is at most a way of presenting an argument in a theory, and is so two steps removed from any theory. Those extra steps were only suggested by the placement of this paragraph in its specific place in the Sukkot article, which was done by the editor, and is therefore original research at best, or straight-out incorrect at worst. By the way, I noticed that the name of the author is mentioned without any academic honorifics, which is strange. On the other hand, he seems to have several publications on the subject of the connection between Canaanites and Israelites to his name. Debresser (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the last issue, the reliability of as a source for Wikipedia. I have to admit, that I never noticed this is a personal website. Both because of the obvious quality of the information on the site, to which I can testify from my personal knowledge in the field of Judaism, and because I have seen it used as a source on Wikipedia before, more than once. Nevertheless, rules are rules, even though in this case I feel the rule may safely be ignored. However that may be, the same information about the mixed historical and agricultural origins of Sukkot (and the other 2 major festivals Pesach and Shavuot) is available on a multitude of other websites as well, as well as written sources. Perhaps this link is a better source. I found it by simply Googling "origin sukkot agricultural". I certainly have no problem with other editors improving the sourcing of an article, and invite you to do the honors. Debresser (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think reliably sourced academic content must necessarily be omitted because it is "speculative". This isn't someone just hypothesizing on a blog - this is what an expert thinks based on their research. It's frequently the case that the best we can say about an ancient subject is ultimately speculative, just because of our chronological distance from it. Are there many speculative theories about Sukkot's origins out there, such that it would be a bad idea to include every little one? I haven't looked into it myself, but I doubt that's the case. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 02:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
This is correct. I edit a lot of archaeology articles - get rid of all the speculation about archaeological sites and you wouldn't have anything but dry details. Dougweller (talk) 10:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I understand and agree. Still, according to WP:RS we should preferably use secondary sources. The reason for that instruction is precisely as I explained above. The sources I removed were primary sources, and so apart from the other serious problems that I explained above are evident in these specific sources, they are also inferior because they are primary sources. Debresser (talk) 11:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The Biblical quotations are primary sources, the academic articles are secondary sources of exactly the kind that WP:RS prefers. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 15:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me that you are the one misunderstanding WP:RS. Regarding these academic speculations these sources are the primary sources. Debresser (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
"Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved...A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources."Roscelese (talkcontribs) 20:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing me to my mistake. So now we are "only" left with all the other things I wrote, especially criticizing the first source and the lack of an actual claim or theory in the second source leading to original research or synthesis problems. Debresser (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Resolving the Religious/Traditional versus Academic/Modern POV conundrum

The above squabble is not called for because the simple way that it has always been resolved in WP articles is by first citing the classical religious sources and point of view, and then later, usually towards the end of such an article, to mention latter-day academic theories (e.g.: ==Academic or Secular or Christian theories== [pick one or some]) without them changing the traditional observance of the Jewish holidays according to the teachings of Judaism and its sources and then later making room for mention of how secular/atheist/Christian/academics/what have you look at such things. WP has room for all POVs as long as they abide by WP:NPOV. IZAK (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that a better title would be Contemporary Scholarship as is used at Yom Kippur. Academic views come from a variety of opinions and none. Most of the articles about religious Judaism could do with more input from non Rabbinic (or classical, or traditional) sources. Splitting off non Rabbinic sources into a section called Academic views would make them appear POV. All views are welcomed on wikipedia articles, and if we have to have a special section then at least it should be titled in a neutral phrase such as scholarship or something similar. There are no 'insider' or 'outsider' approaches on religious topics in wikapedia, or at least there should not be. There is a wealth of material which could be added which would inform readers. It would be useful if there was a general title that this material could be added under, and I would appreciate a decision so that the same title can be used on all articles. PS if any title is non neutral and POV, it is surely the phrase traditional which is really just a weasel word for Rabbinic. There are many Jewish traditions, many of which are not religious. Theredheifer (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
This is already being discussed elsewhere. Debresser (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
This request relates to the whole project so it belongs here, it is not a request restricted to one article.Theredheifer (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Correct. Which is why I linked to it above, and the discussion takes places there. Debresser (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Semitic editing

Is this project a suitable place to notify others of possible Anti-Semitic editing? If not, advice would be appreciated does the appropriate place.Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 01:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Book of Elchasai

Requesting to add article: Book of Elchasai to this Wikiproject, and also have an article rating. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Temple Beth Am in Los Angeles, California

Hello. Is there an article about Temple Beth Am in Los Angeles, California? If so, I cannot find it, and we should create a redirect. Otherwise, would anyone be interested in starting a page about it? It is very historic. Shalom!Zigzig20s (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Is the X-Man Iceman Jewish?

There is a rather long discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Is Iceman Jewish? about how to characterize the character in question. Anyone input from someone who might be knowledgeable about how we in wikipedia the term in question in context would be more than welcome. John Carter (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

List of Jewish actors at AfD

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


I am trying to add the following passage to the Kashrut article but I am being reverted. Where can I put it. Here is what I want to put: In the Samaritan Torah, in Exodus 23:19 prohibition is followed by an addition: כי עשה זאת כזבח שכח ועברה היא לאלהי יעקב— “for whoever is doing this, it is like a sacrifice of forgetting and indignation to the God of Jacob”.[1] (talk) 00:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

What page is the conflict on? Maybe your addition is valuable, maybe it should be reverted. Till we see the article and the specific edit you propose, there is nothing we can say about this issue. Debresser (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Debresser See my post on Talk:Kashrut and the response by Aleksig6 there. JFW | T@lk 20:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


Hanukkah has two yellow-level maintenance tags on it, which means it will be ineligible for inclusion on WP:Selected anniversaries/December 16. Please rectify this as soon as possible. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 06:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Article move discussion

See Talk:Š-L-M#Requested_move_18_December_2014. GregKaye 07:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ithiel

Hello, are there thoughts on the article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ithiel? I wasn't sure if this was the right place to ask about it. --TKK! bark with me! 04:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

WikiProject X icon.svg

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Archived Assessment Request from 2013 (Shemini Atzeret)

  1. Shemini Atzeret. I have nominated Shemini Atzeret for promotion to GA. Is someone here willing to be reviewer? Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    Review underway. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
    Good article Promoted to GA. StevenJ81 (talk) 02:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
    Good article reassessment Currently in GA reassessment. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
    Delisted good article Delisted. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Help with edit battle over the death of Elazar in the Megillat Antiochus

I looked at the article on Elazar Avaran and noticed an error in how he was said to have died according to the "scroll of Antiochus" (a/k/a Megillat Antiochus). A wikipedia rollbacker reverted the changes. I made certain to indicate all of my sources are primary sources and I've been discussing this at length on the Talk page. How can I better convince this editor to stop reverting my edits short of teaching them to read Aramaic? Aharonium (talk) 07:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

This issue appears to be resolved. Aharonium (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles concerning Judaism and open-source licensing and culture

Hello. To introduce myself, my name is Aharon. I'm a Jewish educator and community planner and outside of Wikipedia I direct a project that I founded called the Open Siddur. I've been working on improving several articles related to open-source and Judaism. One article, on Open-source religion, might lie just outside the scope of WikiProject Judaism, but the other article on Open Source Judaism is pertinent. It's been given a B-Class rating under WikiProject Judaism and WikiProject Jewish culture. I'd like to invite other wikipedia editors to scrutinize and improve all of these articles. Besides my work on these articles, I'm generally curious about efforts in the study of Judaism and the creation of Jewish culture which use open-source licensing to facilitate collaboration in user-generated content projects. (By open-source licensing, I'm referring to licenses such as the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike Open Content and copyleft license under which Wikipedia articles are shared.) My interest in this topic extends to the combined efforts of so many volunteers on Wikipedia as well as on Hebrew Wikisource and other local Wikimedia sites. I'm pleased to see that WikiProject Judaism itself was written about in a Signpost article in 2009. I'm interested in the history of this and similar efforts being documented, so that a history of what I believe to be an important effort be preserved. And so, I'd like to invite, to the degree that Wikipedia guidelines may permit, some discussion of WikiProject Judaism's own history among anyone interested. I invite this discussion with no other motive outside of my interest (which I hope is a shared mutual interest) in documenting history and culture. (If I have transgressed any Wikipedia guideline or convention in presenting this invitation for discussion, then please forgive me. Please receive this invitation in the open spirit in which I intended.) Aharonium (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


My English is not good so I'm sorry in advance. Hi, there is a lot of disorganization in the Template:Jews and Judaism - also mixsing between jews, Judaism and Israel. Not Informative enough and too long.

Also, while surfing i have noticed some incorrect and even some Antisemitism infected values. like the Jews as the chosen people, when i have tried to fix it, Every time they canceled my editing (Also there is a need to add to that value that this idea of the Jews as the chosen people was a top Refueling source for anti-Semitism - Psychological projection, Oedipus complex, that have been used by everyone including Hitler. Read; Avi Beker, The Chosen: The History of An Idea, and the Anatomy of an Obsession, 2008).

I have started with Template:Jews and Judaism - that needs to be ERASED. Which mixed between Jews, Judaism and Israel, was to long and not informative enough.

Instead of Template:Jews and Judaism i have built the 2 Templates: Template:Jews in the world and Template:Judaism; History and Philosophy. Maybe there names also sould be changed(?)

I have noticed that there's also a Template:Antisemitism topics. So I'm going to delete the matter from - Template: Jews in the world and to move it to Template:Antisemitism topics.

It is necessary to decide what would be the topics of the Templates and to organize it all... After that the Templates should be add to all of the relevant values. DaoXan (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, welcome here. I think Template: Jews in the world is 1. too large to be useful 2. redundant to the also very large and all-inclusive Template:Jews and Judaism. That would hold true IMHO even for the reduced version of this template. Which is why I nominated both Template:Jews and Judaism and the split off Template:Judaism; History and Philosophy for deletion. Debresser (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
It's the same length as Template:Jews and Judaism and way more Informative and focused matter..
See also: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 25
DaoXan (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Then perhaps go to the talkpage of Template:Jews and Judaism and make some specific suggestions to improve that template. Debresser (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your criticism of Template:Jews and Judaism is. It mixes Jews and Judaism? Too long? I understand that English isn't your first language, but specific suggestions would be appreciated. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

"Jewish" RSs

I am engaged in a chat on a talk page here with an editor who is of the view that Jewish RSs (e.g., The Forward) and presumably Israeli RSs (the conversation includes Haaretz) should not be relied on as refs for inclusion in text of an article of (certain?) Jewish subjects (such as whether a person is Jewish). The conversation may interest some of you. Epeefleche (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Seven Laws of Noah

This article mentions that one of the seven is a prohibition on homosexuality. What's the best Jewish source materials for Wikipedia for definitive lists, allowing for the usual dissent? Encyclopedia Talmudit and Jewish Encyclopedia both cite adultery, with no mention of homosexuality, and they're strong secondary sources. --Dweller (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the Rambam says (Hilkhot Melachim 9:1) "giluy arayot", which means all illicit relations. Debresser (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Machloket rishonim is great fun, but I think we'll need [a] secondary source[s]. Besides, as an aside, Rambam's comment just opens the question of what constitutes all illicit relations for people who do not have ol mitzvot. --Dweller (talk) 09:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
It is more a makhloket akhronim in this case. :) By the way, I would regard the Rambam as a secondary source as to the content of these commandments. You are right, that the article needs more detail what precisely constitutes illicit relations. All my books are still in cartons after I moved. For the time being I decided to make some changes to the article, to have the more general "illicit relations" there already. Debresser (talk) 10:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
That's helpful, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 10:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Please comment in Talk: Reform movement in Judaism. AddMore (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Joseph Cattaui

A pretty interesting figure who made it to Finance Minister in, of all places, Egypt, and who should have an article. Good sources here, here and here. - 2601:6:8400:478:9E4:FC8:E03A:57BA (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

So be BOLD and write it. (If it's easier, create an account and start writing in a sandbox. I'll come look and help if you want.) StevenJ81 (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

"Table of Nations"

The usage of the pagename Table of Nations is up for discussion, see talk:Sons of Noah -- (talk) 12:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ “A Young Goat in Its Mother’s Milk”? Understanding an Ancient Prohibition by Stefan Schorch, Vetus Testamentum, Volume 60, Issue 1, pages 116-130