Talk:Chayei Sarah

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 February 2008. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Discussion about sources

This edit reverted the removal of unsourced, duplicate, and in-universe content which violates a number of our policies. The reason provided is that an AfD discussion concluded we keep this set of articles, and that the removals should have been further discussed first. On the contrary, the AfD discussion concluded that these articles are in serious need of cleanup, and that many parts of them would need to be removed... but that the article titles should be kept, and better content added. Secondly, no change, however big or small needs discussion first. See WP:BRD and WP:BOLD. I'm happy to discuss this if anyone has any actual objection to the content, but please do not revert and simply "ask for discussion", as that gives us nothing to actually discuss.

I'm going to (arbitrarily) use this page as a central point for discussing this issue (since it's the same across all the articles). — Jess· Δ ♥ 15:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So Jess, why do you find the links between the parsha and the Jewish liturgy or the commandments that the Jewish tradition find in the parsha to be offensive? -- Dauster (talk) 01:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? When did I say anything was offensive? — Jess· Δ ♥ 01:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mann jess, you are the one going for mass sweeping changes. So you need to justufy your moves because this will have massive impact, as you well know. As far as I can tell you are implicating me by saying my reverts of your wholesale changes "violates a number of our policies" -- you are taking the grandiose liberty of identifying yourself with WP. Editors should not use the "royal we" if they want to be taken seriously. Please do not talk down to any editors. If you want to speak for yourself, fine, say "I" or "my opinion" is such and such, but quit making out as if you speak for WP because you do not! For every policy you cite, I can cite an opposite, so let's stop playing that game. Just be honest and upfront, and please display some caring for this subject and not just chop at articles in violation of WP:POINT, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:AGF. Thank you. P.S. and oh yeah, please don't run to the various admin forums if you don't get your way. That is also not a way to "win friends and influence people" especially when you want to conduct massive edits in a subject you have not previously shown any interest in or predilection for, based on your ...editing history... Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 07:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few thoughts: The issue of sourcing for "summaries" and like is addressed by the fact that the primary source is presumed to be used in the construction of the article. We don't require inline citations for "Plot summary" sections for films, novels, etc., precisely because the primary source (in this case, the Torah and its individual books) serve as the implicit source for the material. This is long-established standard.

Also, much of the material removed was, in fact, sourced. Everything under "In the liturgy" and "Commandments", to be specific. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you disagree with Jess' edits, please remember to assign pure motives to other editor's actions. There is no reason for the meanness displayed in a few of the responses above. Please remember to discuss the issue at hand, do not cast aspersions, and do not attack the individual. --Bachrach44 (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bachrach: Thanks for your feedback. From my part, I was simply responding to Mann jess's words as he wrote them. There is no intention to "cast aspersions" but he is aggravating a lot of people and he does not seem to get the reason why, just repeats his lines and thinks he can cut up these 54 parsha articles that have been beautifully put together over about 7 years. It is easy to destroy and much harder to build. Often times, there are cries that Judaism-related articles do not have enough links or sources or are just stubs for years. Here we have the opposite situation, of plentiful links and sources, but that need work and can be improved. But not by threats, arbitrary actions, taking articles to AfDs, and taking some sort of "high ground" as if he speaks for WP and knows what's best for it, in a subject that he has no proven track record in. Any editor needs to prove their bona fides in any given subject and win the confidence of fellow editors in such articles to make positive headway. Otherwise what you get is gridlock and edit wars and poisoning of the well that lead to all sorts of unpleasant results, that we could all avoid and do without. After all, these articles are about the Torah that many Jews believe comes from a Divine source, while Mann jess is entitled to be a "secular humanist" as he describes himself on his home page, he needs to tread with caution, otherwise he seems to come across with an agenda, and we can all avoid that by pulling back from the brink. IZAK (talk) 13:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, IZAK, no, you weren't. You also rather clearly and directly impugned his own edit history. I do believe that several editors should be WP:POV before making any substantial changes to the article, or trying to impugn others and then denying having done so. I am personally rather disgusted by the arrogance, condescension, and refusal to AGF of some of the above comments, and believe that should they continue some form of more drastic action might wind up being required. John Carter (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having participated in the AfD process related to these articles, I can firmly state that the comment that "the AfD discussion concluded that these articles are in serious need of cleanup, and that many parts of them would need to be removed" is incorrect. As I stated at the Noach AfD, the issue is NOT removal of content; The issue is that the ample sources provided at the end of the article need to be associated more directly with the material quoted from theses references. There appears to be no justification for removal of content, and the AfDs argue both for retention of these articles and for the content included therein. Alansohn (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True. What was indicated was that "critical commenatary," to quote the closer, presumably independent of Judaism, should be added to ensure that the articles are NPOV. Honestly, I personally find it all but impossible to imagine that there really is any such critical commentary on these readings outside of Judaism. Many other groups which revere the Bible have their own schedules of readings, and it is unlikely that they would pay any real attention to the schedule of readings of another faith. These specific readings are, in and of themselves and independent of the Bible which they are derived from, of little if any real importance to anyone outside of Judaism. Therefore, it is almost certain that any "critical commentary" which might relate to the material contained in these readings would be found best and most appropriately added to the articles on the Bible stories themselves, and I imagine any attempts to add it to these parsha pages would immediately be removed on that basis. That being the case, what I see here is, very possibly, an article which is more or less exclusively, probably for at least the forseeable future, a form of POV fork, legitimate or not, unless someone somehow finds sources from outside of Judaism which specifically address these parsha readings as parsha readings, rather than biblical texts. If that happens, and the articles are kept in the same shape, and there is evidence to that effect given the recent editing history on them, the prospect of any number of similar articles, also of the same basically inherent POV nature exists as a very real possibility. I can't imagine Richard Dawkins has specifically commented on the Catholic Church's mass readings on Adam and Eve, for instance, so no material on that would be added to an article on the Catholic Church's mass readings. Substitute in the Orthodox Churches, the Anglican churches, the Lutheran churches, or probably any other major Christian group if you prefer. Yes, for the Catholics, and I think the Othodox and probably others, there are homiletics journals about these topics, which would probably rather easily establish their notability. Honestly, as an individual, I wouldn't myself object to single sets of articles for Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Bahai, and whatever else might use Bible readings. I just can't imagine that would actually be the outcome, over the course of time, and on that basis have very serious reservations about keeping this material as it was before the discussion, because if it is kept I believe the morass of denominational POV articles I allude to above will almost certainly follow rather quickly. John Carter (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, John, Judaism (and for that matter, Islam, Christianity, and other faiths) exists as a phenomenon in the world. It is notable, and its treatment of its sacred texts is notable. We can reargue forever whether we believe that these articles provide merely a variation on some other articles or if they report a unique phenomenon. I believe that the earlier discussion resolved that in favor of the latter view. Going forward, I, for one, will try to focus on how to improve the articles. And to that end, I do appreciate the suggestions given here and before for how better to set forth the matter that these articles seek to describe. -- Dauster (talk) 09:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to WP:NPOV, "neutrality" here means not denigrating the input of, say, a Reform or Conservative Jewish commentator or scholar, or even a non-Jewish one, just because s/he is not an Orthodox or classical commentator. It doesn't mean that because the POV is Jewish, it is an automatic NPOV violation; that would be an absurd result.
Where we have trouble in this discussion is drawing the line between what "properly" goes in the parsha article and what "properly" goes in the story article. The line is fuzzy, and there is bound to be overlap. It seems to me that experts in Judaism are better placed to make the final call on this, after soliciting opinions widely.
Based on WP:BOLD and other such places, I don't think that Jess is, in principal, out of line in making wholesale edits. However, based on history, as well as on the collegiality of the WP editing process, I think it is clear that such will generate a lot of controversy, and I would strongly urge, let's say, that non-trivial editing work be discussed before being implemented.
Finally, I would go to Jess's appreciation of Dauster's work at Devarim and Va'etḩanan. Dauster worked there because these are the current parshiot in the cycle. I would strongly urge people to try to work near the current parshiot, because it will be easier for all of us to address. I would strongly urge patience in working through the 54 articles--does it really matter how quickly any individual one gets fixed if we are all committed to fixing?

StevenJ81 (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mann jess's mass changes to what gain?

I have reverted User Mann jess (talk · contribs)'s arbitrary changes with the summary that "...User Mann jess has ignored 2 Keep decisions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/non-notable bible-division articles & related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noach (parsha). Full discussions require fullest versions." This should be obvious if we are to have a full and balanced discussion that will impact all 54 parsha articles. It's too vast a subject to be chopped up by one man (Mann jess) there needs to be wider WP:CONSENSUS and input from expert Judaic editors familiar with this subject as it's part of Judaism's weekly Torah portion system of Torah readings according to the division of 54 parshas. Let us recognize the issue here, that it's the opposite of the problem one encounters with a WP:STUB, and accordingly it requires care that lots of the good material not be lost or can be held. Let's not kill "The Goose That Laid the Golden Eggs" (mostly by User Dauster (talk · contribs) who has done an amazing job that has lasted around 6 YEARS!!!) in dubious haste or for unclear gain. Just what is to be gained by eviscerating this and the 53 other parsha articles? After all, WP:NOTPAPER does not limit the valid length of valid subjects and reams could be written on the parsha. Could you please explain Mann jess??? Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that most of the content removed was actually relevant. I think we need to come to an agreement that all articles about the 54 Pentateuch portions should be considered as if they encompass the chapters that they cover. In that sense, Chayei Sarah covers chapters 23-25 of Genesis. It is completely reasonable to carry a synopsis of these chapters, ideally with a high-quality secondary source (such as a respected Bible translation such as Sherman). When it comes to the ancillary content, we should be adding secondary sources rather than removing content unless it is quite clear that this content violates NPOV, V or NOR/SYNTH. Such content should be relatively easy to spot. JFW | T@lk 08:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with IZAK, JFW, and Evanh2008, above. The division of the weekly Torah portions (or parshiyot) has been in place for thousands of years. Each of the 54 parshiyot is clearly delineated by chapter and verse. Every scholarly and religious book on these parshiyot naturally includes a synopsis of the parsha in order to expound on the themes and connections between the various subjects discussed in that parsha, and Wikipedia articles should be no different. As Evanh2008 so aptly pointed out, Wikipedia articles on movies and novels have plot summaries that require no sourcing at all, whereas parsha synopses are easily sourced by the appropriate chapter and verse number. I think Jess should defer to the Judaic editors who understand the subject matter and Wikipedia rules, and leave this alone already. Yoninah (talk) 09:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with IZAK, JFW, and Evanh2008, above.

I do not understand why the isue was raised again, after another dicussion about another weekly Torah portion was discussed a few weeks ago. --Yoavd (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would also urge once again those editors who seem to have clear and obvious POV issues regarding this content to act in accord with policies and guidelines. I believe the most reasonable possible approach here would be go file a request for comment on the material, seeking to involve primarily editors who do not have a clear and obvious bias toward the religion in question. I personally have extremely serious questions whether such editors are likely to be even remotely capable of adhering to WP:POV about something they have such strong emotional and personal ties to. And I sincerely hope that some of the above editors cease the irrational and counterproductive personal attacks and insinuations regarding others. In all honesty, such comments on persons only really show outsiders just how weak the arguments of those engaging in the atttacks really are. John Carter (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~sigh~ This is really draining. I'm just trying to bring these articles up to our normal standards. I really don't have the time or energy to be wading into a bunch of drama, heading to WQA, starting RfCs, etc... particularly when I'm one of the only editors actually making changes to these articles to fix these issues. Can we all please just calm down, and talk this issue over rationally? I've never displayed any animosity to anyone here; it'd be really nice if that favor was returned.

I see all my edits were reverted, again, across a series of these articles, thus restoring the Summary section, a huge swath of external links, and reverting other fixes. Some editors have said that the summary section is relevant, but I'm really not sure it is. We already have this material covered in their specific articles, and this summary takes up the majority of the page. What's worse, it's written entirely in-universe style; Noach (parsha) begins "Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his age, who walked with God." We have similar wording in this article too. That's not encyclopedic content. We simply cannot be saying that "Noah walked with God" in wikipedia's voice. I'll also point out that discussion (and consensus) formed some time ago regarding many of the changes to Noach (not made by me), which have also been reverted with no further discussion. That seems a bit combative. Those editors supporting this content, have you read WP:INUNIVERSE? What about WP:EL and WP:ELNO regarding the 40 external links listed at the bottom of the article. Could you comment on how those guidelines/policies interact with our content. What areas of this article (that have been discussed) do you think need improvement, and what areas of improvement we've discussed do you think aren't necessary? Thanks.

Finally, where are all these editors suddenly coming from? I posted this section days ago, and received hardly any input until suddenly, this morning, there's a flurry of interest. Is this conversation being advertised somewhere new? — Jess· Δ ♥ 16:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John, on the flip side, it is the editors who have spent years and decades studying these parshiyos who are the ones most likely to understand their importance and notability within Judaism and its traditions. Naturally, we all (you, me, Jess, IZAK, etc.) have points of view and we must be careful to adhere to wikipedia policy, but I believe your statement borders dangerously on trying to marginalize expert opinion based on their upbringing, notwithstanding adherence to wikipedia policy. Is the next step to forbid ordained priests from working on Christianity articles or imams from working on Islam-related articles? I concur that strong remarks should be kept to a minimum, but I also maintain that Jess needs to supply a very good reason for any removal, and preferably should discuss each and every suggested change (or group of related changes) on talk prior to making them in the article, in light of previous consensus against some of his attempted changes. -- Avi (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an orthodox Jew. When I would come to an article like this, I expect to see the orthodox Jewish POV, because that's the context for this subject. When , in fact, I come to an article about any part of the Bible, I expect first to have it summarized in its own terms, as written, with interpretations from other POV to follow. It is possible that a reader might somehow find this article without realising it describes a term significant only to the Jewish religion, so we can say it does in the first sentence, once. We could preface every sentence saying, "According to the text, ...." but that's assumed. The WP rule about in--universe is just intended to ensure that this is clear. We would to write in the article on Hamlet, not "Hamlet is the Prince of Denmark,..." but "In Shakespeare's Hamlet, Hamlet is the Prince of Denmark." After that we can go on describing the character without the need to mention further that he is fictional. At some point in the article, we will discuss any possible correlations with an historical prince of Denmark. Similarly, we would write "In the Bible, the first book opens with the account of God creating the universe in seven days" and then go on to the details as written there. We wouldn't say "In the book that religious Christians and Jews call the Bible, the first book opens with a description of how an entity in which some people believe to be God creating the universe during a period said to be seven days." When we describe a Catholic church window, we say it represents, for example, the figure of Saint Peter, not that it represents the figure of the putative individual whom that particular church considers to be a holy man that they conventionally call St. Peter. DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Folks: I’m trying to address some of the issues raised in this discussion by introducing the summary material in the context of the Torah reading. I’ve done this in last week’s and this week’s readings, Devarim and Va'etchanan. Could folks look at those rewrites of the summary to see if I am moving in the right direction? Thanks. -- Dauster (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dauster, I didn't read through the entire section on both, but the first paragraph of "Readings" in Devarim (parsha) is excellent. That's precisely what we need, and is an absolute asset to that article. Thank you.

The content below, which gives a precise summary of each chapter, may still not be necessary within these articles, for the reasons I specified above. Taking Noach (parsha) as an example, the detailed summary of the story belongs in Noah's Ark, Noah and Tower of Babel. Some is then also repeated in Book of Genesis, and also Noah in rabbinic literature, and a variety of other articles too. As far as I can tell, this level of repetition is prevalent across each of these parsha articles. I wouldn't be averse to briefly summarizing the parent article (e.g. Noah's Ark, Book of Genesis, etc), which is typically done by copying or transcluding the intro (or relevant summary) from the parent article. The point is, the summary here should should not be overly repetitious and detailed; it must be brief, and should match our other articles on the topic.

Anyway, thank you for adding that content to Devarim and Va'etchanan. That kind of work is what we should be striving for. — Jess· Δ ♥ 21:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that useful feedback, Jess. I will begin work making similar changes, and trying to edit down the summaries, for other weekly readings going forward. I will turn to this project more fully next week. Thanks again. -- Dauster (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify in response to Mann jess's question: "Those editors supporting this content, have you read WP:INUNIVERSE?". The answer is yes, and your answer is in the wording of that policy guideline itself, that: "An in-universe perspective describes the narrative from the perspective of characters within the fictional universe, treating it as if it were real and ignoring real-world context and sourced analysis [emphasis mine]. The threshold of what constitutes in-universe writing is making any effort to re-create or uphold the illusion of the original fiction by omitting real-world info." The meaning and place and personalities in the Hebrew Bible/Torah/Tanakh in Judaism is not like that of, say, Disney characters in Disneyland or characters in a work of fiction like Harry Potter or some such that are fiction and illusions! You fail to realize that this is NOT about "fiction" or "illusion" because for many, particularly when addressing the Orthodox Judaism teachings, that is the heart and core of Rabbinic Judaism, as well as for many Christians, that regard the narratives of the Hebrew Bible as the one and only true reality, while the modern-day interpretations of secular bible critics is in fact nothing but concocted tendentious fairy tales to suit themselves. When you have one group of editors who deal with the Bible as the source of reality versus another group of editors who find such a view as "alien" it's a formula for disaster, especially in this case of the parsha divisions, practices and teaches of the 54 weekly Torah portions that are exclusively in the domain of Judaism and it's hard to see how attacking that based on misapplication of "WP:INUNIVERSE" is justified when it looks a lot more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and how that serves an encyclopedia that respects all perspectives and does not try to deny or denigrate them by labeling the teachings and foundations of the Jewish faith, and hence much of Christianity as well, as being "fictional" and "illusions". IZAK (talk) 10:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree with IZAK. "INUNIVERSE" explicitly applies to works whose authors clearly intended them as fiction, and about which no argument exists that they are fiction. This cannot be applied to the sacred scriptures of Jews, because the polemical idea of some, that the sacred scriptures of Jews are to be labeled as "fiction", is an obviously bigoted POV that has no place for promotion, pushing or endorsement in a neutral, bigotry-free encyclopedia. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We simply cannot say things like "Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his age, who walked with God", and "When God began creation...God spoke and created in six days" in wikipedia's voice. Wikipedia is is not a religious work, and we don't write from the perspective that any religion is true. Please stop calling other editors bigots. That's entirely uncalled for, and this level of constant hostility is disturbing and unhelpful. — Jess· Δ ♥ 15:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see what DGG said above; that is assumed in these articles. -- Avi (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it is "assumed", and I think that sets a dangerous precedent. These articles are not written with even the slightest inclination that we're discussing a narrative. Many of the examples I've given are taken from the very first line of the section. It's not appropriate to be frankly stating doctrines of a religion in an encyclopedic tone on the basis that this is "a religious article, so it's assumed that we're only discussing religious beliefs." If there's some disagreement on this point, then we could start an RfC and get broader community input. However, from my experience with similar articles, I believe this is the precedent we need to follow. — Jess· Δ ♥ 15:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really saying that someone reading an article about the contents of a section of the Bible will not assume that the matter being discussed is the account [as given in the Bible? DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is sometimes appropriate to discuss a variety of topics relating to these works in our articles, such as their reception, cultural impact, historical validity and parallels in other literature and faiths, and interspersing that coverage with unattributed statements in wikipedia's voice (like that Abraham lived 175 years, that there was a worldwide flood, and that God blessed Noah) are a cause for confusion, at very best. That's the style of an essay or novel, not an encyclopedia entry, and I think it does a disservice to our readers. — Jess· Δ ♥ 01:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it does seem to be "assumed" in these articles, but that does not necessarily mean that such an assumption is necessarily reasonable according to policies and guidelines. And, specifically to Dauster, I do respect the work you have done over time to develop these articles. However, I also have very serious doubts that such material, which seems to be to be almost exclusively of a devotional nature, is really encyclopedic. By raising that question, I am not questioning the work or effort in creating these articles, simply questioning their appropriateness to an encyclopedic source like this one. On this basis, I have requested that the matter be specifically addressed on the policy/guideline level at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Is wikipedia a devotional compendium?. John Carter (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, John, do we really have to start another tedious deletion debate? I am going to try to add qualifiers to the beginnings of summary material. I'll try to make sure that no one is misled into believing that Wikipedia (Heaven forefend!) endorses religion. But can't we find a better use of all of our time than to try to tear down this content? Please help me to improve it, rather than spending all of our time arguing. -- Dauster (talk) 09:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think you could find a better way of spending your own time than in the irrational jumps to conclusions and unwarranted insinuations in the above. You do not seem to get the point, I'm afraid. I personally believe that, given the rational interpretation of guidelines and policies, that this article should not exist in wikipedia. On that basis, I have asked for input regarding whether it should. And no one forced you to make the argumentive accusations and assumptions you have made above, did they? John Carter (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know something John it is you who is clearly breaking the rules of WP:INVOLVED, you are acting here as the messenger, jury, judge and executioner and it's a clear violation as well of WP:COI (as a long time editor to religion/Christianity articles you have always espoused very strong views, and now you also insert yourself with the powers of an admin.) Make up your mind, either you are here as a contributor and want to talk to everyone in a human and humane way, or you want to act as if you are here to pull rank on everyone with your blunt language and threats. I have requested uninvolved input let's see what comes of it. No editor is perfect but at least give credit where credit is due, User Dauster (talk · contribs) has labored hard to gather all the information in the 54 parsha article for SEVEN years of long hard work. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 09:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK, thank you for the attempt at humor, In all honesty, I have to say that not a single statement you have made above is even remotely rationally defensible. At no point have I in any way attempted to use my powers as an admin, so your statement to that effect is a rather transparent misstatement of fact. And at no point have I ever tried to "pull rank", either. <u?You, however, seem to be engaged in doing exactly that. False accusations are not acceptable, IZAK, however desperately you are trying to obfuscate and derail the discussion regarding the apparent lack of independent notability. And, frankly, the fact that editors like you, with your bombastic dishonesty, have managed to possibly so thoroughly aggrevate and disgust anyone who has to deal with you is not particularly relevant either. John Carter (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not accusing anyone of anything. If I offended, I apologize. I just wish we could spend more time constructively improving the content of Wikipedia instead of fighting over what to delete. I'll try to just mind my business and work on the articles and stay out of these arguments, which strike me as a terrible waste of energy. -- Dauster (talk) 10:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're better off with that approach, Dauster. Thanks. IZAK, cut out the personal attacks, accusations, and bad faith. It's making it exceedingly difficult to have a productive conversation. — Jess· Δ ♥ 15:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Devotional compendium discussion

For the record: This discussion moved on to Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 43#Is wikipedia a devotional compendium? and Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 42#Overwhelming consensus to keep the parsha articles and work on improving them to conform with WP standards without further action at that time. IZAK (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The use of so many illustrations, however artistic, goes against Jewish laws against graven images, and so, is completely inappropriate for such entries. Please remove them. Moreover, they reflect Christian views, and so must be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.79.183 (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inner-Biblical interpretation

This seems to be the "main" talk page for the whole series of articles on the parashot, so I'll ask here. What is "Inner-Biblical Interpretation"? All the articles assume you know what that means already, which I don't. Wikipedia does not have an article on the subject, and googling it just brings up other places online that use this term as a category for interpretations, assuming you know what it means already. I'm not saying all the parsha articles should have this, but it'd be nice if we had an article explaining this style of interpretation, and then the section heading could link to that article in each of the parsha articles. Fieari (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea for an article, Fieari. And it would also make sense to add brief explanatory introductions to these sections in the Torah reading articles. I will try to do that. Thanks again. -- Dauster (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Chayei Sarah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Chayei Sarah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis 23 is a Bible chapter, not a parashah

There is no justification for Genesis 23, which is also part of the Christian Bible, automatically linking to a rabbinical discussion of a parashah.

A majority of potential users of English Wikipedia are not practicing Jews. I will elaborate: a majority are not Jewish, and not all Jews are practicing Judaism and rabbinical studies, but all these people are potentially interested in the Bible for their own cultural and religious reasons. Therefore, when the topic is a particular Bible verse shared by Jews AND Christians and, frankly, the entire humanity, the Bible passage is of interest, not (just) the parasha & discussion in Judaism. Thank you for considering this.

The discussion can be concentrated on this page. Arminden (talk) 11:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]