Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Template:Messianic Judaism renominated for deletion here

The last tfd, the closing admin must have been on crack when he said lean towards keep. So I'm going to nominate it again. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 09:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Support --יהושועEric 18:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

34-8 consensus for deletion, with the deletion going through properly this time. A deletion review has been opened here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_13#Template:Messianic_Judaism Daniel^C/_T+ 18:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see I wasn't notified of this deletion review on my talk page, even though I was mentioned by name on it, AND I was the person to recreated the TFD. -_- Oh well. Lol, someone accused "accused" me of being Jewish. That is SO going on my userpage.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 03:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Tetragrammaton

There is currently a dispute over whether the word "Adonai" is singular or plural for the purposes of the Tetragrammaton article. Any and all commentary is welcome. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 22:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I just posted a rather lengthy post on that talk page explaining my understanding of the issue. The gist is that A––nai is literally plural, but when used by the Bible is nearly always acribed with singular nouns and adjectives. In my opinion the translation "my Lord" is most appropriate when used in context; "my Lord(s)" may be appropriate for a literal translation, but should be used with an explanation because of its heretical and obviously inaccurate implication of polytheism. —Rafi Neal 17:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It is ludicrous to suggest that the Tetragrammaton (which we pronounce A––nai) refers to multiple deities. Have you ever heard of pluralis majestatis? JFW | T@lk 18:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

MJ AMA Request

Inigmatus has opened an AMA request for advocacy against "Jewish editors" who he believes have "have bandwagoned many good, properly sourced Messianic Judaism articles to VfD death", also stating that "Jewish admins enforce the deletions." Normally this wouldn't concern me - if advocacy is what he feels is needed, I believe we all would be quite happy to work with an advocate. What's distressing is that he states in the request that "death threats have been issued to MJ editors." If this is true and it's come from Judaism project members it's a major problem that we need to examine here. I haven't personally seen these threats, but I don't get around as much as many here do. Can anyone help verify this? I've asked inigmatus to comment here regarding these threats. Daniel^C/_T+ 10:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Without evidence to back this up Inigmatus will have some difficulty explaining himself. MJ editors need to stop pushing their nefarious agenda on Wikipedia. They can have their own articles about their own beliefs which we should mercilessly fact-check. They cannot claim that they are a branch of Judaism, because no single mainstream Jewish branch recognises MJ as such. Therefore, to suggest otherwise would be WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and potentially trolling. JFW | T@lk 12:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It was this edit by (now banned) User:Daniel575, I think. — coelacan talk — 12:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the editor from the memberlist. We should have no desire to associate with such people. Daniel^C/_T+ 17:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That is indeed a horrible thing to say. This kind of ghastly verbal terrorism feeds online antisemitism. I agree that this editor should be seen as unwelcome on this project. I will also make it abundantly clear that this was one individual editor, and that these were not specific death threats but simply deeply disgusting generalisations.

It always bears quoting Rabbi Meir: "May sins disappear from the land (Psalm 104) - G'd doesn't want sinners removed, he simply wants them to stop sinning." It is with this in mind one should go about dealing with MJ/JFJ people. It is obvious that Jewish editors on Wikipedia will not tolerate MJ staking claims of legitimacy within historical Judaism. How about WP:NPOV? JFW | T@lk 21:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Jewish feminism

Please see the discussion at Talk:Jewish feminism#Does Jewish feminism really exist?. Thanks, IZAK 12:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Blue in Judaism

Could someone take a look? I think ancient Egyptians can be safely moved out of Judaism section, but I've never heard of Jews who "painted their... heads, and other parts of their bodies with blue dyes". The same text is repeated in Blue#Religion:Blue in Judaism. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Messianic Judaism/Memorandum of Understanding

This is something we should take some interest in, because the whole issue has been causing a lot of trouble. From their POV, what they are asking for on this page sounds quite reasonable. Rather than ignore it, because guidelines will eventually be established for this dispute, I think an alternative policy that respects WP values should be formulated.

Here is an alternative suggestion:

The sect that calls itself Messianic Judaism considers itself Jewish, and at the same time incorporates ideas that are central to Christian theology. There should be articles discussing what the group believes, and anything unique about them should be described. That is what Wikipedia is all about. This is true despite the fact that no Jewish denomination considers what the group practices to be Judaism, nor do many Christian denominations regard them as Christian.

As a sect that combines elements from the two religions, there is no reason to add specific references to "Messianic Judaism" in articles dealing with general Jewish practices, any more than there is for doing so in articles dealing with Christianity. For instance, there is no justification or need for links or references to Messianic Judaism in the articles on Tefillin or the Gospel of Mark. Whatever is unique and notable about the sect, and not identical to either Judaism or Christianity, bears description in its own space.

Furthermore, Judaism's long shared history with Christianity forced it to clarify its own positions in opposition to Christian doctrine, positions are central to Jewish belief. The relatively new sect calling itself Messianic Judaism currently rejects these historic positions, and that rejection should be described in its own space, because it exists. Such rejection is not, however, of importance to the description of either historic Judaism or Christianity, nor to mainstream Judaism or Christianity today.

I urge people to refer to this statement of principles when the issue comes up, which it often does. Also to give feedback and improve them, of course.

Lastly, these people seem to have a kind of persecution complex, as if "the Jews on Wikipedia are out to get them." Let's not feed that complex. Keep the argument principled, don't attack or malign, and also enlist the help of educated, mainstream Christian Wikipedians who can help keep these things in a reasonable perspective. Dovi 20:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"This is true despite the fact that most Christian denominations and no Jewish denomination considers what the group practices to be Judaism . . ."

Actually, are there RS showing that any non-MJ Christian denomination considers MJ to be Judaism? Important point. Daniel^C/_T+ 15:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Having looked at the MoU, I have to say (as someone outside the debate) it seems to me a reasonably balanced one – from the perspective of what Wikipedia is. The problem I have with Dovi’s alternative is that it conveys a sense of purpose more along the lines of “ownership” to protect the sanctity and orthodoxy of Judaism – which is not “what Wikipedia is”, however commendable that activity may be. What Wikipedia is is an encyclopedia – not the “last word” on what does or does not constitute ultimate “Truth.” As such, it is meant to serve its audience, who are “general readers” and enable them to find the information they seek – not editorial warriors combating each other from their respective POV trenches.

If you will, let me address this issue from a “general reader” perspective with an example. Some months ago I came across the article “Jewish views of Jesus” (which has since been extensively rewritten and renamed “Judaism's view of Jesus”), which intrigued me as an opportunity to learn more about Jewish beliefs regarding Jesus as the Messiah and their historical evolution. What I found instead (then) was a rather rambling article that not only failed to address two significant aspects of the subject, but didn’t even offer courtesy directions to where I might find the “missing information.” First, there was no discussion of the several variant expectations of the Messiah in Jesus’ contemporary milieu and how the they developed into modern Jewish apologetics. Second, there was no mention of MJ views and what specific unique criticisms of its viewpoint vis-à-vis Jewish general criticism of Christian viewpoints, per se. (And, yes, I was cognizant of orthodox Jewish regard of MJs as non-Jewish, as well as that MJs self-identify as Jews.)

Dovi asserts that since MJ “combines elements from the two religions, there is no reason to add specific references to 'Messianic Judaism' in articles dealing with general Jewish practices, any more than there is for doing so in articles dealing with Christianity.” Frankly, and with all due respect to Dovi, from a Wikipedia perspective, just the opposite is the case, at least in articles on issues in which important distinctives arise. Certainly, the differences between orthodox Judaism and MJ beliefs – and the former’s main criticisms of the latter – need no more than be briefly summarized, in accordance with WP:Undue weight – or at the very least a courtesy direction can be appended under the relevant header in the form of “For MJ views on XYZ, please see [[MJ views on XYZ]].” I’ll submit that that is about all that is needed to satisfy WP:NPOV. Shalom, Askari Mark (Talk) 01:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Mark, you are certainly welcome to add to Judaism's view of Jesus and improve it. I tend to agree with you that it needs a lot of work. Actually, I also agree with you that when there is a significant difference between MJs and Judaism (or Christianity) it should be noted; but when they are identical I really don't see the point. Remember that this is an extremely recent movement that is practicing a form of religious syncretism, which makes its zeal to add links to any and every Jewish practice a true violation of WP:OWN.

One quibble: You mention "orthodox" Jews or Judaism several times, and while I don't know if you mean upper-case or lower-case O, please keep in mind that we are not talking about Orthodox Jews alone, but both liberal and conservative Judaism alike (lower case). Dovi 06:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Dovi. Yes, you are always wise to ask a goyim like me whether he understands the difference between "Orthodox" and "orthodox"; fortunately, I do. I think it's a more appropriate to use "orthodox" than "mainstream" where an extreme minority is concerned, but if I'm wrong, please feel free to educate me. I do agree that there's no reason to separately discuss MJ views where they are consonant with orthodoxy; as I noted above, where there are key distinctives, some reference is appropriate for readers who don't know much about the issue and who will look in Judaism-related articles for information on "Messianic Jews" or "Jews for Jesus".

To date I've mostly avoided working on religious articles because the productivity-to-controversy ratio is typically so low. Nor am I an expert on things like Judaism's view of Jesus – although I may have some content suggestions once I fully digest the extensive rewrite of that article. My inclination is more to point out what non-expert readers might be expecting to find, since where we editors who are expert in a field have a tendency to write more for the "already knowledgeable" than for those "seeking to learn" – the common sin of "eruditism". Askari Mark (Talk) 18:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Given that everyone acknowledges that when referring to Judaism the term "Orthodox" has a specialized meaning (See Orthodox Judaism), I would recommend not using the term "orthodox" with a small "o" to mean mainstream for the same reasons I would suggest not using "catholic" to mean general or "protestant" to mean someone who disagrees. There's too much risk of confusion with the specialized meaning of these terms, which is what people belonging to these faiths usually mean by them. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No halakhic support for egalitarian innovations in Orthodoxy

Centralized discussion at Talk:Partnership minyan#No halakhic support for egalitarian innovations in Orthodoxy. Thank you, IZAK 10:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Charity

Someone ought to fix Alms#Judaism, which presently contains only the sentence: In the Jewish tradition, charity is secondary to tzedakah, or redistributive justice. --Smack (talk) 05:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Bigotry

I'm being accused of bigotry over suppression an external link to a non-notable article on Talk:Ten Commandments. Could others please comment whether this is a reasonable accusation? JFW | T@lk 22:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Question about story...

I have a question about the following story:

"The shochet must be a learned and pious man. A story I once read about a shochet goes something like this: The old shochet had retured and the rabbi had to help choose a new one. When one of the people in the town, a friend of the rabbi's asked about the candidate the rabbi had seen today, asked about the new potential shochet. The rabbi shook his head. "Did he check the knife for sharpness and nicks?" The rabbi nodded. "Did he slaugter with one smooth, clean stroke?" The rabbi nodded again. "Did he say the proper blessing?" The rabbi nodded. "Did he drain the blood and check the lungs?" The rabbi again nodded. "So, what is the problem?" asked his friend. "The old shochet used to cry afterwards" replied the rabbi. That is the ideal shochet, one who not only follows the proper proceedures in slaugtering the animal, but whom is sensitive and not blood thirsty, who knows that the eating of flesh is a consession. (source of the story is unknown, if you know, please e-mail me so I can properly credit the source)." [1]

I didn't write this, I found it on a random Jewish website. Has anyone else on here ever heard this and know the touching story's source? I would really like to know. Thanks. (Ghostexorcist 01:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC))

I do not know a source for that story, but is sounds hasidic. The view expressed in the story is not universally accepted. Jon513 19:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it the "crying" thing that is not accepted? You are right about it sounding Hasidic. The only reason I say that now is because I ran across another story, after posting this, that dealt with the Baal Shem Tov telling a new shochet that the old one wet his honing stone with tears and not spit. I'm assuming this is a Hasidic tale since it mentions the Baal shem tov. What would be a universally accepted view?(Ghostexorcist 20:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC))

I didn't say that the view was not accepted, I said it is not universally accepted. Some say that indeed eating meat is a concession (for which there are a variety of Aggadahic sources for), others focus on the strict halakha that eating meat is permitted and therefore impossible that one should feel bad about it (ie morality is defined by halakha). Jon513 20:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your insight. (Ghostexorcist 20:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC))

Book

Does anyone know of an English language book that focuses on the history, training (i.e. sharpening of his knife, recognition of disease, recital of prayers, etc.) and day-to-day job of the Shochet for all forms of Judaism? I can only look so much stuff up on the internet. (Ghostexorcist 07:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC))

There is a book by Rabbi Levinger from Zurich (Shehita in the year 2000 or something like that) which is slightly apologetic but has much relevant information. JFW | T@lk 08:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I found the book online, it's called Schechita in The Light of The Year 2000. (Ghostexorcist 18:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC))

In my search for a book on the Shochet, I ran across one called the Dinim de Sehita y Bedica written for Aaron Mendoza. It was a 48-page spanish language book, with accompanying text and illustrations, that was published in London in 1733. If you would like to see it click here (PDF format only). I’m afraid my Spanish isn’t very good, so if there are any spanish-speaking Jews out there, this might be of some interest to you. (Ghostexorcist 19:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)).

V'Imru

I submitted V'Imru for proposed deletion on the grounds that the article was basically just a dictionary definition and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The article creator removed the proposed deletion tag on the grounds that the religious significance of the word "v'imru" is that when one hears it, that is the signal to say "amen". My question is whether that is enough to constitute religious significance. After all, standing up is part of a religious service as well, but we don't have an article titled Please rise. --Metropolitan90 07:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should have one for "and we rise"? :-p Tomer^talk 03:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

PROD was removed. It's on AFD now: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V'Imru. JFW | T@lk 10:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

How?

How can I be a part of the WikiProject Judaism? Jonathan Haack ... Oemb1905 19:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Click on the link "project page" on top, scroll down to Members, and click edit. Or simply click here. Welcome! ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Category for discussion: Antisemitic canards

Category:Antisemitic canards has been proposed for deletion here. Some input from people familiar with the topic would be appreciated. I personally would like to know if "Antisemitic canards" is the term used in reference works to describe this topic, or if there is another, more common, term. - Jwillbur 01:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

eh... Jewish music is too red...

Someone looking for something to do, that doesn't involve much in the way of controversy, might consider tackling some of the redlinks in the article on Jewish music (the article itself could use some help as well)... It's a pretty sad day when we've got an article on V'Imru but not on, e.g., Abie Rotenberg and the Miami Boys Choir... Tomer^talk 03:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "matrilineal descent"

I moved the following post from the top to the bottom (Ghostexorcist 06:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC))

Why is it so commonly accepted for articles to be edited according to Orthodox Judaism's stance on what determines Jewish status? Even a few long-time Wikipedians seem to experience a bit of difficulty differentiating between what is a religious belief (i.e., applicable only to those who actually hold it as true), and material suitable for an encyclopedic website. An overwhelmingly significant number of Jews (not only in the Reform movement, but also in the Conservative movement) make no distinction between gender in the case of interfaith parentage. I think there are quite a few articles in need of a revert when it comes to this particular subject, so long as Wikipedia hold its neutrality policy in place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.215.6.89 (talk • contribs)

I added the citation request to "in the Conservative movement" above, because the C "movt" is, despite its various other halakhic "problems", unequivocal in its rejection of the notion of "matrilineal descent". C Jews accept children of mixed marriages as Jewish iff they're raised as Jews and upon reaching the age of ascent declare themselves to be Jewish. Technically, although it doesn't necessarily carry the weight of a halakhic giyur (and, esp. according to the C movt, needn't), this is regarded as analogous to a conversion w/o judgment regarding the status of the parents [because the sins of the parents aren't imputed onto the child]. That viewpoint is very different from that of the R "movt", which says as long as a child asserts claim to Jewishness (regardless of commitment to keeping the mitzvoth), that child is Jewish, "halakhically valid" parentage notwithstanding (a perspective that's completely understandable, given the R movt's rejection of halakha as "binding" upon the movt as a whole, or upon its membership as individuals).

What the above anonymous commentator seems to be griping about primarily, is the fact that lots of Jews don't follow halakha, and that therefore Judaism shouldn't be defined by the parameters of halakha. This is not only incredibly flimsy logic, it's completely antithetical to what makes Judaism Judaism. By extension of this messed-up illogic, just because a lot of Jews decided to believe Jesus was mashiach, suddenly Christianity could easily become the ultimate arbiter of who is/n't Jewish. In other highly localized areas (which I think is the primary flaw of the anon's argument...hir experience is exclusively "local", completely ignorant of Judaism [which most American secular Jews believe to consist primarily of "Holocaust lamentation coupled with leftist political activism"] outside hir experience), this logic would lead one to believe that Sabbateans, Frankists, Karaites and/or Dönmeh should be the arbiters of who is/n't a Jew, or "enough of a Jew", or "the right kind of Jew". "Even a few long-time Wikipedians" aren't experiencing difficulty differentiating between religious belief and material suitable for an encyclopedic website, what's actually going on is that "a few long-time Wikipedians" are adept at discerning between sectarian POV-pushing agenda-driven editorializing and the encyclopedic presentation of dry citable facts. Tomer^talk 09:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend a read of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, which requires the inclusion of religious beliefs relevant to a subject -- particularly when the subject is religion. If you believe the views of particular Jewish denominations are underrepresented in particular articles, feel free to add additional content on them. Please be sure to supply reliable sources for any content added. However, a claim that the views of Orthodox Judaism are not "encyclopedic material" or are inappropriate for an article on a Jewish subject is inconsistent with Wikipedia's core policies. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I would add the caveat that it needs to be made clear that the views are those of Orthodox Judaism in particular (I'd hope that this is how the article in question presents the view at the moment). --User talk:FDuffy 00:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)