Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 36

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39

When to list Rosh Hashanah?

Recently, there was consensus with regards to WP:Selected anniversaries to list Jewish holidays/festivals that start at nightfall not on the Gregorian start date, but on the following day. However, seeing as how Rosh Hashanah spans multiple days (this will apply to Hanukkah too), should it be listed on the start date then? Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 22:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Howcheng: If that's the consensus, then the holiday always lists on the day after the Gregorian start date, so for Rosh Hashanah that would be September 21 (Thursday). Many Jewish holidays last more than one day (not even considering the start of the night before), so that rule will come up frequently. (Main exception is fasts. The major ones, Yom Kippur and Tisha B'Av, start the night before, so you would list them the day after the Gregorian start date. But the minor ones, Tzom Gedaliah, Tenth of Tevet, Fast of Esther, Fast of the Firstborn and Seventeenth of Tamuz do not start the night before. They should appear only on their designated day.) StevenJ81 (talk) 03:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
As discussed, we use the "main" day to list as per consensus. Rosh Hashana is two days, so that is why I put it in on both days, not the day before, but the two actual days of Rosh Hashana, and I think Rosh Hashanah is different because it is just two days and it is two days for the vast majority of Jews, even in Israel where holidays are usually only one day. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Just to clarify, whether we include it on the 22nd, is a discussion we could have, but the consensus says we list the 21st, not the 20th. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. Maybe the approach is "(starting previous evening, and through ...)". StevenJ81 (talk) 15:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Also, should it be Jewish New Year or Rosh Hashanah? Sir Joseph (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Should be Rosh Hashanah, because that's the name of the page here. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Definitions of whiteness in the United States

An active talk page discussion is underway concerning how Jews were categorized as nonwhite during U.S. history, and subject matter experts would be most welcome to pitch in. There is no currently no text on the subject in the article. Coretheapple (talk) 12:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Fast of Gedalia

Fast of Gedalia has a section without references, so it will be excluded from the Main Page on September 24 this year. Please rectify if possible. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 16:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

"Klal Yisrael"

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

Merge Article Code and Section (Support)

Hello,

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

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

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

Yom Kippur

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

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

Sukkot

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

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

An offline app for Judaism-related content

Hello everyone,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks - 189.122.198.138 (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Problems in applying the Manual of Style

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

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

  • Debresser tag teams with StevenJ81 to keep opposing views out. They unashamedly admit to discussing tactics off - wiki.
  • If that doesn't work, Debresser will close the discussion himself and - surprise, surprise - the close supports his own view. Example here:[1].
  • If that doesn't work he gets an administrator to remove the discussion from the talkpage and place it in the archive.
  • If a closure review is started he or StevenJ81 will go whining either to an administrator's talk page or to RfPP for page protection. Of course they never mention that they have previously got the article protected and we don't protect both the article and the corresponding talk page at the same time.
  • If that doesn't work one or the other will go whining either to an administrator's talk page or AIV for a block, claiming that anybody who has views different from their own must ipso facto be a vandal. 80.44.160.17 (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

As for WP:CIR I note that on Sunday StevenJ81 removed the standing instructions from WP:AIV. A bot sounded the alarm and an administrator speedily reverted him. 80.44.160.17 (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

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

I just had a thought - the current month must be Marcheshvan, around the 23rd, and checking the article I see I'm only two days out (that's the dehiyyoth for you). I'm here because it was made MoS compliant this morning but an administrator has reverted - so where do we go from here? 80.44.94.22 (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Judaism

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 16:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Chanukah for Main Page

Chanukah has some work needed and I added it to Dec 13, but it needs to be cleaned up. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Eyes on this please, someone already tagged the whole article for ref needed. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
There are many CN tags that will prevent this from being on the main page. Please try to resolve. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for "Jews and Judaism" navigational template

{{Jews and Judaism}} is too large. New version is ready – see Template talk:Jews and Judaism#New version. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Jewish leadership

The page Jewish leadership has had no references since at least 2007. Can anybody look at improving it? power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Rfc at Bible and violence please take a look

Talk:The_Bible_and_violence#Rfc

Proposal for link to Simon Rockower Award Article

I suggest that the Simon Rockower Award be linked to this wiki project as it is an award for excellence in Jewish journalism. Rockower (talk) 02:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Rockower. It isn't clear what you're looking to do. The article is already within the purview of this WikiProject, as evidenced by the WikiProject's banner on Talk:Simon Rockower Award. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
@Malik Shabazz:Thank you for responding. How do I add the page to the Project? How do I add it to the Portal? How do I join the WikiProject Judaism? Thank you Rockower (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
When you look at the talk page at Talk:Simon Rockower Award you will see the tag identifying it as within the scope. To join add your name here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Members - GalatzTalk 22:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Rockower: Maybe I should clarify: The project templates always categorize the talk page, not the page itself. That's just how it works. See, for example: Category:Top-importance Judaism articles: everything listed there is actually a talk page. But it's understood that the importance and quality ratings apply to the article, not the talk page. When the talk page has a template, the page itself is part of the WikiProject.

As for the putting it on the Portal, ask at Portal talk:Judaism. But I can tell you that the article will have to be improved a lot for it to get linked from the Portal. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
@StevenJ81: I appreciate your guidance. Perhaps it will fit in that Portal or a different Portal sometime in the future. I will be sure to clean it up with the help of my relatives who are direct decendants of Simon Rockower.Rockower (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I think I am all set. I will play around with getting the article changed to have greater importance. Thank you all to helped me. Rockower (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest reading WP:COI before editing. I am happy to incorporate anything in for you, that you think should be added, since COI is tricky. You can post stuff here or on the talk page of the article and someone not so close can put it in. - GalatzTalk 00:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
@Galatz: you are so helpful. If there was a reputation area of Wikipedia, I'd write a good review of you. I'm not sure if it has one. Thanks Rockower (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Citing the Mishneh Torah

Is there a standard style for citing sections of the Mishneh Torah? I've seen sections of the Mishneh Torah cited using various spellings including 'Hilkhot', 'Hilchot', and 'Hilchos'. The most common spelling I've seen is 'Hilchot'. Once we agree upon a standard (if there isn't one already), someone with technical expertise should make a bot to change the articles to make them consistent. --PiMaster3 talk 22:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

My very quick look at Google Books suggests a roughly 50/50 split on Hilchot and Hilkhot. Unless anyone objects, I'd say let's take your testimony as a tie-breaker in favor of Hilchot and just go with that. Easy peasy. Alephb (talk) 03:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
The spelling with an "s" at the end is Ashkenazi pronunciation, which is not regularly used on Wikipedia. Between Hilchot and Hilkhot, the latter is the official spelling here, see Halakha and WP:HEBREW. I wouldn't try to enforce any spelling and start making massive changes, though. Debresser (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to add some religious events to ITNR

There is currently a proposal to add some religious events at WP:ITNR. If adopted some or all of the listed events could be added to ITNR and be automatically posted to the main page conditional on the overall quality of the relevant articles. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion at Talk:Hebrew

This would perhaps benefit from a broader selection of editors and a relist. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

New unreferenced article

Eastern European Jewry Staszek Lem (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Kopstein and Wittenberg vs the Polish IPN amendment law

There is an editorial debate at Talk:Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance concerning this edit that removed Kopstein and Wittenberg's POV. Kopstein and Wittenberg are US-based academics who reacted to a Polish law proposal that has passed the two houses of Parliament, criticising the law and claiming documentary evidence of 219 anti-Jewish pogroms in Poland by local non-Jewish Poles and other non-Jews during late June and July 1941. Boud (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Hebrew language#Requested move 28 January 2018, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, –Ammarpad (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Jewish Fraternities and Sororities

I recently created Category:Historically_Jewish_fraternities_and_sororities_in_the_United_States and have added what I believe to be as many as currently exist on Wikipedia. I additionall intend to add pages for all of the Defunct Fraternities and Sororities that are in Going Greek: Jewish College Fraternities in the United States, 1895-1945 when I get my copy of the book. Currently missing include (at least) Omicron Alpha Tau, Phi Sigma Delta, Phi Alpha and Kappa Nu.Naraht (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Now List of Jewish fraternities and sororities has been created.Naraht (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC of interest

Members of this WikiProject may wish to weigh in at the RfC at Talk:"Polish death camp" controversy. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon in Portland, Oregon: Jewish Women Artists (March 8)

Main page: Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland/Jewish Women Artists

On March 8 (International Women's Day), and as part of the Art+Feminism project, Shoshana Gugenheim and the Oregon Jewish Museum and Center for Holocaust Education will be hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon to create and improve articles about Jewish women artists. Click here for more information. You can also express interest or suggest article to create or improve here. Remote participation is also welcome! ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

A link to a DAB page

Yehuda Tzadka links to the DAB page Maharam. Can any expert help identify who this Talmudic commentator was? Narky Blert (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

How to call Karaite Subbotniks

At Talk:Subbotniks#Karaimites there's a lengthy discussion on whether the article should give "Karaimites" as an alternative name for Karaite Subbotniks. Additional community input would be appreciated. Huon (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Temple Warning inscription

There is a back-and-forth at "Temple Warning inscription" and I'm seeking to avoid an edit war. A user removed the common name at Temple Warning inscription, changing "temple" to "Hieron", a generic Greek name for a holy place, and modifying a quotation from a cited source. The specific edit was to change "an inscription from the Second Temple in Jerusalem" to "an inscription from a holy place (“hieron”) in Jerusalem, considered to be the Second Temple". This is very strange as "hieron" is a generic Greek word for a holy site, and is certainly not the WP:commonname for the Second Temple. And to say "considered to be the second temple" is ridiculous. The user also modified a quotation from a cited source, changing the original cited translation of "the temple and enclosure" to "the hieron (or temple) and enclosure". Both of these are clearly against wikipolicy. I already undid both edits, but the user simply reinstated them, and added a source that contradicts their argument as the source uses the terms "Temple" and "Herod's Temple". Drsmoo (talk) 12:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

It sounds like a politically-driven edit. But you need to start a discussion on this at Talk:Temple Warning inscription. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Done, thanks Drsmoo (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Another link to a DAB page

Showbread talks of "the house of Pagi", so linking to a DAB page with no relevant entry. Can any expert here help solve the problem? Turning the link into a redlink might be one solution, but I don't know what the qualifier should be. Narky Blert (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Passover needs to be ready for front page

Passover needs to have a look through to make sure it is ready for the front page. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

There are 7 paragraphs in the lead. That is a bit much. Debresser (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I was quite surprised that Passover was not featured on the main page on Friday in the run up to Seder, but then was featured on Saturday.

Apparently, there was a discussion last year about generically whether to feature Jewish holidays on the day of the holiday, or the erev of the holiday the night before; and the view was taken to feature the link on the day of the holiday.

For most holidays that probably makes sense, because the day rather than the erev is indeed the stronger focus of activity.

But for Passover, with the Seder being perhaps the most important family event of the whole Jewish year, and the start of a 7-day period rather than a 24-hour period, it does seem to me that it should be Seder night that Passover appears on the main page, not the day after.

We might also consider whether Kol Nidre ought to be mentioned, as well as Yom Kippur -- though our article on Kol Nidre is principally about the prayer, not the day. Jheald (talk) 10:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this is really important, but for continuity's sake, I think we should keep it on the day, not the eve. Debresser (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
@Debresser: Continuity ... with what?
And what do you mean by "the" day, when it is just one day out of seven, of no stand-out relevance in itself. Compare that with the evening before, which (i) is notable as when the festival actually starts, and (ii) is the day the most notable activity actually happens. Jheald (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Continuity with all other festivals.
The first day, which stands out as a festival day (yom-tov).
Why is it people make up the most nonsense arguments when others disagree with their completely unconventional ideas? Debresser (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Problems on the Jews article

There is a dispute on the Jews article, regarding the statement that modern Jews claim lineage to the Southern Kingdom. Please see the Jews article and its recent edits, and the talkpage discussion at Talk:Jews#Reliable_Sources. Debresser (talk) 08:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

"The Israelites themselves were originally Canaanites"

Is "The Israelites themselves were originally Canaanites" really a proven encyclopaedic statement? Yes obviously the Hebrew language is a specifically Israelite/Jewish dialect of North West Semitic language but Israelite ancient texts record themselves as incomers, incomers from Ur originally e.g. Deuteronomy 26:5 "A Syrian was my father" that is Assyrian/Mesopotamian, not Canaanite. This statement is a theory, one view of the origin of Israel from Canaanites, it isn't the only view even among critical scholars. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: I don't think we should actually have a biblical counterpoint, but this is worded oddly. There is a footnote there already that distinguishes the biblical and historical meanings of "Canaanites". Perhaps something like "Israelites historically emerged from Canaanite communities" could make it clearer.--Pharos (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Is it even correct. If they came from Mesopotamia, that is not Canaanites. Debresser (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
@Debresser: it is correct if it is a proven historical fact that the Jewish race is the invention of a group of Canaanites who later during the Babylonian exile produced literature such as Deuteronomy 26:5 "My father was a Syrian" and mythology of Abraham from Ur to explain their adoption of monotheism. However as far as I know that isn't a proven historical fact, it is one theory, and a theory that is not a million miles from some of the anti-semitic theories on the Canaanite origins of the Jewish people doing the rounds in late 19th Century German higher criticism. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Archaeologists and historians, including Israeli ones, basically all agree that Israelites had roots in the Canaanite communities. It should be noted "Canaanite" has a different meaning to archaeologists than to Torah scholars, and includes for example the Phoenicians - for them, it means all speakers of the Canaanite languages. That doesn't mean the Israelites didn't also have some influence and ancestry from across the Euphrates.--Pharos (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
All Israeli and other Jewish historians agree that the Jews are primarily genetically Canaanite and no more than any other inhabitants of the area descended from immigrants from Mesopotamia, aka the "land of Abraham"? Could you give the names of any archaeologists historians or even geneticists dissenting from this view? In ictu oculi (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I didn't mention genetics at all. Genetics isn't the focus of the Wikipedia article in question, and I suggested a revised wording that the cultural connection to the Cannanites was real but not exclusive.-Pharos (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
(NB - I don't understand the second point as, speaking as a linguist, I don't know anyone who considers that speaking a language makes a person a member of an ethnic group - evidently immigrants invariably adopt the language of the dominant local population, but we don't classify Yiddish speakers as Germanic people) In ictu oculi (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I mean, literally, when an archaeologist says "Canaanite", they include Phoenicians, Edomites, etc. They mean something different than the way the term is used in the Torah. Just like how a historian today might use the term "Hellene" differently to how ancient people did.--Pharos (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
@In ictu oculi @Pharos There was certainly some genetic admixture of Canaanites at various phases, even according to the Biblical narrative. And Pharos is also right, and I don't know how well science differentiates between Mesopotamian and Canaanite genetics. Debresser (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
See e.g. [2]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm coming rather late to this but thought I should comment as I reverted what seems to be a consensus edit to the article. In ictu, the OP, asks, "Is "The Israelites themselves were originally Canaanites" really a proven encyclopaedic statement?" The answer is yes. Dever in Who were the early Israelites? discusses the disagreement between himself and Finkelstein over whether the early Israelites were resedentarising patoralists (not Canaanites - this is Finkelstein's position) or Canaanites (urban by definition). This is where our article phrase comes from: cultural continuity (says Dever) shows that they (Israelites) "emerged from within Late Bronze Age Canaanite society."

That, of course, is pretty close to the new consensus sentence that came out of this discussion, so I don't object strongly to coming closer to Dever's formulation, yet I do feel that "they were originally Canaanites" is a clearer expression of the same idea. They could hardly emerge from Canaanite society without having been Canaanites.

As for other points raised in this discussion, I'd just point out a few things that Dever and Finkelstein would agree on. Most notably, the Israelites did not have any connection with Mesopotamia - there was no Abraham. The Exodus is a piece of fiction - it never happened. "Israel" is a slippery concept - the first Israel, the one that Finkelstein and Dever are talking about, wasn't Jewish - Jewishness emerged much later, in Babylon during the captivity and the early Persian period, and was imposed on Jerusalem in the 5th century BC by a successful religious elite who created the Exodus story and much of Jewish law. This second Israel - Israel as a religious community - is thus quite a separate phenomenon to the Canaanite people and kingdom of the Iron Age. There's a good overview in Grabbe's introduction to his recent edited volume here.PiCo (talk) 11:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Well that's fine. If it's the unanimous consensus of academia that the Jews are ethnically Canaanites and not in any sense immigrants from Mesopotamia - as the mythology of Jewish and Christian religious books claim - then Wikipedia should so state clearly and emphatically. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
That's not the point I'm making. What I'm saying is that it's the consensus that Israel (an iron age kingdom, not an ethnic group) emerged within the territory of Canaan (a cultural zone, not an ethnic group) and from pre-existing Canaanite culture. The question of ethnicity is so vague that academic books today try to avoid it - it can't really be defined. PiCo (talk) 03:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Need a hand from someone in Israel

The way that the Parshat Hashavua box on Portal:Judaism works is that at 14:00 UTC on Saturday, the weekly Parsha advances to the next week. Now, recently, I recoded the individual parsha pages that feed the main box so that the date automatically updates. If you look at any of the parsha pages (e.g., Portal:Judaism/Weekly Torah portion/Tzav), it will always tell you that this is the parsha that will be read this coming Shabbat, with its correct Hebrew and Gregorian dates.

  • Note: It doesn't really matter that this is actually incorrect most of the time. Each parsha has a freestanding page (e.g., Tzav), and generally if people are looking for information on the parsha that's where they go. The portal-subpage version only appears on the portal during its correct week, and then the date is correct, too.

Now, here's the problem: If you look at the Portal between 14:00 and 23:59 UTC on a Saturday, the parsha will have advanced, but the date does not. So to use this week as an example, if you look at the portal at the hour I am writing this, it will tell you that the Parsha for 22 Nisan/7 April is Pesah VIII in the Diaspora, or Shemini in Israel. If you look at the portal between 14:00 and 23:59 UTC on Saturday, the parsha advances to Shemini in Diaspora and Tazria-Metzora in Israel, but the date still reads 22 Nisan/7 April. Then at 0:00 UTC Sunday, the date advances to 29 Nisan/14 April. (Warning: you may have to refresh the cache.)

So I've tried to fix that. But as Motzei Shabbat for me is after 0:00 UTC Sunday, can someone in Israel (or Europe, I imagine) have a look and see if it works correctly? Many thanks, חג שמח and שבת שלום. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Psalm 84

In the article, it says: "Verse 13 is the tenth verse of "V'hu Rachum" in Pesukei dezimra,[1] is found in Uva letzion,[2] and is part of the Havdalah ceremony." and the ref given is "The Complete Artscroll Siddur page 619". Can somebody please rewrite that for people unfamiliar with prayer names in Hebrew (translation, function, frequency ...), and expand the ref? I am confused by the link V'hu Rachum which is only a redirect, and neither this nor psalm 84 is mentioned at all in the linked pages. - Any other help with the article is also highly welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ The Complete Artscroll Siddur page 63
  2. ^ The Complete Artscroll Siddur page 157

Question About Two Articles

I have an terminological question. Shouldn't the articles Tanakh and Hebrew Bible be merged? If not, why not? I'm not too clear on the distinctions. -- Veggies (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Acts of Uziah and other non-canonical Hebrew texts cited to a fringe website

Article calls it a lost text and says that "This manuscript is sometimes called Second Isaiah or The Book by the prophet Isaiah". Besides the fact that in my experience there are no manuscripts for lost texts, I can't find evidence that this is correct. I paused to check something and found Non-canonical books referenced in the Bible#Hebrew Bible where the same website is frequently used. Are all of these (and their alternative names) correct. The source used is [3] also cited as [4], an anonymous page on a fringe Christian website[5]. Doug Weller talk 14:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Daniel J. Lasker

Can I interest anyone here in adopting this abandoned draft? The subject is a professor of Jewish philosophy who has written about medieval theology and translated Jewish polemical texts. I believe the subject is notable but it's probably been written by someone connected with him. I found several book reviews which I will note in the draft. Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Need review

The article Devil needs to be reviewed for its accuracy regarding the Devil in Judaism. Thinker78 (talk) 00:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Thinker78: Thank you for bringing this here. Others could potentially comment.
Here are a couple of suggestions. (I'm reluctant to edit the page myself because I am not really involved there.)
  • Add a hatnote pointing to Satan § Judaism. I think the topic is covered better there; certainly, modern belief is covered more thoroughly there.
  • I have not read the references in the section (22–24), so I cannot comment thoroughly on the text written on the basis of those references. Still, I would question whether Judaism ever really became fully dualistic in the way the article reads. I have personally never seen a commentary suggesting, for example, that Satan was operating independently of and equally to G-d. Using Job as an example: the fact that G-d seemed to give Satan license to make Job's life miserable has long been troubling to a lot of people traditionally, and is a big reason that many think the Book of Job is entirely allegorical. But even here, Satan acts only after G-d grants permission. So that seems to fall short of "fully dualistic". If the references there support the idea of "fully dualistic", see if you can find a balancing reference that may go in that direction, but that suggests the dualism is not as fully baked as in Zoroastrianism, for example.
  • Similarly, unless there's a subtlety here that I'm missing, I think the last sentence of the paragraph as currently construed probably needs to say "After the apocalyptic period references to Satan in Tanakh have come to be thought of as allegorical." (Links and refs can stay, I just didn't bother here.) And the paragraph probably needs to have one additional sentence, at minimum, to try to cover some of the ground currently found at Satan § Judaism.
Hope that helps. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Former "Prophets"?

On the Talk:Nevi'im talk page, I have placed a question about the 'prophets' aspect of the term "Former Prophets". Any takers? Feline Hymnic (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussed there. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

topic Mensch - see Mensch:talk section Mensch on the Bench

There seems to be some conflict of interest occurring on this page, with an anonymous editor Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Responded there. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of Judaism in Arabs article

Hello, there is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Arabs#Arab_jews_2, whether to include Judaism in the infobox, using the argument that Jews are a religious group and not an ethnicity. Infantom (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not an accurate description of the discussion; "claiming Jews are a religious group and not an ethnicity" is a straw man. Please don't read that and get prepared to argue with it, because no-one's saying it, of course. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Calling converts to christianity Jews

Project input requested at Talk:Stanisław Ostwind-Zuzga#Jew?. Subject is a convert to the Catholic church (circa 1920), who was a NSZ (very antisemitic faction of Polish underground) member during WWII. Some editors are insisting on describing the subject as a Jew and placing the "Polish Jew" cat.Icewhiz (talk) 03:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Anne Frank at List of LGBT Jews

I listed this first at WikiProject Jewish history, but it seems pretty quiet there. There could be a problem with reliable sources to an edit on Anne Frank. Details here. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Commented there. Debresser (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

HELP WANTED

For a number of years we have been experiencing a steady decline in the number of administrators as a result of attrition and a declining number of editors willing to consider adminship. Things have reached a point where we are starting to experience chronic backlogs in important areas of the project including noticeboards, requests for closure, SPI, CSD & etc. If you are an experienced editor with around two years (or more) of tenure, 10k edits give or take and no record of seriously disruptive behavior, please consider if you might be willing to help out the community by becoming an administrator. The community can only function as well as we all are willing to participate. If you are interested start by reading WP:MOP and WP:RFAADVICE. Then go to WP:ORCP and open a discussion. Over the next few days experienced editors will take a look at your record and let you know what they think your chances are of passing RfA (the three most terrifying letters on Wikipedia) as well as provide you with feedback on areas that might be of concern and how to prepare yourself. Lastly you can find a list of experienced editors who may be willing to nominate you here. Thank you and happy editing... [Note:This page may not be on my watchlist so if you want to reply to me, please either ping me or drop me a line on my talk page.] -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem With all the editors here having dealt with numerous WP:ARBPIA articles, there is no chance at all any of them will be considered fit for adminship. Debresser (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
With all due respect, Debresser, this is WikiProject Judaism, not WikiProject Israel. Many, perhaps most, of the editors active in this area have never edited an article subject to the ARBPIA restrictions. There are also administrators who are active in that area, so I question your opinion that editing articles subject to ARBPIA restrictions disqualifies an editor from becoming an administrator. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 16:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh, this is WikiProject Judaism? And here I though this was WikiProject Israel. I must indeed be the moron you seem to think I am. Oh, but wait, many of them are the same editors. Oh, and also, I have been active on Wikipedia for 10 years now, so I know who is active in which fields. Well, then, perhaps I am not that big a moron after all. And please notice the lack of a question mark after this last sentence. Debresser (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Not everybody who belongs to this WikiProject is as experienced and cynical as you are. Nobody should be dissuaded from trying to become an administrator because you got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

"Central Orthodox" = Modern Orthodox? Further opinions required!

User Snowded and I are in disagreement as to whether "Central Orthodox" on the British Jews Wikipedia page should be wikilinked to the Modern Orthodox article. He has requested sources and I have provided a page from the BBC website containing the link label "United Synagogue, British Modern Orthodox" and an article from The Times describing the United Synagogue as Orthodox (albeit known as “Modern Orthodox”) a well as other sources. However, Snowded is not satisfied and has requested further opinions. Please can people go onto Talk:British Jews and give their opinions? Personally I think it's a WP:SKYBLUE issue that "Central Orthodox" is a synonym for Modern Orthodox 95.148.20.9 (talk) 01:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Tricky. The US defines itself as "modern" and "Orthodox" (https://www.theus.org.uk/aboutus) but not modern Orthodox. That's the proper stuff. Now some POV. Few of their rabbis are modern Orthodox and very very few of their members are. It's a very British institution. Solidly Orthodox as an institution, with rabbis who are mostly chareidi and members who are mostly "traditional" or non-practicing. However, I think calling it "central Orthodox" is not supported by RS and to me it's a neologism. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
"Central Orthodox" is the phrase used on the "British Jews" page, presumably because that is the wording on the cited source for the stats on denominational proportions. I agree that "Central Orthodox" was a neologism on the source's part, however I also feel that this should be wikilinked to Modern Orthodox as I feel this is what was broadly meant. Snowded disagrees, so we are seeking other opinions.
(Also just because someone dresses in a way that hints at being Haredi doesn't necessarily make them a Haredi. For one thing, it's more than just a clothing style, there's a whole bigger emphasis on Kaballah in Haredi Judaism, for another thing, MO rabbis may often wear a black pinstripe suit and black trilby but that is still quite distinct from the wider-brimmed hat actual Haredim wear. Many of them also wear ties, (not part of the Haredi uniform) and have neatly trimmed rather than wild bushy beards. More 1930s office wear than 1700s Eastern Europe.) 62.190.148.115 (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
This is tricky but it is part of the family of movements under the Modern Orthodox label and should be labeled as such. British Jewry is unique and the United Synagogue is a Victorian approach that prevented a split for many decades between modern Orthodox and Conservative. After the Jacobs Affair, the new Chief Rabbi Immanuel Jacobovits started using the American phrase Modern Orthodox. As it is today, United Synagogue membership is still traditionalist and less observant than its American counterpart. However, many of the rabbis in congregations has studied in Chabad or Haredi yeshivot or in Hardal Yeshivot. In the US, many Modern Orthodox are now calling themselves, Centrist, Right Wing Modern Orthodox, or just Orthodox to distinguish themselves from Haredi and from the left of modern Orthodoxy. In the UK, a similar move has occurred with the "central Orthodox" name but it has not created separate institutions, organizations or platform that use that title to distinguish it from United Synagogue. Conclusion- it should be listed a form of Modern Orthodoxy, but one can find a context to mention this recent neologism name as part of the recent trends of the 21st century. --Jayrav (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for this - it confirms some of my initial worries that adding it a a unifying category was not warranted and potentially confusing or controversial. -----Snowded TALK 06:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Hang on tho Snowded, Jayrav said it was "but it is part of the family of movements under the Modern Orthodox label and should be labeled as such." That sounds to me like a vote in favour of Wikilinking "Central Orthodox" to the Modern Orthodox page. And he also put " it is Modern Orthodox" in his edit summary. So what do you reckon then, Jayrav, Wikilink or not Wikilink? 2.28.124.67 (talk) 07:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I dont think United Synagogue wants to concede the Modern Orthodox label to the liberal flank, it would be against their own constituency. They would fight that at least tactically. In addition, there are many members in the congregations, many rabbis, and people at LSJS that are liberal who would not be comfortable with a "Central Orthodox" label. We are venturing in original research or original synthesis territory. I am sure that you can indeed find many articles using the neologism term "Central," but they are taking note of of a liberal-central drift in the UK similar to those going on in American Modern Orthodoxy and Israeli Religious Zionism. To treat it as a separate page, category, or a relabel of the United Synagogue as Central is already an original synthesis or predicting the future. United Synagogue is still (1) in the family of movements called by wiki as Modern Orthodox (2)Still its own flavor called United Synagogue. Nevertheless, their own literature has not re-branded themselves as Central. But what these journalists are calling the Central Orthodox institutions should definitely be linked to Modern Orthodox.--Jayrav (talk) 04:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Just wanted to add that Central Orthodox is a far less common term in my experience than "Centrist Orthodox" - a group perceived to be the core of American Modern Orthodoxy, at least institutionally. Here are a few links to fleshed out discussions of this: Torah Umadda, op-ed in Times of Israel, Nishma study of American Orthodoxy in 2017, views of Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein. Zchai72 (talk) 08:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Neither of those terms are normative for Anglo Jewry, and the United Synagogue in particular. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC

RfC for this discussion at Talk:British Jews#RfC "'Central Orthodox Judaism'=Modern Orthodox Judaism? - To Wikilink or not?" Please all do contribute. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 12:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion notification

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Tanakh, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Eleazar Avaran

This article is about the Maccabee Elazar. The way it's named implies his surname was "Avaran" which is nonsense, which is the implication his entry in List of unusual deaths took, where it refers to him as "Avaran".

Best I can tell, the "Avaran" comes in a single reference in 1 Maccabees, which says he was also known as Avaran, so it's a nickname. The Hebrew article about him is titled אלעזר החורני (https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/אלעזר_החורני), a name our article refers to without explanation. I

I can't figure out where HaCharoni comes from and I can't decide which name the article should be in, perhaps Elazar (Avaran), Elazar HaCharoni (if there are RS), Elazar Maccabeus (consistency with Judas Maccabeus), Elazar the Maccabee (POV alert: how I think of him) etc.

Grateful for some learned and wise input. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I see the article was called Elazar Maccabeus and someone in 2014 wanted it changed to Elazar Avaran, but the discussion decided the name should not be changed without a RM. Nonetheless, here we are. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, I should say now that I still oppose the move. We've been using the nicknames from 1 Maccabees 2:2-5: "He had five sons, John surnamed Gaddi, Simon called Thassi, Judas called Maccabeus, Eleazar called Avaran, and Jonathan called Apphus" (NRSV). They didn't all have the same nickname! StAnselm (talk) 08:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose which move? There are lots of options presented above. Calling him the current name is the worst option, because no-one ever called him that, not even the source that we get the name Avaran from. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, all of them. It's incorrect to say, "no-one ever called him that": "When Eleazar Avaran saw that one of the elephants was larger than the others..." (1 Macc. 6:43, GNT).
That's interesting but the GNT did not set out to be a direct translation, but, as we say, " "thought for thought" rather than "word for word" and "written in a simple, everyday language, with the intention that everyone can appreciate it, and so is often considered particularly suitable for children and for those learning English". Some more scholarly translations include NRSV ("Now Eleazar, called Avaran") and KJV ("Eleazar also, surnamed Savaran") Weirdly, Wycliffe has "And Eleasar, the sone of Saura", which seems to be based on Jerome's "et vidit Eleazar filius Saura". --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Just a quick comment without having time (yet?) to get deeper into the thick of the matter. The English transliteration of the Hebrew adjective above החורני should be Hachorani or Hakhorani, and the adjective format denotes the place where the person comes from. Therefore the meaning here would be that Eleazar was originally from a place called Choran or Khoran. (Or, even if the place in question was Chorah or Khorah, the adjective would still be Chorani or Khorani.) Just a suggestion. If both possibilities are correct the translation of the complete Hebrew name above would be Eleazar from Choran or from Chorah, or Eleazar the man from Choran or from Chorah. warshy (¥¥) 22:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the he.wikipidia article says he was called החורני because he lived in Beth Choron, Bethoron in here. However, it also needs a source for that. My suggestion would be to just rename the article back to Eleazar Maccabeus and note that the name given in Maccabees is Avaran. Otherwise not a very notable figure, except for the manner in which he was described as dying. warshy (¥¥) 15:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination for Bratislava Working Group

I've written and nominated for GA an article about a Jewish rescue organization in Slovakia during the Holocaust. The Working Group connected Ben-Gurion to Himmler in a large-scale ransom negotiation that proposed to save all European Jews from the Holocaust. (Unfortunately, it failed). A review or any feedback would be much appreciated! Catrìona (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Hebcal

Is there any enterprising programmer here who would be interested in writing a bot that runs once a year (or some other regular period) and gets dates from Hebcal to update the Gregorian dates for Jewish holidays? —howcheng {chat} 02:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Is there a bot request page? I'd imagine for someone who knows, it's a simple request to pull the information and populate the correct calendar date. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Try Wikipedia:Bot requests. There is a backlog, though. Catrìona (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll give it a shot. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC).
FWIW, most dates (not quite all) can be calculated from {{Hebrew year/rhdatum}}. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Ethics in the Bible

I have proposed a change to Ethics in the Bible on its talk page involving restructuring the article topically to produce a more neutral pov and better content. I am looking for consensus on improving what everyone agrees is a poor quality article. Please come and comment. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

How to join the project

Hello, How to join the project? Ralph747 (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Quite simple: just click here and add your name to the list. Catrìona (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Catrìona, thanks! Ralph747 (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Featured Article Review listing for Rudolf Vrba

I have nominated Rudolf Vrba for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Catrìona (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

American Jews

Can we get a few more eyes on the newest talk at Talk:American Jews#American Jews and race. Basically a debate over if there is a debate about Jewish whiteness. The question......is there a debate within the community about Jewish whiteness label. --Moxy (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

There is a debate but there is not much of a debate. Rather than a debate it is a barely perceptible murmur. You wish to characterize it as "contentious" while one of the sources that you provided characterizes the "debate" as "relative ambivalence" (see the Talk page). You need a source that supports your notion of contentiousness as applicable to this phenomenon. I am not arguing that this phenomenon does not exist. I am arguing against language that overemphasizes this phenomenon. Bus stop (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Barry Glassner (2008). The Jewish Role in American Life: An Annual Review. Purdue University Press. As Jews moved along the racial continuum from marginalized and non-white to part of America's white power ... They also engaged in a bitter and contentious internal debate over their own identity as Jews and Americans.......
Concerning your first source, the Barry Glassner source, you write that "They also engaged in a bitter and contentious internal debate over their own identity as Jews and Americans". That says nothing about "whiteness". Yes, it refers to their identity as Jews, and yes, it refers to their identity as Americans. But where is the reference to "whiteness"? And why don't you quote a continuous excerpt? Why the ellipsis? Concerning the other two sources you have not provided any excerpted material that you feel supports the language that you would prefer to see in the article. It is not my responsibility to examine an extensive tract of source material to find language to support your argument. You wish to put language into the article which says "Many American Jews identify as white, a label which is somewhat contentious within the community, with many instead choosing to identify simply as Jewish." That is stronger language than the language I prefer, which is "Some American Jews identify as white but other American Jews solely identify as Jewish." The onus is on you to provide support in sources for the stronger language which you prefer. Also, what does "many" mean? "Many" feel they are "white" but "many" feel they are not white? Do you think that many are undecided? Do you think that maybe many never even thought about it? Do you think that perhaps many couldn't care less one way or the other? The problem with your preferred language is that it makes more of this minor phenomenon than is warranted. Bus stop (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't think your interpretation of facts is even close to correct.... "many" as you have inserted over the source wording does not come close to representing the fact that 90% of U.S. Jews described themselves as white. Not sure why your misrepresenting facts and misleading our readers...... I really hope this doesn't affect multiple articles. Good luck in your future misrepresentation of the facts.--Moxy (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
You point out that "90% of U.S. Jews described themselves as white." Well of course, because phenotypically approximately 90% of U.S. Jews are "white". By contrast a reference to Jews as being "culturally white" (or "culturally non-white") is a reference to "white" as a social construct. But please explain to me how an assertion that 90% of U.S. Jews describe themselves as white supports the wording that you prefer in the article. The basis for the more incisive language that you would prefer to see in our article has to find support in sources or we should use the less pointed language that I prefer for our article. Note that I am not opposing the inclusion of a general reference to the established fact that some Jews make a distinction between phenotypically "white" Jews and phenotypically "white" non-Jews. If you wish our article to say that this is a "contentious" issue among Jews you need support for that in sources. Bus stop (talk) 00:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
read up....no guess work
Barry Glassner (2008). The Jewish Role in American Life: An Annual Review. Purdue University Press. As Jews moved along the racial continuum from marginalized and non-white to part of America's white power ... They also engaged in a bitter and contentious internal debate over their own identity as Jews and Americans.......
Barry Glassner (2008). The Jewish Role in American Life: An Annual Review. Purdue University Press. As Jews moved along the racial continuum from marginalized and non-white to part of America's white power ... They also engaged in a bitter and contentious internal debate over their own identity as Jews and Americans.......
Barry Glassner (2008). The Jewish Role in American Life: An Annual Review. Purdue University Press. As Jews moved along the racial continuum from marginalized and non-white to part of America's white power ... They also engaged in a bitter and contentious internal debate over their own identity as Jews and Americans.......
Barry Glassner (2008). The Jewish Role in American Life: An Annual Review. Purdue University Press. As Jews moved along the racial continuum from marginalized and non-white to part of America's white power ... They also engaged in a bitter and contentious internal debate over their own identity as Jews and Americans.......
You say "read up". Why can't you quote an excerpt that you feel is supportive of your argument? And I have already responded to your excerpted quote saying "They also engaged in a bitter and contentious internal debate over their own identity as Jews and Americans". That says nothing about "whiteness". Did you read the post in which I have already responded to that? You can't point me to indeterminate expanses of text and think that you have proven your point. We need to discuss any text which you think supports your argument. And you are repeating the same sources. For what reason? Why don't you focus on one source at a time? Provide an excerpt without the use of ellipses, and we can discuss that source and then move on to the next source. Bus stop (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
At least one of your sources, as I've pointed out on the article Talk page, argues against your preferred wording. You refer to a source which reads: "The notion that Jews 'became white' like other ethnic groups during the twentieth century ignores the relative ambivalence with which Jews have accepted and been accepted into the boundaries of cultural whiteness." Do you notice the term "relative ambivalence"? Does that sound like "contentiousness" to you? To me it sounds like they couldn't care less about being accepted as being "culturally white" or not. There is one very obvious reason why they might not be concerned about being accepted as being "culturally white". That is because in the majority of cases American Jews are phenotypically "white". What does that mean? It means that their appearance is little different from that of non-Jews that are phenotypically "white". Most Jews did not have "non-white" written all over themselves as did black people in America—both non-Jewish black people as well as those few Jewish black people. Let us stop burying our heads in a hole in the ground and pretending that reality doesn't exist. Bus stop (talk) 02:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Good Article Review of Raoul Wallenberg

Raoul Wallenberg, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Catrìona (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Re: request for InfoBox for the noted Jewish-American Symphonic conductor/composer Samuel Adler (composer)

Hello fellow Wikipedians - If you have some extra time, kindly examine the article on the noted conductor and composer Samuel Adler (composer) who fled Nazi occupied Germany as a young child in 1938. A request for an "Info Box - person" has been processed and included on the article but appears to be subject to continuous deletion (perhaps because Adler is still alive?) Kindly consider using the "Info Box academic" template {{Infobox academic}} to rectify this problem as suggested here Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Composers, or perhaps assigning an "Infobox -Person" from the WikiProject Judaism Project (or "Info box Musical Artist") since Adler was also an active Jewish/American conductor who founded the historic Seventh Army Symphony Orchestra, participated in cultural diplomacy initiatives in Europe after World War II, was commended by Dwight D. Eisenhower for his work in Europe, and was awarded the U. S. Army's highest Medal of Honor for services to Music, published several academic books on Orchestra, and Choral conducting, was a member of the faculty at several leading music conservatories including the Eastman School of Music and the Juilliard School for over 60 years, and was recognized by his academic peers by receiving several Honorary Doctorate of Music degrees as well as membership in Sigma Alpha Iota and Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia. I would be grateful for any insights which you might wish to share on the articles talk page here Talk:Samuel Adler (composer). Many thanks for your thoughtful consideration and contributions to the discussion along with my best wishes for your continued success on Wikipedia in the future With warmest regards...104.207.219.150 (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)PS104.207.219.150 (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)PS104.207.219.150 (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)Ps

Fred Guttenberg, Andrew Pollack

Should the Jewish identity of Fred Guttenberg be mentioned or is it best omitted? Ditto at Andrew Pollack. Bus stop (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

RfD notification: Jewish words and expressions

I've nominated Jewish words and expressions for discussion at RfD. Your input at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 28#Jewish words and expressions would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Shortcut was deleted because there was no agreement on what the most appropriate target would be. Editors are free to recreate if they see fit. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:G-d

Template:G-d has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Cabayi (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Template was retained (based on no consensus to delete). StevenJ81 (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Merge proposal: Haketia ↔ Tetuani Ladino

I'm not templating these yet, because I'll probably just do the merge myself. But I think Haketia and Tetuani Ladino should be merged. That will probably be pretty uncontroversial per se (unless I'm really missing something), but I'm less sure which name should survive and which should become the redirect.

  • Please comment if you think I'm missing something and both articles should be retained.
  • I think that Haketia is probably more commonly used these days, but I'm open to refutation on that. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • No expertise here, but I did poke around a bit - it seems they are both treated as distinct Ladino variants - one for Algeria and one for Morocco.[6][7] In as much the whole Ladino tree isn't merged - merging these might not make sense.Icewhiz (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Shema Yisrael Torah Network

Would someone from WP:JUDAISM mind taking a look at this and assessing it for notability? It's been tagged for sources and notability since 2009 and has bascially been unedited since 2013. I'm not finding anything which even comes close to meeting WP:ORGDEPTH, but perhaps someone here will have better luck. If not, then WP:PROD or WP:AFD might be in order. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

RS misrepresenting Jewish scholarship

If anyone can help untangle the mess at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#How_do_we_deal_with_a_RS_being_factually_incorrect.3F, I'd be grateful. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party

Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 7#RfC: Inclusion of expert opinions, views of pundits, activist groups, tweets, etc. may be of interest to board followers.Icewhiz (talk) 09:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

technical question

I would like this to redirect using the uppercase "J". How would I accomplish that? Bus stop (talk) 08:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you're asking. Are you asking about creating a redirect from "Orthodox Jew" with a capital J? There already is one.[8] — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 13:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I know, I have seen that. But "search" for "Orthodox Jew" in the "search" box and all that comes up is this redirect. Do we need both of these redirects? The only difference between them is that one is in lowercase and the other is in uppercase. I would like to delete the one in lowercase as it is unnecessary. Bus stop (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand how Wikipedia Search works; sometimes it's case-specific and sometimes it's not. If you really want to delete the lower-case redirect, nominate it at WP:Redirects for discussion. But be forewarned: many editors hold the attitude that "redirects are cheap", so unless there's a good reason to delete a redirect, it will probably stay. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk
Thanks for that. I've nominated the lowercase redirect for deletion here. Bus stop (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Sukkot and Shmini Atzeret

Just a heads up that Yom Kippur was not able to be on the front page due to reference issues, let's try to be ahead of this one. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I really get sick of that. Ya know? Anyway, I'll focus on Shemini Atzeret.
People should also look at Hoshana Rabba and Simchat Torah. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Simchat Torah just received a few edits from me. Awful. Debresser (talk) 17:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Personal thanks to Sir Joseph and anyone else who helped make sure Sukkot was listed. And personal thanks to Debresser for looking at Simchat Torah, which was clearly not a quick-fix project. (Neither was Hoshana Rabba, as far as it goes.) Now that we are headed into "ordinary time", as our Christian friends would put it, let's try to work periodically on these while we're not under time pressure. And as my wife, who works in Judaica retail, reminds me, Chanukah is not that far off ... StevenJ81 (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

East London Central Synagogue

Please may I bring to your attention the draft page now pending at Draft:East_London_Central_Synagogue. Please also note the redlink Sfardish for which a page would be very helpful indeed, as it is naturally confused with Sephardic 51.6.65.190 (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

PS I haven't yet clicked "Submit your draft for review" - feel free to do so if you think it's ready 51.6.65.190 (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Why do you think "Sfardish" should be an article? Debresser (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
because when I searched online for information about what this word means in this context, I found as good as nothing. As far as I could tell it was more often being taken as a synonym for Sephardic. One of the references I've given for the article gives a passing explanation, as does the interview I supplied in the External Links section

"The name Sfardish refers to a style of service that differs slightly from mainstream Ashkenazi and is similar to Hassidic usage. Sfardish is not to be confused with Sephardic. The order of service and certain extra words to some of the prayers are similar to Sephardic tradition, but the Hebrew pronunciation and tunes are Ashkenazi, as are most of the congregation."

Similar information from here

"Orthodox - Ashkenazi
Initially the style of service (nosach) was Sfardish (or Sphardish), also known as Askenazi Sfard (not to be confused with Sephardi)."

To be honest I don't understand what the arguments against there being an article on it would be, so I'm unsure how best to frame an argument for its inclusion other than, it's something that exists which Wikipedia isn't yet recording. 51.6.65.190 (talk) 05:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
By googling the term "Ashkenazi Sfard" I found the page Nusach Sefard, exactly the page I was hoping would exist. Perhaps a couple of redirect pages for that term and Sfardish would be helpful. (Perhaps I should try to remember my old Wikipedia login and do those myself...) 51.6.65.190 (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
"I don't understand what the arguments against there being an article on it would be" See WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. But yeah, linking to Nusach Sefard sounds like a good idea. Debresser (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Link to Nusach Sefard is a good idea. My main question to you is this: Is what they use (at least now) actually Nusach Sefard? If so, then just say so right in the article.
I never actually saw the term "Sfardish" before. But I have heard reference to/questions about "Ashkenazi Sfard" or "Ashkenazi Nusach Sefard". Is either (or both) of those worthy of a redirect? StevenJ81 (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Neither have I. In answer to your question: Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap. Debresser (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Why is this shul notable? I am thinking of AFDing it if no claim of notability is established. We certainly can't have every shul have an article here, unless notable. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I've expanded the section emphasising that this seems to be the most notable remnant of what was certainly a notable centre of Jewish life. I hope that's helpful. I've no idea if that would be deemed sufficient in an AfD - I had figured that, if someone made the decision to upgrade the status of my draft, they would be taking matters of notability into consideration. (Back when I was an active Wikipedia editor the articles I created were on very different topics, which perhaps had lower bars as regards notability)
Perhaps if a more general page, a history of Jewish religious life in London's East End existed, this page could be absorbed into it, as the final section, with information about its neighbouring survivor, the Congregation of Jacob synagogue, also included? Best wishes, 51.6.65.190 (talk) 07:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
The East End Jewish article would most certainly be a good article and notable, but unfortunately I don't see any notability to this one, I am sadly going to take it to AFD. Perhaps someone else might be able to dig up more stuff and I'll be glad to undo my nom. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • We certainly can't have every shul have an article here Why not? I can't find an obvious policy beneath WP:N about this, but (as someone more interested in architecture) I've certainly always worked on the principle that any church worth doing the typing for would be acceptable. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

KosherSwitch

As I discussed at Talk:KosherSwitch#NPOV, the creators of KosherSwitch are clearly in a huge fight with some rabbis. I would very much like to have someone who has no position on whether KosherSwitch is allowed under Jewish law but who also has more familiarity with the religious issues than I do to take a look at this article. My skills are better used working on the electronics/technical aspects. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk:613_commandments#Sourcing

Can someone please help out at Talk:613_commandments#Sourcing? Thanks. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Nominated Hannukah for GA

Just a heads up I nominated Hannukah for GA so keep a heads up on that article in case someone starts reviewing. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Some help on Israel Isserlein, please

An anon who geolocates to Haifa - 77.127.6.229 (talk) added a reference to Israel Isserlein (which has no references). Not being able to make any sense out of it, I reverted here. The anon then left a message on my talk page requesting assistance. We are having a communications issue. Would someone please help this person? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 09:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Articles on Tractates of the Talmud

I've noticed that many articles on individual tractates of the Talmud are poorly written. They are in desperate need of expansion and overall improvement. I want to expand the pages, but it is difficult to come across accurate sources about this subject. I would appreciate if someone could help out. Thank you - Alternate Side Parking (talk) 03:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

biography notability

Would anyone know what criteria is used to weigh the notability of rabbis to figure out if they are notable enough for an article about them? I'm not sure how to assess this. For example:

If this were enough I am not sure which of the 3 styles to use as primary title. While I think that Jewish Week and The Forward are notable sources, I don't know if this alone would qualify for starting a stub. Any input there? Seems to only be notable for 2 events. Ash Carol (talk) 05:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

The article would be called Mordechai Aderet (without the title). Minor local notoriety only. Small number of incidents. I don't think this man meets the general notability guidelines. JFW | T@lk 12:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hungarian Jewish groups

I've been working on a list/map that would help to locate the different Hungarian Jewish groups on a map. I would like to have all the pages of the rabbis and the groups on this list. Could you suggest some improvements before putting it to the main namespace? (The map itself is a bit problematic, but I haven't found anything better.) Drkazmer Just tell me... 16:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on a police investigation into antisemitism in the UK Labour party

There is a discussion at Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party#RfC on inclusion of police investigation that editors here might be interested in - I couldn't find a WikiProject on antisemitism so thought this project would be most appropriate. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

RFC at Jackie Walker

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jackie_Walker_(activist)#Request_for_comment_can_we_say_Jackie_Walker_is_Jewish Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment

I'm a little concerned about this DYK hook, but being neither Jewish nor a historian I wasn't sure what to conclude other than it probably doesn't belong bolded on the front page valereee (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED. Also per WP:DYKRULES there's nothing discouraging potentially controversial topics from being on the front page; on the contrary, it is encouraged to chose interesting topics that can draw viewers attention. Numerous topics related to Polish-Jewish history, and more controversial issues such as The Holocaust and antisemitism have been DYKed in the past, just a few recent examples:  Eliezer Gruenbaum, The Black Book of Polish Jewry, Secret City (book), Report to the Secretary on the Acquiescence of This Government in the Murder of the Jews, Sambor Ghetto and others. The article about the saying that is proposed for DYK is stable (outside of an RM that seems likely to finish soon in no move) and neutral (no tags, edit warring, active discussions). The article doesn't hide the fact that the saying originates from a xenophobic poem (a fact mentioned in lead and the text), and one of the proposed hooks even draws attention to the fact the saying is an exaggeration. Nonetheless, as shown in the article, that historical use is rare today, and the saying is generally used to refer to the Golden Age of Jews in Middle Ages in Poland. It is also not a controversial or offensive saying - despite one user making OR arguments to the contrary, it is not used in antisemitic context. Let me repeat - the article is stable and nobody has found sources to say that the saying is controversial or problematic (outside of what is already in the article). The proverb is displayed in the POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews and the supposedly controversial part of it is even used as a gallery heading ([9]) - you would think that if this was truly controversial, the museum would reconsider said use, or at least add a note or something. Not to mention you'd expect international/Jewish press to discuss the issue. Alas, not a single journalist ever has picked up on any potential controversy. Only one scholar, very critical of the POLIN museum, has (in passing) criticized this saying/phrase (they also criticized many other elements of the museum, up to and including a display of garlic). A few other scholars have replied to the original criticism, nobody else repeated the claim that this phrase is problematic, the museum continues to use it and our article discusses this issue quite at length. As long as the hook wording is neutral, I can't possibly imagine what would make this topic inappropriate. In fact, as long as it is properly worded, an article related to Jewish history would actually make a good Chanukah-time DYK. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


AfD that may interest the community

In relation to section above - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews. Icewhiz (talk) 09:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews

Please see the relevant AFD [10] --Shrike (talk) 08:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Shabbat siren

I have created the above draft and would appreciate if someone form here would review it and/or provide feedback. Thanks - Puzzledvegetable (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

You should include a history section, that the siren takes the place of the announcement by the Kohanim in the Temple. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
You could add that sometimes the siren is omitted, when Israel is under threat of war. Apparently so as not to frighten people who might think it is a real war siren. Debresser (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
@Debresser: I didn’t come across that when Googleing about the Shabbat siren. Do you have a particular source? Puzzledvegetable (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone know of a potential infobox template for this page? Puzzledvegetable (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
From personal observation, no source, sorry. I don't think the article needs an infobox, or that an appropriate one exists, for that matter. Debresser (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

New WikiProject

I have suggested that a new WikiProject that may be of relevance to this one, be created. If you are interested in viewing the proposal or taking part in the discussion, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Jewish works

Puzzledvegetable (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Move review Paradisus Judaeorum

Paradisus Judaeorum, renamed following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews is currently in discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 December, and may interest this community. Icewhiz (talk) 07:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Nizkor.org

Does anyone know why www.nizkor.org is coming up with malware alerts? Does anyone have contacts that might help fix this? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 00:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Somebody with extra snark in their diet removed this question, perhaps unaware that there are links to nizkor.org in (at the moment) 898 pages related to Judaism. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 16:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Are the edits from this range today spam?

[11] has been adding websites as sources or external links, sometimes replacing old urls to different sites. Doug Weller talk 11:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks like he's replacing (or in some place responding to CNs) not so great sources/links (usually dead links) with other not so great sources/links. In both cases this is a lecture by a Rabbi. I don't think I would see this as spam or anything nefarious (at least the 10 or so I examined). Icewhiz (talk) 11:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I have collected a batch of articles which contain Judaism-related links to DAB pages. Expert attention would be welcome. Some of the puzzles may be insoluble, but I work on the principle that You Never Know. Search for 'disam' in read mode, and for '{{d' in edit mode. If you manage to solve one of these puzzles, remove the {{dn}} tag in the article, and post {{done}} here.

Thanks in advance, Narky Blert (talk) 10:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Items archived from WP:WikiProject Judaism/Assessment

I am archiving three items from the WikiProject assessment page. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Violence in the Bible

I am working on a total rewrite-- in my sandbox-- of an existing article that was flagged as needing it: The Bible and Violence. I am wondering if I can put upon someone to give me a fair and honest assessment of the content before I go any further. I'm still pretty new here and haven't made any friends I can ask yet. I think the title needs changing because it is too broad, and it's meaning is ambiguous. I have gone with Violence in the Bible because that is actually what the article discusses. The article not only lacked sufficient inline references, it needed reorganizing. The entire existing article is subsumed in the rewrite. I left nothing out. I even checked and read up on his references. Everything he said is still there--it's just rearranged and either edited for conciseness or expanded and added to. I would especially like comments on including the section on apologetics--which contains the non-sectarian information--or combining them all into single paragraphs--or deleting it entirely...and whatever your reasoning on that might be. If you have additional references to recommend, that would be good too. I would like to expand the non-sectarian section if anyone has any ideas. Please help me! I have already run into some vitriol on this. This was first posted at 06:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see an article with that name anywhere. I see User:Jenhawk777/sandbox, which you seem to want to name Violence in the Bible at some point. And I see User:Jenhawk777/Violence and Christianity, which seems to be a piece of work based on Christianity and violence. Can you be a little more specific about the evolution of all of this? StevenJ81 (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 Not done I cannot figure out what I was supposed to assess for this. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Bene Israel

- Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Assessed as B-class. As far as I can tell, fairly complete, with good references. @Jonathansammy:, the existing material is (in my view) reasonably close to GA standards, at least if you can get the {{cn}} marks cleaned up. (Warning: GA assessors don't always understand Judaism very well. In this case, which is not an article on a hard-core religious subject, nor an article on Israel-Palestine, you might be ok if you want to go there.) I think if you can expand a little more on the section about the Bene Israel in Israel today it would be worthwhile, and if you are thinking about GA you'll need to do this. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Judah ben Tabbai

— Yael Tziyona (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC). I completely rewrote the article. It now has a logical structure and citations throughout.

Assessed as C-class. @Yael Tziyona: This is certainly much better than before you started working on it. Thank you. The main reason I marked it as "C" is that it is pretty thin. But then, so are many other pages about Tana'im. If you want this to be B-class, I'd like you to see if you can find RS to expand on the page further. If you have a hard time finding sources, let me know. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

ADL RfC

An RfC that might interest this community - Talk:Anti-Defamation League#RfC - lawsuit. Icewhiz (talk) 07:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Expurgation#Religious needs detail

Expurgation § Religious, which reads in full

In 1264, Pope Clement IV ordered the Jews of Aragon to submit their books to Dominican censors for expurgation.

does not describe what was excised or changed, unlike the other sections of the article. It would benefit from that information. -- Thnidu (talk) 01:48, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Mendy Pellin

The above article is extremely poorly written, especially for a biography of a living person. Please take the times to visit the article and collaborate on improving it. Thanks - Puzzledvegetable (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft about a rabbi

Could someone please look at Draft:Rabbi David M. Posner and determine whether this person is notable? I'm assuming that the answer is yes, since The New York Times wrote a full obituary (i.e., not a paid death notice written by the family) about him. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Treif

Happy New Year everybody! Can someone in the know help along with this issue? Debresser argued to turn it into a redirect (as already the case with kosher). However, the term treif is not explained as such within the envisaged target Kashrut. Any ideas? Kind regards--Hildeoc (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The obvious idea is to explain in the kashrut article what treif is. Debresser (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
As a side note, I've noticed that a lot of entries at WP:RFD have a rationale of "not mentioned in the target article", so if we redirect pages to even obviously related targets, but they don't mention that in the current version, they seem to be at a greater risk of deletion. I started a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Redirect#RFD as cleanup, if anyone's interested in the general case. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The 50 Greatest Jewish Movies

I'm not sure if this should be kept or deleted. On the one hand it seems like a useful article; on the other hand it is based on one source. Bus stop (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

It's based on one source because it's an article about a book titled The 50 Greatest Jewish Movies. I get fewer than 100 Google hits for the title (without "the"), and that includes Wikipedia mirrors. There were only a handful of reviews, such as this one, but none of the major newspapers or trade magazines appear to have reviewed it. (Then again, it was published in 1998, so maybe some of the reviews it received aren't online.) — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm inclined to keep it for subjective reasons; it is a useful if not exhaustive sampling of that genre. Bus stop (talk) 06:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Mizrahi Jews#Original research

Please become involved in the discussion, will be much appreciated. AddMore-III (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Should Esther and Vashti have an infobox

There is currently a discussion about this on Talk:Vashti#Infobox. Debresser (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Since these are supposed to be "Queens of Persia", and Vashti is never claimed to have been Hebrew/Jewish, I will also raise this at the Persian project, since Debresser has most unaccountably failed to do so! Johnbod (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Well done, Johnbod. Apart from the personal note, which you had better left unmentioned. Sigh... Debresser (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

New task force proposal

I am thinking about setting up a task force within this WikiProject to deal with Jewish works, primarily the Talmud and Mishna. Despite the importance of written works in Judaism, many of the articles devoted to Jewish works, including articles on specific tractates of the Mishna and Talmud, are in desperate need of attention. They are poorly written, lack sources, and don’t convey enough information. If you would be willing to join such a task force, please indicate below. Any feedback about this idea would be appreciated. -- Puzzledvegetable (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Wish you luck. Debresser (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
@Debresser: Do you know of any users that would join if this task force were to be created? -- Puzzledvegetable (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I will try - with Hashem's help - to contribute. --תנא קמא (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Potential source from Ami Magazine

I have added a reference to Avraham Steinberg § Career , but upon closer examination, it appears the reference may have copied the information from this Wikipedia article. The source in question does not attribute this Wikipedia article, but I still feel it may have been copied. I would appreciate if another editor can look it over and determine if the source did in fact plagiarize from Wikipedia.

This is the source: Frankfurter, Yitzchock (January 30, 2019). "A Life of Halachah & Medicine". Ami Magazine. No. 403. p. 88. Retrieved January 31, 2019.

-- Puzzledvegetable (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Puzzledvegetable: I think there is a very good chance that this Wikipedia article was the source used in Ami Magazine. I also couldn't find a different source to confirm the MDA committee, and the only other source about the mohel committee did not say he was chair. (He may have been for a while, and is no longer. Who knows?) I don't think this stuff must be removed from the article; I'd be surprised if it was wrong. But I think you should go back to {{citation needed}}. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Notification of merge discussion

I opened a discussion on merging Kosher foods into Kashrut. see Talk:Kashrut#Merger_proposal Hydromania (talk) 06:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Talmud info on plant

Hi all. I'm working on a plant article, Peganum harmala, and ancient history is an interest. It has recently come to my attention that it is possibly mentioned once in the Talmud -something about it being a wild plant and therefore not requiring tithes. Reason I say possibly is that the English name for this plant, "rue", is ambiguous regarding exact species, being confused since Greek times with Ruta graveolens. In Ancient Greek the word πήγανον may allude to either plant, depending on qualifier, fide Dioscorides, but I note that at least in modern Hebrew the names are distinct (פיגם vs. שבר לבן). Note similarity of פיגם with πήγανον. Would anyone know where exactly in the Talmud this is mentioned, is the text Aramaic or Hebrew, and which name exactly is used? Πήγανον is also in the New Testament (Luke) -in that case tithes do need to be paid, but as mentioned, the Greek language is ambiguous here; I'm hoping the Talmud has an answer regarding this... Regards, Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: fide Flora of Israel Ruta graveolens doesn't occur in the wild in Israel (but may have been cultivated), but R. chalepensis does (esp. in the north) -which may be known as "wild rue" in English. Peganum harmala may also be known as "wild rue", and is quite common in southern Israel, where the relevant passage in the Bible plays out. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

See here if this helps, [12] Sir Joseph (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Joseph (just Google the terms, why didn't I think of that?)... Hmmm, not what I was expecting. So the plant occurs at least twice in the Talmud. So according to this book the word "tigna" (טגן‬ maybe?‬) is used, which is some declension/derivative of "teganon", which it equates to "peganon" (-seems like an intellectual stretch), which Löw unhelpfully says might be either Peganum or Ruta. "Plinius Valerius" isn't too helpful either: first off, he doesn't exist -he was invented around the 15th century as the purported author of the then popular compendium of herbs known as the Medicina Plinii -quotes taken from Pliny the Elder in ~350, then hugely expanded with anonymous text in the 6th to 7th centuries. Second the instructions in Latin are far too different to be a direct translation of "tigna" as ruta. The words ruta sicca might indicate (our) Ruta, not Peganon, is meant, of which seeds or root are more likely to be used. If I knew in which part of the Talmud this is from, and could verify if the Latin quote in question is actually from Pliny the Elder, then the case could be made that in this instance that the Talmud was inspired by Pliny, and thus then "tigna" = Ruta, but this seems a weak argument. Not really worth pursuing.
I think the text I want would go something like:

"This plant may also be the ... mentioned in the Talmud, although the identity of ... is confused with Ruta spp.."

with references to the specific parts of the Talmud and Löw, this book, and/or others who translate the word(s) in question as such.
Lot of darned work for one lousy sentence! I think I'll find a Talmud and search it for טגן‬ and the modern Israeli Hebrew names. Although לבן שבר is a strange one... white grain? That might refer to a Yemenite legend from 1750 abouts -an etymology would be nice. Thanks, Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I doubt it's טגן as that's a total dead end in Jastrow. Then again, it's a notoriously difficult dictionary to use. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)‬

Thanks guys, I found it as פָּגַם ,פִּיגָּם ,פִּגָּם ,הַפֵּגָם ,פָּגוּם -it is mentioned numerous times, all in the Mishnah, also found it in Jastrow -he's useful. Alas, the Talmud seems to be using the Greek name, and from the text it is not clear to me which plant is actually being written about. Jastrow claims the word is of Semitic origin, although I don't see his logic, as the word is attested in Greek sources 600 years earlier and has a good Greek etymology. Jastrow identifies the plant simply as 'rue'... That in Modern Hebrew Ruta chalepensis is now being called the Talmudic פיגם must mean everyone else nowadays assumes that this is what is being talked about, but I can't help but feel the modern day convention is a NW European interpretation. I think I'll just sit on this a bit till I've read more. Cheers 86.83.56.115 (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC

Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 9#RfC: Stamford Hill may be of interest to this project.Icewhiz (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

WP 1.0 Bot Beta

Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 06:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Purim

Purim is coming up and should be checked for citation needed tags and be ready to be bombed with tags once it gets placed on the "tomorrow's OTD." So be on the lookout. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Al HaNissim

Does anyone have a reliable source for when Al HaNissim was written? The article lacks this info, and I can't find it anywhere online. I hope to have this info up by Purim. — Puzzledvegetable (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, it was instituted by the same sages of the Great Assembly who instituted the general text of the 18 prayer. Which is probably why you can't find a source, because it is no different than all other parts of the 18 prayer. Debresser (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Yinglish merger

A discussion about the above article agreed to merge it with Yiddish words used in English. If anyone can help out, that would be appreciated. --Puzzledvegetable (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

In the future you might want to WP:DELSORT so that this project would be notified of the AFD. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on Talk:Jewish religious clothing

To whom it may concern: There is currently a discussion between editors on Talk:Jewish religious clothing regarding an image that appears on the main article. At first, I thought we might need to defer our discussion to Wikipedia:RfC to help us build a consensus, but upon second thought, it would only attract people who are unfamiliar with Jewish laws and customs. Therefore, I appeal to my fellow editors here to review the comments on that Talk-Page and to give an opinion about the matter at hand. Shalom.Davidbena (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

We would still appreciate any feedback on an issue raised in Talk:Jewish religious clothing#Edit warring over the appropriateness or inappropriateness of an image.Davidbena (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
This discussion has proceeded to RfC, located at Talk:Jewish religious clothing § Request for Comment. Ibadibam (talk) 05:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on Antony Lerman of openDemocracy at the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion on the reliability of Antony Lerman of openDemocracy on the reliable sources noticeboard with respect to the Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party article. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Antony Lerman at openDemocracy. — Newslinger talk 03:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Chassidic

Chassidic redirects to Hasidic Judaism, but that article has no mention of the term/spelling. Could it be added in some reasonable manner? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Eyes on Kosher wine please

A new editor is trying to state on Kosher wine that you must be a male to make kosher wine and I'm afraid an edit war is brewing. A pair of eyes would be appropriate. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I've read some of the diffs, but haven't read all of them. Is it possible that he's just (clumsily) claiming that one has to be male to be a mashgiach? Gilded Snail (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Passover

It's less than four days until Passover appears on the main page on the on this day feature, and then inevitably gets removed again because the article is woefully undersourced. An edit war and various arguing will then ensue. I don't suppose it's possible that someone could at least ensure there are no unsourced paragraphs or sections before Saturday? I would try it, but my knowledge of this area is pretty much zero. Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but what changed this year, the page has been on the main page every year but 2017, since 2004, according to the talk page. I will reiterate that being a FA is not a requirement for OTD. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, I was thinking of Rosh Hashanah, but the concept applies anyway :) Black Kite (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Moves and new article Hashem

A relatively new editor, Yallayallaletsgo (talk · contribs) has created Hashem as a stand alone article, the old one having been a dab. There's a bit of a mess with talk pages and the old links, and the article itself seems poorly sourced. If someone could take a look it would be helpful. I'm also having problems at Mount Gerizim where the editor is insisting that Yahweh must be replaced by Hashem "removed a word that is not allowed to be typed or uttered by Jews or Samaritans and is not appropriate for the article. Instead added the proper term and an explanation." I don't think this is appropriate and am concerned that they may try to make this change elsewhere. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the Mount Grizim article, I think that using God in Judaism is the obvious best candidate, and have made that change. Debresser (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Debresser: I agree, that's the best choice. I'm still concerned about the Hashem problems of course. This new editor also doesn't understand our copyright policy but I've told them about that now. Doug Weller talk 13:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
The standalone page is deleted as a copyvio. So do we move the dab back? StevenJ81 (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Assyrian captivity needs attention

Compare and contrast Babylonian captivity with Assyrian captivity. The former looks pretty decent, whereas the latter would seem to need some major work. Any thoughts or volunteers? Feline Hymnic (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Contradiction at Antisemitic canard

There's a discussion going on about whether or not there were pogroms following the Black Death. Please contribute your thoughts at Talk:Antisemitic canard#Contradiction about post-Black Death massacres. Mathglot (talk) 08:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Should the Tefilin article include the section "How to put on tefillin"?

If you like, share your input at Talk:Tefillin#Section_How_to_put_on_tefillin. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Ktav Stam

I found this article today and it has no references at all. If someone has some time, any help cleaning it up would be appreciated. Ktav_Stam. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I hope you agree that finding sources would be preferable to removing content. Just asking because "cleaning up" sounds like "removing". Debresser (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
רחמה ליצלן, that's not what I meant. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
{{Smile}} Debresser (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I think you were trying to do this: , which is accomplished through {{smiley}}. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Precisely. 21:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Orthodox_Judaism#Deleting_most_of_the_article

Talk:Orthodox Judaism § Deleting most of the article Please see Talk:Orthodox_Judaism#Deleting_most_of_the_article for a discussion on the Orthodox Judaism article Sir Joseph (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Usage question

From our article on Australian artist Howard Arkley:

His mother's side of the family was Jewish and his father was German.

Is this correct usage per WP:MOS or would it be better to rephrase this?

Thanks - 189.122.248.181 (talk) 02:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I would rephrase it considering that many Jews are German. In other words, nationality and religion are not the same thing. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, but in the absence of further details (nl. the nationality of the mother or the religion of the father), I don't think this can be rewritten meaningfully. "His father was German. His mother was Jewish."? In general, this is not lead material ("Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability."), and should be moved to a "Personal life" section. Debresser (talk) 07:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
See (for example) Judaism § Distinction between Jews as a people and Judaism. This is actually a very involved issue. To some extent, "Jewish" represents nationality, or at least peoplehood, and to some extent it represents membership in a religious community. So handling usage like this is not necessarily simple and straightforward.
Fortunately, in this case, we can kick the problem down the road—punt it away, if you will. As @Debresser notes, unless such matters are relevant to the subject's notability, they don't go in the lead of the article at all. As I read the article, Arkley's Australian-ness seems to be relevant, and so can stay in the lead. His ancestry—Jewish, German or otherwise—doesn't, so should be moved. (For contrast, see Marc Chagall, whose Jewishness absolutely belongs in the lead.) StevenJ81 (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Jerusalem for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Jerusalem is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Jerusalem 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 page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 13:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Lag BaOmer

Lag BaOmer is scheduled to be on the main page in a few days but there are a few citation needed tags. Please help reference the page if you have time. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Jewishness and Jewish heritage

Hello, WikiProject Judaism,

I have a question I hope you can help me with. I work a lot with Categories and I'm running into individuals who seem like they are tenuously Jewish but who are categorized as Jewish. One incident had a musician who had one great-grandparent (out of 8 great-grandparents) who was Jewish, there is nothing in the article that says that they thought of themselves as Jewish, there is no information that they practiced or identified as Jewish, but they are in categories of Jewish performers.

I'm happy to have every notable Jewish person have an article on Wikipedia. But this seems like a case of Jewish ancestry and not Jewishness. What do you think? This isn't only a question about Jewishness, it's whether having one great-grandparent of any ethnicity or religion confers that ethnicity upon that person if they don't state that they identify with that heritage. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 00:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:CAT#Articles: "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." If a biography doesn't cite reliable sources that assert a person is Jewish, the article shouldn't be in categories for Jewish (Americans/journalists/actors/etc.) If the sources state that a person's parent(s) (or grandparents) were (or are) Jewish, the article may belong in categories for (Americans/journalists/actors/etc.) of Jewish descent. And even then, the article should only be in the category if Jewish descent is one of the person's defining characteristics. This has nothing to do with halakha, which says that a child of a Jewish mother is Jewish, but with Wikipedia's sourcing, WP:BLP, and categorization requirements. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
What Malik Shabazz said, though I tend to be a little more lenient for non-living people who were obviously Jewish (e.g. Yiddish speaking). Even for living people, if someone is, say, a rabbi, then they are pretty likely to be a Jew too. Jayjg (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
I too would urge not to remove categories too quickly. We have Template:Uncited category for cases that seem to be true but lack a source. Debresser (talk) 23:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
I would point out that WP:BLP recommends haste, not deliberation, in the removal of unsourced contentious material—"whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable"—from biographies of living people, and often the subject's religion is contentious. Obviously if the topic isn't contentious, or if adherence to a particular religion is an implicit job requirement , there's no need for hasty removal of a category while sources are sought. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Maharam or Meir of Rothenburg?

This proposed move discussion at Talk:Meir_of_Rothenburg#Proposed_move has been neglected for some months. Any constructive input welcomed, even (especially) if critical. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Timeline of LGBT Jewish history#Allegations that Torah true classical scholars supported and implied pro gay themes and memes is ludicrous

Hi all, please see: Talk:Timeline of LGBT Jewish history#Allegations that Torah true classical scholars supported and implied pro gay themes and memes is ludicrous. What do you say? IZAK (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Alleged claims of descent from the Baal Shem Tov requires WP:RS

Please see: Centralized discussion at Talk:Timeline of LGBT Jewish history#Descended from Baal Shem Tov? Proof please!. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Bdieved/Lhatchila

Answering this question, made me think we have redlinks for bdieved and lhatchila. Or are there bluelinks I'm not spelling correctly? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd write them "bediavad" or "b'diavad" and "lechatchila" or "l'chatchila". Notice by the way, that "bediavad"/"b'diavad" is the grammatically correct form of what in Yeshivish is pronounced as "bedieved"/"b'dieved". Debresser (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Does he: have a page for either/both? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
he:לכתחילה ובדיעבד Anyone want to have a crack at an English page? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not the one to write this. But I will note that the one small description I found is located at List of Talmudic principles § Modern observance. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Also, we tend to kh for ח. So probably "lechatkhila" ... StevenJ81 (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:COMMON we should use the most common English spelling, which I think it "lechatchila". Debresser (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I'll be honest: I think it should be a section within Halakha, not a separate page. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabbos goy

Please note above discussion. Thank you --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 20:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Shnayim mikra ve-echad targum

I've just added a few tags to the above article. It is in desperate need of attention. Please see the talk page where I discuss why. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 13:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Expulsion of Jews from Spain

An article of interest to this project—Expulsion of Jews from Spain—has been proposed for merging from Alhambra decree. Your feedback would be welcome at the merge discussion. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Messianic holiday IP user???

Hi all, Special:Contributions/173.238.231.208 has been adding "Messianic Jews" to the 'Celebrated by' section of the infoboxes for Jewish holidays. (Edit summary: "Messianic Jews also celebrate this Holy Day.") I feel like this is something I should just roll back, but I'm soliciting other opinions in the meantime. Gilded Snail (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

There are some landmines here. Theoretically *adding* Messianic Jews to the list on the article indicates that for those who celebrate it that "Messianic Jews" is *not* a subset of Jews, which is *against* the claims of Messianic Jews. OTOH, *removal* would indicates that they are a subset of Jews. I'm not really sure how to proceed, I just thought that I'd throw this out here.Naraht (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The editor made a request here, and I denied it. So far this was not in the infoboxes of article (except Yom Kippur). Let me copy my comment here, and centralize this discussion:
So far editors have opposed the addition of Messianic Judaism at that place in the infobox, as lending undue attention to a minor group. Another argument could be that just like we don't specify all the denominations of Judaism that keep the holiday, stating simply "Judaism", likewise Messianic Judaism is included. Debresser (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Also, moving back to somewhere safer ground WP-wise. the request started out with "I celebrate", do we have any hope of finding something actually referencable on this? It isn't as if Messianic Judaism is a tightly controlled religion (like say the Mormons)Naraht (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC

Please become involved in the recent debate at Talk:Sholom Dovber Schneersohn. AddMore-III (talk) 04:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism/Archive_36&oldid=1044668944"