Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orthodox Judaism/Archive2

Introduction

I have reworded and touched up the introduction so that there will not be complaints that this WikiProject is keeping anyone out, because theoretically, since Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia, anyone can join any WikiProject just as anyone is free to edit any article at any time regardless of their faith etc. This should be a self-evident truth on Wikipedia and should not require further elaboration. IZAK 08:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what does this project do that WikiProject Judaism doesn't do? Jon513 17:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In some ways, while sympathising with the needs of this Wikiproject, I agree with the need for User:Jon513 question. IZAK 09:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It focuses on Orthodox Judaism. Previously the Project was called Chareidi Judaism, I changed it to Orthodox to include the modern-orthodox also. A few reasons for this project:

The number of chareidi/orthodox editors is very small.
It is a very specific area.
It is basically, from my point of view, intended to be a huge talk page for the entire section of articles on Orthodox Judaism. --Daniel575 17:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that's nice, now how about a word from our sponsor? Tom e r ^talk 07:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi darlin': Get your facts straight: I am neither "the sponsor" (a job best left for Hakadosh Baruch Hu) nor the original nor latter creator of this Wikiproject. It was started in August 2005 by User:Ezra Wax (we don't see much of him around lately) as "Wikipedia:WikiProject Chareidi Judaism" and at that time I did not join it (neither did anyone else because it was too limiting, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 7#Charedi Judaism Wikiproject where both User:Jfdwolff and myself felt it was premature: "What are you trying to achieve that cannot be done as part of this project? JFW | T@lk 18:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC). I agree with JFW's sentiments at this stage. What's up Ezra? Don't just shoo-in and shoo-out, say something please. OK? IZAK 06:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)"), and now recently some new(ish) editors, primarily User:Nesher [1] User:Daniel575 [2] and User:Crzrussian [3] have brought fresh energy and impetus all around and have sought to revive it under the more generic name of "Wikipedia:WikiProject Orthodox Judaism" after which I then spruced up the project's page [4] [5] [6] and joined it as you too are free to do because I think it has its value and can play an important role in terms of how Orthodox Judaism and (editors dealing with it) functions and is perceived on Wikipedia. Best, IZAK 09:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IZAK, give up the terms of endearment--you don't do South Carolina very convincingly. :-p I referred to you as the sponsor because from what I can see you've done the most to make the project what it is presently. Anyways, I see no diminishment of the glory of Haqadhosh barukh-Hu in my remark. TIA Tom e r ^talk 00:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right-O Tomer: You are right, I don't do South or North Carolina imitations well (but you should see my talents with multiple varieties of Yiddish accents... but that is another story.) Ok, then, if you think I am deserving of some sort of compliments, fine, but so far this formal project is in its infancy... but if you are referring to laying the groundwork over the years then fine, that I will agree with, but as they say in Nu Yawk: "That and a token will get you on the subway." Best, IZAK 10:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You did fine, right up until the last sentence. Tom e r ^talk 06:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just for that you will have to wash your mouth out with some hot super-mehadrin-glatt-kosher cholent. IZAK 08:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

meh. can I at least demand that you take out the sugar and add some spices? :-p Tom e r ^talk 08:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You honestly think I would put sugar into cholent and desecrate it? In fact I don't know of anyone who does, it's just lashon hara against Ashkenazim (I have heard rumors that some put a few pitted prunes into their cholent to sweeten it, but I haven't seen it in a mighty long time.) By now, with Israeli culture and Israeli cuisine being so all-pervasive in the Jewish world (religious and secular) everyone I know, even the most Hasidic of Hasidim, love pepper, cumin, garlic, and as much salt as the doctor allows (usually way more) in thick spicy cholents. Anyhow, my family members have forbidden me to make my kind of cholent with lot's of pepper and a bay leaf or two on top (never eat bay leaves -- they cause stomach upset, so never crush them and remove them before serving). Gotta go, dreamin' of cholent. IZAK 10:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. I got this awful récipé for "chunt" from a friend of mine, replete with chocolate and sugar and it was the worst shabath meal I'd ever had. B"H it rotted by the time shabath was over so I didn't feel bad about throwing it out. I'll stick with jamín anyday. :-) Tom e r ^talk 05:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leftists trying to put POV tag on 'Israel'

An attempt by anti-Israeli leftists to put a POV tag to 'Israel'. Please vote (against). --Daniel575 18:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, this sort of entreaty is completely inappropriate, even here. Inviting comment or participation is fine, but telling people how to vote is completely unacceptable. Please review this again. Cheers, Tom e r ^talk 07:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sorry, how could I forget to keep in mind all of those frumme yidden who would vote in support of the POV tags. I think you're exaggerating the rules slightly. --Daniel575 07:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, lose the chip on your shoulder. If you're so sure of how people here will vote, there's no need to tell us how you want us to vote. Telling people how to vote is incredibly bod foam. Tom e r ^talk 08:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would any of us here vote in support of those POV tags? Sigh. I do not understand what your problem is, with this. --Daniel575 08:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't be any clearer about "[my] problem with this". If you want to elicit input from editors, fine. If you even want to tell them to vote, fine. Telling editors how to vote, however, is completely out of line, even if your desired vote and their assumed vote are completely clear. To bash a hole through the density you're portraying, just in case it's real and not feigned, what I'm referring to specifically is your "(against)". I have no problem with anything else you wrote in that post [although I'm having an increasingly annoyed reaction to your "I'm right, so just shut up" attitude in subsequent posts...], just the absolute direction of exactly how the reader is supposed to vote. Tom e r ^talk 08:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could also find something more useful to get so worked up about. --Daniel575 08:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about instead of lecturing me about how to spend my time, you learn how WP works. Thanks. Tom e r ^talk 23:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about we let this rest and focus on more useful things. --Daniel575 12:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please let's. Tom e r ^talk 06:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TShilo12 please review this it can tell people how to vote, anti-zionist means someone who is against zion (Jerusalem) why type of scum is against zion nobody but anti-semites so those anti-zionists can go die in a fire --Java7837 20:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling names

It's pretty inconsistent now. Puppa (Hasidic dynasty) uses transliteration, while Spinka (Hasidic dynasty) uses English translations of the names. I say we should modify them all to the Hebrew versions. Then we get the question on how to write a A/O... Avraham or Avrohom, Yitzchak, Yitzchok? I vote for the latter. --Daniel575 12:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My constructive reaction to your vote is *gag* *hack* *splutter*, whereupon I turn blue in the face and go looking for a bubbler. Tom e r ^talk 18:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My somewhat more constructive recommendation is to direct you here and here. I found them both on my way to the bubbler. I'm feeling much better now too, in case you were wondering... Tom e r ^talk 18:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Easy on the WP:NPA. The proposed policy was absolutely not accepted. I, for one, oppose several points contained therein. Besides, there is a very strong argument that "Loshon Ashkenazis" be used for all ~~things Hasidic~~ Chassidische zachen. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, being a descriptive encyclopedia, surely we're not going to impose Tiberian diacritics on an article about "Puppa", for which it would be foreign? - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Tomer, I don't want to insult you, but you are a Conservative Jew. That does not disqualify you from participating in anything here. Please do not see this as an insult. However, it is simply a fact that a non-orthodox and even a modern-orthodox person will not easily understand the issues involved here. These people have never been called 'Avraham' - they have always been called 'Avrohom'. We are not talking about Israeli soldiers here. We are talking about Yiddish-speaking chassidishe Rebbes from Eastern Europe. Many of whom belong to movements which are in many cases fiercely anti-Zionist and fiercely opposed to 'Modern Hebrew', aka 'Ivrit'. Israelifying their names is a big insult. Why should 'Ivrit' be the standard, retroactively even? These are not Sefardim, not Israelis, not Ivrit-speakers. Then why do you want to posthumously alter the pronunciation of their names? --Daniel575 20:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, with all due respect, you don't know thing one about me besides what you can read on my user page. Nowhere on that page do I ever identify myself as Conservative, so lay off the condescension. Regarding Hebrew, I don't speak "Ivrit" any more than I speak "Ivris", rather, I speak `Ivriþ. I have not proposed anywhere that any spelling should be preferred, nor that anyone's names should be altered posthumously. I gagged because I personally find Ashkenazi Hebrew, especially some forms of Litvish, to be really unpleasant on the ear (to say nothing of unintelligible). That, btw, CR, is not a personal attack. It's not particularly constructive, but there's no attack in it anywhere. As for the links I provided, they were not meant to serve as a guideline for what "should" be done, but rather to point out that there has been a great deal of [sometimes] constructive [sometimes frivolous bickering] discussion on the issue. I vehemently opposed IZAK's recommendations when he first made them on the attempt at standardization page, as you can read there. I have no argument with having the article for the Besht at Yisroil ben Eliezer, but I would caution against the assumption that everyone coming along is going to look under Yisroil instead of either Israel or Yisrael [or Yisra'el in my case], so I recommend two scoops of redirects. Tom e r ^talk 23:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oy vey... I took you as gagging at Dan's opinion. And as a proud speaker of Litvish, phooey on you! - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen the spelling 'Yisroil' anywhere. That's Arabic. Well, 'Israil'. Not quite the same as Yiddish. I agree about the redirects: we need a lot of redirects for most pages. --Daniel575 07:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of Bobover/Sanzer Rebbes Names

The Bobover names make no sense now. These are in English:

These are Hebrew:

For clarity, I am moving the first three to respectively Shmuel and Shlomo. If anyone objects, please discuss. --Daniel575 10:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Shleimi, please. Tom e r ^talk 23:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is this supposed to mean? --Daniel575 23:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Shleimi" is one [of many] Eastern Yiddish pronunciations of שלומו. How to make that any clearer is beyond my ken. Tom e r ^talk 06:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what value that remark has in this discussion. Are you trying to make constructive edits or are you just trolling me? That's what it seemed like. --Daniel575 07:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was meant purely in jest. TIA. Tom e r ^talk 07:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two Shlomos are the only Bobover Rebbes on this list. Ruv Tzvi Elimelech and Ruv Shmuel Duvid are current day Sanz Klausenberger Rebbes. Yechezkel Shraga and Yekusiel yehudoh were from the 19th and 20th centuries, respectivlly. They were also Sanzer and Sanz Klausenberger rebbes. Shaul avrom 01:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chassidishe stubs

All of the following articles need work. I propose changing all English names into the original Hebrew ones (Isaac -> Yitzch[a/o]k, etc). Whether to write Avrohom or Avraham is up to the editor's choice, as far as I'm concerned.

Many articles need wikification, some work on wikilinks has to be done, and alternative names have to be added for every chassidus (so that search engines will find the Kretshnif article if someone googles for Kretchniv, etc). In every article, the word 'sect' should be changed to 'movement', preferably.

For content, please add any stories you know about rebbes of that chassidus. Such stories would be a great improvement. --Daniel575, 25 July 2006

To the above anon: While you are 100% correct that the information inside the articles below need to be standardized and Wikified please note the following: (1) You did not sign your name here with the four tildes ~~~~ so that you can be taken more seriously. Avoid anonymous comments on Wikipedia. (2) If you "propose" to do something to so many articles, you probably need to set up some kind of vote. (3) You cannot make up your own policy about naming conventions. Discussions and views about Hebrew naming conventions is a very sensitive and controversial subject because different people have different views and are following different traditions (mesoras) so be VERY careful. (4) Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) and add your views, it relates to what you are "proposing" here and you need to try to avoid an inevitable conflict with those editors who approach the study of Hebrew from an academic perspective and who do not appreciate the "Yeshivish" POV. (For example: See what's been said so far and the "mindset" of others in articles such as Hebrew alphabet, Niqqud, Study of the Hebrew language, and more in Category:Hebrew language.) (5) The correct term on Wikipedia is NOT "Chassidishe" nor "chassidus" but rather it is Hasidic Judaism (Note that Hasidism, Hasidic, and Hasid all redirect to Hasidic Judaism).) (6) Try to remember that while there is some leeway and room for individuality for everyone, Wikipedia is ultimately a secular encylopedia written in the English language written in a NPOV style (it's very much like being in an open cyber-university) which can be quite difficult to grasp and practice especially if one is trying to adhere to Torah Judaism at the same time. Thank you for taking the time to think about these points. IZAK 12:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- (1) You did not sign your name here with the four tildes ~~~~ so that you can be taken more seriously. Avoid anonymous comments on Wikipedia. (edit by Daniel575: it was me
- 2. You may be right about the vote. But the other points still stand, I think, without needing a vote.
- 3. We should follow the mesora of the rov/movement in question. Just like I don't want Sefardi Hebrew / Ivrit applied to the Satmar Rov, I don't want to apply Yiddish to the Ben Ish Chai.
- 4. I will, later.
- 5. I know. In articles I use 'Hasidic' (sometimes 'Chassidic' slips through), but on the talk page of this project we should be free to use insider-speak, so to say. It's the project OJ - there is no need to avoid Yeshivish here. Oy!
- 6. Certainly. It is a difficult balance. --Daniel575 12:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Hi Daniel: Thank you for your feedback. Firstly, do not change other people's comments, it is a big no-no on Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Five pillars. The mere fact that this project has been set up does not mean that it has become a "license" to run rough-shod over all previous articles and policies that have existed until now because to do so would be courting disaster and inviting a major rebuke from the wider Wikipedian community of which we are part, never lose sight of that. Using yeshivish or any other kind of mama-loshen here is ok, but at the same time we are a community of encyclopedists writing an online encyclopedia and not a coffee clutch hanging out and feifing on the velt (i.e. to "cock a snoot" and "the heck with everyone else" -- not a good attitude.) Finally, there cannot be two hundred ways of saying the same thing! It's one of two ways, either mainly Israeli Hebrew which you will note redirects to the main article which is Hebrew language (Ivrit) -- which is basically like Sephardi Hebrew language on Wikipedia -- or Ashkenazi Hebrew since most of the world's Jews are Ashkenazim and it's still widely used in Yiddish language-speaking homes, in Torah study and in Jewish services. But there CANNOT be twenty versions of Ashkenazi Hebrew on Wikipedia (it's enough that pronounciations can be written into the concerned articles) or ten versions of Sephardi Hebrew. The fact of the matter is, that Israeli Hebrew is dominant and that should be reflected on Wikipedia. The funny thing is that I have had similar debates with non-Jewish Hebraists on Wikipedia and I have told them the same thing when they insist on sticking to archaic and pedantic styles of old academic Hebrew that no-one knows. Do the math: There are about 13 million Jews in the world. More than six million live in Israel and speak modern Israeli Hebrew, and most Jews who live outside of Israel study Israeli/Sephardi Hebrew even though they pray in Ashkenazi Hebrew. So while I agree with you that English names can be moved to Hebrew names, after all Moshe Dayan is not "Moses Dayan" and Yitzhak Rabin is not "Isaac Rabin" and the names of rabbis are no less Hebrew than secular Israelis, yet there must also be a standard that does not become chaotic with thirty versions of what is after all only one Hebrew language. IZAK 13:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are all the names of the Chassiduyos so small??????? ~shaul Avrom

To keep things easy to read. Btw, you should sign with four times ~. Then you get the automatic signature -> --Daniel575 02:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was having issues loging in when I posted that comment. Shaul avrom 19:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it was so small is because the small tag wasn't closed. Firefox renders a small within a small as very small; Internet explorer doesn't. In Firefox the list gets smaller every line until after 10 lines it is impossible to read. I have closed all of the small tag so it is now regualar small size. Jon513 02:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right, I didn't know that. Thanks, will keep it in mind. And, stupid as it may sounds, just switch to IE! *me being a fervent Microsoftist* --Daniel575 | (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Internet Explorer. Once you switch to Firefox you do not go back. Jon513 19:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omein to that. --Shaul avrom 01:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of my chaverim gave me some eitzah to use Firefox and I mamash love it. I second the Amen. ~Jonny

Have an easy fast

Everybody. I just got back from Maariv+kinnos and learning 1,5 hours of Midrash Rabba Eichah with the Rov (Rav Avraham Yitzchak Ulman). Looking forward to a good night's sleep (considering that I slept 4 hours the past nights due to stress resulting from my engagement), davening in the morning and sleeping my way through the rest of the fast until shekiah. Now let's get back to 'work'. I think it's time we get to do some work on the Tisha b'Av article, as well as on those of other significant days. I am particularly thinking about adding sections on plain halacha regarding these days. I recently wrote two whole articles on Kiddush and on Havdala on the Dutch Wikipedia, basically slightly adapted modifications of a small book which I wrote in Dutch, summarizing 'The Radiance of Shabbos' in Dutch. Any proposals? --Daniel575 21:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin

Please take a look at Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin and the discussion page there and participate. --Daniel575 21:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zalman Nechemia Goldberg

Newly created page. Please add anything you know. --Daniel575 10:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories of Jews

I recently removed Benjamin Disraeli, who only had a Jewish father (not a Jewish mother), had been baptized and was an active practicing Christian, from the Category:English Jews. This seems to be a controversial thing, strangely. I would like to hear the thoughts of others on the subject of people with only a Jewish father who also identify with another faith as being included in a category of Jewish people. Discuss. --Daniel575 17:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this is very common. see Category:Black Jews. Most of them have only a Jewish father. Jon513 18:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's a POV from left wing Judaism saying that People that have just a Jewish Father are Yidden. I vote that we should make it so that on the lists of Yidden, it is only Yidden, and not people with just a Jewish Father are Jewish. ~shaul Avrom

I think it would be reasonable to at least say that people without a Jewish mother are not regarded as Jewish by halachah or by traditional branches of Judaism, and that practicing Christians are not regarded as religiously Jewish by most Jews. Would it be possible to have to have subcategories, i.e. Halachic Jews and Persons with Jewish Ancestry? (There must be better terminology out there). --Shirahadasha 04:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. See the talk page of the ORBCOTW also, where there is a response by the British editor involved here concerning Disraeli. He claims that his mother (Maria) was Jewish. Well, I don't know many Jewish mothers who are named Maria and agree to have their children baptized. Anyway, in general indeed, 'Jew' should mean 'Jew', not 'born Christian with a Jewish father who converted to Christianity before the birth of the person in question'. --Daniel575 | (talk) 11:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Messianic Jewish POVs

Hi, noticed that a number of Messianic Judaism folks have become involved in a bunch of articles including Messianism, The Third Temple, and Shekhinah, and Korbanot (although the korbanot edit, which was essentially a proslytizing essay, had been reverted at last look) and are presenting POVs similar to ones we saw in the edit controversy over Passover. in which Jewish and Christian concepts are treated as identical and a claim that in Christianity the concept the article described had been superceded by Jesus led to a discourse on Christian concpets whose relevance appears to me to be questionable. Perhaps some of the existing articles should be looked at periodically to ensure that the POV presented as a traditional Jewish one is in fact a traditional Jewish one. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll take a look also. --Daniel575 | (talk) 11:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transliteration conventions for Hebrew

I understand there is an official policy for how Hebrew terms should be transliterated, Wikipedia: Naming conventions (Hebrew), which requires modern Sephardic Hebrew as well as apostrophes in certain places. A number of articles -- Chanuyos comes to mind -- are titled in Ashkenazic Hebrew and would need to be renamed, and vast numbers of articles have various words in variant transliterations. There had been a previous discussion about carving out an exception, e.g. for Ashkenazic individual and place names, but this exception doesn't seem to have made its way into the policy. --Shirahadasha 16:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never been accepted, never will be, I for one enthusiastically oppose. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I get this is a draft not a final policy, edited and added a clarifying sentence to the intro with the word 'DRAFT' in it. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Crazy Russian --Shaul avrom 00:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI a recent edit on Wikipedia Talk: Naming conventions (Hebrew)#Official Policy suggests theres's been an impression that everyone's been heard and nobody's objected, might be useful to reply and offer an opinion if there are concerns that haven't been met. --Shirahadasha 01:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - posted there. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:_( A tear for Chanuyos. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to merge into WP:Hebrew

Hello. It turns out there have been two parallel attempts to devise a standard method of transliterating Hebrew, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) and WP:Hebrew. It has been proposed to merge them. The WP:Hebrew approach seems considerably more academic than the other, with a strong emphasis on scholarly phoneticism including a proposed requirement to use the International Phonetic Alphabetic and to mention Tiberian Hebrew pronunciation, and what appears to be a rule against the use of standard English transliterations. Mercy on us poor ignoramuses, who merely want to know how to look up a Hebrew/Jewish subject in an English-language encyclopedia. Feel free to weigh in. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know how to create templates?

I've created a timeline which shows Zugot>Tanaim>etc>acharonim. Now I need help turning it into a template. I want to be able to insert a name, year of birth and year of death into the template and come out with a bit of perspective (or whatever). If anyone can give me a hand, PLEASE let me know. Ayin Yud 09:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye everybody

I am soon going to be banned for the rest of my life. I am leaving with a clean heart, knowing that I fought the Zionists as much as I could, until my last minute on Wikipedia. (This may make people smile and wonder whether I'm on drugs, but no, I am completely serious.) See my talk page. The issues involved took place recently on Neturei Karta and HaEdah HaCharedis. See you later, and shana tova. --Daniel575 | (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, guess what, I'm still here. My next project is to turn 'Peace be upon him' into an accurate article also representing the Jewish view. In fact, since Hebrew and Judaism are older than Arabic and Islam, alav hasholom should be placed before the Arabic version, and the Judaism template before the Islam template. If anybody else would like to join in, please do. --Daniel575 | (talk) 09:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbi Pasternak

is up for deletion. FYI, ebverybody. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defining Halakha LeMoshe MiSinai

Please add your learned comments whether Halakha LeMoshe MiSinai should be part of the Oral Torah article or not. See the discussions at Talk:Oral Torah#Defining Halakha LeMoshe MiSinai. Thank you. IZAK 08:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish WIKIVERSITY

NEW: On Wikiversity there is now a "Jewish Studies School." Will it become a "duplication" of many things on Wikipedia? What should it's goals and functions be? Please add your learned views. Thank you. IZAK 09:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P'tcha

Rescued from prod. Please improve. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by User:Fduffy to Hebrew Bible articles and topics

For anyone with an interest in all the articles about the Hebrew Bible; Tanakh, Torah and related subjects, User:FDuffy, who is very serious and devoted to the Biblical criticism POV (by his own admission he is a "third year theology student"), has recently resumed serious editing of Hebrew Bible articles and subjects. Please see the extensive edits via Contributions/FDuffy Your involvement, responses and edits would be important at this juncture, especially if you are capable of adding material from classical Judaic sources since most of these articles are lacking the teachings of Judaism, their obvious true source. Thank you. IZAK 11:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting names with Christian and Jewish Orthodoxy

Hi: I posted the following at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy#"Orthodoxy" alone is ambiguous. Thank you. IZAK 03:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello: This message deals with a number of issues stemming from the unclear use of the word "Orthodox" and "Orthodoxy." In the past Wikipedia has tried to avoid confusion between the names of Orthodox Judaism and Eastern Orthodox Christianity by not using the word "Orthodox" or "Orthodoxy" alone in titles when other qualifying words, such as "Church" or "Christian" (in the case of Eastern Christian Orthodoxy) or words such as "Synagogue" or "Jewish" (in the case of Orthodox Judaism, would help to qualify the usage of the name "Orthodox" or "Orthodoxy" so that any reader or editor on Wikipedia should not be confused by a title and should know from an article's or category's name whether that subject deals with either Orthodox Judaism or Eastern Orthodox Christianity (also called Orthodox Christianity). In the past there has been no objection to inserting either "church" or "Christian/ity" where the Eastern Orthodox Church articles or categories are concerned and I have tried to move in this direction. It is for this reason that I have made the nominations to rename the ambiguous categories at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 14#Orthodox Christian categories. Yet it seems that some editors are not aware of this and I am bringing this to your attention. I will cross-post this message to Wikipedia:WikiProject Orthodox Judaism and to Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism for further discussion. The implications for Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy is that it too should be renamed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodox Church or Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodox Christianity to avoid any confusion with Wikipedia:WikiProject Orthodox Judaism. Sincerely, IZAK 02:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added a new article on Open Orthodoxy Given the above discussion this might be a problematic or ambiguous name, especially since there is an Open Orthodox University under Christian auspices. However, I do not want to use the phrase "Open Orthodox Judaism" since it's simply a philosophy and can't be called a branch of Judaism like Modern Orthodox Judaism etc. --Shirahadasha 17:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review: Liozna and Larger than Life (books)

Please see: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 19#Liozna and Larger than Life (books). Thank you. IZAK 06:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

L'shonoh Tovoh

BS"D

L'shonoh tovoh sikoseivu v'sichosemu, ah shonoh tovoh u'mesukoh, and A gut Year. Have a great 5767. --Shaul avrom 10:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashkenazi Hebrew

Ashkenazi Hebrew completely ignores the Chasidic version, with kubutz/shuruk as "ee", tzeirei as "ay", kamatz as "oo", terminal kamatz as "eh", etc. Should we add it into this article or should we create a new one? Leshana tova tikoseivu, everybody. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CR: Variants should definitely be incorporated into the Ashkenazi Hebrew article. Something else that would be a good inclusion is if someone could find information about the relationship between vowel shifts in Yiddish as they relate to vowel shifts in Ashkenazi Hebrew...if anyone has ever done such a study... Tom e r ^talk 00:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Gurary article

Hi: Could you please take a look at the discussion concerning Conceptual backround: Hasidic dynastic disputes in the Barry Gurary article. See Talk:Barry Gurary#Dispute of content. Thanks. IZAK 03:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to Korban

User:Fduffy has made extensive edits to the Korban article, including, in typical fashion, citing the Jewish Encyclopedia as a whole without bothering to identify a specific article, and adding a provocative section entitled "Human Sacrifice" claiming a dark origin in human sacrifice based on the views of a single individual (assuming the individual actually said it) characterized as fact and as what "Biblical scholars" as a whole believe. I'm going to wait to comment myself until I've had a chance to review this user's claims, but perhaps others might want to comment now. At the very least, biblical-criticism type claims should go in a separate section. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meshulam on HaEdah HaCharedis

We are talking about the following section here.

The official position held by the Edah, established by its past President and Chief Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum in his book Vayoel Moshe, includes rules not to accept any money from the government, nor to accept Israeli citizenship through the Law of Return. Since those who convert through the Edah are required to follow Halacha and according to the view held by the Edah the above rules are absolute Halacha, the Edah will only convert people who are willing to abide by their view of Halacha which includes a ban on accepting money from the Israeli government. ^{[citation needed]}

I wrote this section a few months ago. Then already, Meshulam attacked me, repeatedly removing this section, calling it 'OR' and 'unverifiable'. I maintain that no 'verification' is needed. EVERYONE knows that the Edah keeps by Vayoel Moshe. I am getting sick, completely sick of Meshulam's rule-pushing. His sick urge to keep pressing for idiotic rules to the extremes, thereby seriously damaging the quality of articles, is very disturbing. I would like to see the opinion of others on this issue. --Daniel575 | (talk) 11:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: I did not attack anyone. The text in question is original research, inasmuch as the one offering the text cannot demonstrate its veracity through any source other than his own personal experience. That's textbook OR. Its not "pressing idiotic rules to the extremes." (To say nothing for the fact that Daniel575 just called a Wikipedia policy and "idiotic rule"). In my own defense, I try to be civil with Daniel575, and you will see if you peruse some of our conversations that I have kept my cool despite the fact that he has called me a number of names and even called for my "immediate destruction," (whatever that means). I am not interested in an argument. I am interested in standards of quality as they have been established by the Admins here at WP. --Meshulam 15:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merkabah article

Hello, I've been trying to separate out this article into Jewish and Christian sections. One of the issues is how to present the illustration that's currently at the beginning of the article. I think of the illustration as a Christian interpretation given the general Jewish reluctance to illustrate such things, but I am not clear. Does anyone have an opinion whether the illustration belongs at the beginning (in the Judaism section) or in the Christianity section? Please comment on Talk:Merkabah if you have an opinion. Thanks, --Shirahadasha 04:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New articles

Aaron Hart started by me
Great Synagogue of London in a lot of trouble

- crz crztalk 04:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Kelemen - crz crztalk 13:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mordechai Yosef Leiner
Jewish Angelarchy
Malakh
Hekhal
See merger discussion on Talk:Holy of Holies regarding Most Holy Place, Holy of Holies, and Kodesh Hakadashim

--Shirahadasha 17:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terumat hamaaser
Maaser Rishon
Maaser Sheni
Shmita (moved from Sabbatical year (Bible) and refocused on contemporary practice).

--Shirahadasha 05:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Open Orthodoxy" & Avi Weiss

User:Shirahadasha has created an new article called "Open Orthodoxy" - about a new notion (that is "neither fish nor fowl") recently coined by Rabbi Avi Weiss. After having been asked about it, I attempted to redirect Open Orthodoxy to the Avi Weiss article and post all its content there because on it's own it's a neologism in violation of Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms, but Shirahadasha has reverted my redirect. What do you think should be done, please add your views at Talk:Open Orthodoxy. IZAK 09:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Jewry

jewish population as an article and many of the articles on jewish communities worldwide are certainly a very well covered area. I am wanting to make these changes after nearly three years of having noticed it, I've not been much of an editor until now. Put it this way, the term is definitely no a good encyclopedic title. I ask you reconsider your view from a vantage point. I am not belittling the longstanding editors grammatical abilities. Clearly the way things work here on wikipedia permits these blind spots... meaning the way things start is the way things continue and issues such as this stark point aren't even obvious anymore. Think about this, other ethnic groups on wikipedia are reffered to as 'people/s' such as 'Roma people', which just wouldn't work here; ' 'Jewish People' just wouldn't sound right, so why do we have the current titles we have now? The answer is the JewWatch phenomenon which caused a backlash and Jewish people to redirect to Jew, where as Roma People does not lead to gypsy etc. World Jewry is the most common term outside of wikipedia to describe jewish population content.

I propose to move jewish population to World Jewry, and to title all the articles on Jewish communities as e.g. British Jewry instead of British Jews.

Chavatshimshon 23:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this under Orthodoxy? It should be posted elsewhere. More importantly, all the external links on the Jewish population entry and a quick google search give me "World Jewish Population" In American English, and in the reports from the AJC, WZO... the term is Jewish population. We should use the term that the professional demographers use. --Jayrav 23:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC) I found this also discussed at User talk:Chavatshimshon. The 2002 World Jewish Population study does indeed use the term World Jewry in the article as the object of study but the subject of research is "Jewish population." The AJC and WJC also use the term World Jewry for studies on anti-semitism in the countries and economic status in the countries.--Jayrav 00:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New article: Akdamus

Improve away. - crz crztalk 18:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps somebody wants to translate it and put that translation in the article? In small script, I suppose. --Daniel575 | (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Messianic "Halakha" etc?

On 25 October 2006 [7], User:Inigmatus moved Messianic religious practices to Messianic Halakha with the lame excuse "moved Messianic religious practices to Messianic Halakha: As discussed in prior archives, with the creation of the new Messianic Judaism template, this page can now be targeted for clean up: This entire page is better split into two articles" [8] thus opening up a whole new can of worms. This fits into this new pattern of vigorous pro-Messianic Judaism POV edits, moves, categories, projects and articles, basically without warning and ignoring the consensus that has been maintained for some time. The main problem is that the over-all thrust of the recent pro-Messianic Judaism activity is to mimic and and get as close as possible to any and all Judaism, particularly Orthodox Judaism, articles and efforts, so that anyone looking at the one will arrive at the other by sheer proximity and similarity. And I repeat this again, because of its relevance: *User:Inigmatus (contributions), self-described as "A mystery user with a point to be made" (wouldn't that make anything he does as automatically POV?), has added a number of features to Messianic Judaism. A month ago he evidently plagiarized [9] the Template:Judaism and created Template Messianic Judaism based on it. He also created Wikipedia:WikiProject Messianic Judaism also obviously plagiarizing the Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism page. This may mislead unsuspecting readers and there ought to be some warning or guidance about this. I would suggest that a new template be develpoed that would be placed on Messianic Judaism pages with a "Note: This article deals with Messianic Judaism. It does not represent normative Judaism and does not have any connection with, or official recognition from, any Jewish denominations." IZAK 03:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome the NotJudaism template

Hi: In view of the above, please see the new {{NotJudaism}} template:

Note: The subject of this article or section does not represent normative Judaism and does not have any connection with, or official recognition from, any Jewish denominations.

Feel free to use it where applicable. Thanks. IZAK 05:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Names of God in Judaism

Names of God in Judaism has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" from featured status. The instructions for the FAR process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy (Talk) 22:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New: B&H Photo Video

Written from scratch and reposted by me after several A7 G11 G12 deletions. Please improve. Especially outside sources would be good. - crz crztalk 17:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna be in the next DYK. I am pleased. - crz crztalk 18:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox Halakha article?

Given the article Conservative Halakha, should there be an Orthodox Halakha article? Perhaps it might give a spectrum of philosphies and approaches within Orthodoxy, perhaps outlining how different approaches have resulted in different views on a couple of key issues, with the Orthodox section on Halakha becoming a summary pointing to the main article. --Shirahadasha 09:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Religious leaders

The current organization there is abit muddled, and needs some discussing how to deal with. A general proposal for cleaning it up is posted at Category talk:Religious leaders#Organization proposal, and more input would be great. It doesn't address the issue of Religious leaders/religious workers/religious figures, but that is another issue that exists. Badbilltucker 22:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to join/Have idea.

I'd like to join this WikiProject. I know that normally, all that entails is putting my name in the directory, but there were no instructions. I'd also like to propose an idea that I've been thinking about for awhile: Perhaps, for each Hasidic Dynasty (though there is no reason this idea should be limited to Hasidic Dynasties), someone could translate a portion of a book that represents the dynasty on the page as a sort of representative teaching/soundbyte. This works especially well if there is a single book (or series of books) the solidifies a group's ideology (like Tanya for Chabad, or Shomer Emunim for Toldos Aharon/Shomer Emunim, Likkutei Moharan, etc.). For other groups, even excerpting something from a parashah that expresses an idea uniquely tied to that group would work. --Meshulam 23:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New article: Jason Bedrick

Nice!! :) - crz crztalk 14:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New article: Aron Leib Steinman

- crz crztalk 18:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to Aharon Leib Steinman. --DLand ^TALK 19:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong: The article already exists at Aharon Shteinman. Thanks. IZAK 01:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I didn't realize that existed. But regardless, it should be moved back to Aharon Leib Steinman, per a Google search. I don't know any better way to decide on this, seeing as Steinman and Shteinman are equally "correct." --DLand ^TALK 02:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion

Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion FYI: Hi Tomer! A Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion has asserted itself in the Korban article. The project indicates that it is an umbrella project for all of religion and that the current religion projects are subprojects of it, yet its member directory lists only six members. Where is the project coming from? Is it a broadbased project, a very small group with a very big reach, or what? If you know some background or some of its people, would be much appreciated. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shira: I noticed this comment. Their assertion is outrageous and false and should be rejected and disputed to the full. There is no "supreme council of religion" on Wikipedia and there never will be. Each religion has its experts and contributors on Wikipedia and none of them will ever tolerate interference from outside busy-bodies. Judging by their user pages, the members of this "religion" project are obviously coming from a Christian POV and seems they now wish to "double dip," pretty funny actually. See my notice on that page, below. Thanks, and may the Lights of Chanukah dispel all ignorance and darkness. IZAK 10:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE and OBJECTIONS to WikiProject Religion vs. Judaism

Hi: Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Judaism. Thanks, IZAK 10:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE and OBJECTIONS:

No-one has the right to take upon themselves to be the controlling "project" for every religion on Earth!
Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism has been, and shall remain an independent project and will not accept interference in its work based on the assertion that editors not familiar with Judaism's traditions have a self-appointed "right" to interfere with Judaism-related articles by mere dint of being members of a "religion" project.
So far, as of 12/21/06 the mere six members of this project, are mostly Christian, (as self-described on their user pages) and raises the question, why don't they do their work in Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity (81 members as of 12/21/06)? How can a project with six members "pass judgment" on other projects with one hundred and twenty four members?
What will members of other projects, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam (64 members as of 12/21/06) think and react when "religion project" editors will advise what's best for Islam-related articles or not?
Note: Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism adheres to WP:NPOV and is one of the oldest Wikipedia projects with over one hundred and twenty members (as of 12/21/06), a number of whom are respected sysops as well, highly knowledgeable about many matters relating to Category:Jews and Judaism.
It would not be advisable for anyone to interfere with Judaism-related articles or Hebrew Bible-related topics that ignores the broad based consensus and general agreement that exists between Jewishly-oriented editors of Judaic articles, many of which touch upon Jews because being Jewish includes being both a part of Judaism as well as being part of an ethnicity, and a project on "religion" alone cannot and does not have the scope to touch upon issues that effects not just Jews and Judaism, but also Israel and Jewish history, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history (with 33 members as of 12/21/06) and a broad range of related issues and projects, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish culture (19 members as of 12/21/06) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel (23 members as of 12/21/06).
Finally, Wikipedia is not the forum to create a de facto neo-"ecumenical project" which is only bound to cause confusion and resentment and will result in confusion and chaos and inevitabley violate Wikipedia:No original research; Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought; and Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms.

Thank you for taking this matter seriously. IZAK 09:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to NOTICE and OBJECTIONS to WikiProject Religion vs. Judaism

Hi: It is very important that you see the points and the response from User:Badbilltucker about his aims at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#NOTICE and OBJECTIONS to WikiProject Religion vs. Judaism ASAP. Have a Happy Chanukah! IZAK 15:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Three pilgrim festivals" vs. "Three pilgrimage festivals"

Question: What should be the name for the Shalosh Regalim: the Three pilgrim festivals or the Three pilgrimage festivals? Please see the discussion at Talk:Three pilgrimage festivals#Name. Thanks you. IZAK 17:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avrohom Eliyahu Kaplan

New article. Please pitch in to rescue from deletion. - crz crztalk 23:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in. --Chussid 00:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BadBillTucker

DLand: I went through a lot of his edits, read his motivations for joining, read IZAK's concerns, and completely agree with IZAK. The guy is not Jewish, is totally not interested in Orthodox Judaism. Why do you want him listed as a member? There should be membership rules. Having a serious involvement with Judaism and most importantly, actively editing Judaism-related articles would be a prerequisite for joining. Non-Jews are not excluded, of course - take Bsnowball as an example. He is not Jewish but does know what he is talking about, and he is actively involved in editing Judaism-related articles. Please share your thoughts here. --Chussid 00:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of how I feel about Badbilltucker, anyone is free to join the WikiProject. That's just how it works in this WikiProject and every WikiProject out there as well. It doesn't mean that I "want him listed as a member" - it's just that you can't just remove someone from the member list without that user's consent. Best, DLand ^TALK 00:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles

I am somewhat bemused to see the article about the village/shtetl Lyubavichi listed as a new article relevant to Orthodox Judaism. By the same token should we list here every article about the geography of a shtetl in Europe once occupied by Jews? --Redaktor 12:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it made me wonder also. --Chussid 12:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So delist it, big deal. Only the frume care. Thousands of similarly-sized villages don't have any representation on en: or ru:wiki. - crz crztalk 12:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought it was a town/city? --Chussid 12:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's puny to non-existent. - crz crztalk 13:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, hewiki and yiwiki have articles. the bigger ruwiki does not. Goes to show. - crz crztalk 13:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This says before the war there were 2000 people in L, 950 or so of them Jewish, of which ~700 were rounded up and summarily shot in 1941. I found an official figure of 1931 people in 1935 here. And though I cannot find any specific population figures, I did read modern impressions from tourists that the place is in serious decline economically and population-wise as Russian migrates to the cities like the rest of the world. Tiny place. Only the Jews care. The only local business is Rebbe tourism. - crz crztalk 13:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a good idea—don't get me wrong! I did a similar one for Makhnivka. At first sight it didn't seem to 'belong' to Orthodox Judaism. OTOH Lyubavichi's sole claim to fame is Chabad-Lubavich, and you now point outt hat the sole industry is visiting OJs, so keep it in, and let's hope somone fleshes it out! --Redaktor 18:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links

I am not sure what is like in other articles but the Jewish article seem to get cluttered up pretty fast with links to shurim of everyone favorite rabbi. Perhaps it would be best if we add a comment at the top of the external link section giving a short explanation of what types of links are appropriate. A "external link cleanup campaign" might also be a good idea. And it could be helpful if we formate more specific rules for external links in halakhic article than what is currently explain in Wikipedia:External links. It seems to me that there is also a problem when there are many links to different, yet comparable, shurim on a topic. There is no need to include all, but it is hard to justify how to pick just one. Please direct your comments to the post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism to avoid two conversations. Jon513 15:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hardal

Regarding the section on 'Characteristics' there. Meshulam insists on deleting it because it is unsourced. I insist on keeping it. JoshuaZ apparently agrees with keeping it (don't attack me if I'm wrong) and I think so does Yehoishophot Oliver. Input from others (see Talk:Hardal) would be highly appreciated. --Chussid 11:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuanian Jews

Article needs to be split up in one article about what we know nowadays as Litvish and another article about the history (and current situation) of Jews in Lithuania. Proposed titles: Litvish Judaism (paralel to Hasidic Judaism) and Judaism in Lithuania. Thoughts? --Chussid 13:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly necessary to distinguish (in various places) between (1) Lithuanian Jewry (2) Litvaks = Jews living in Lite, which includes most of Belarus and part of Poland (3) the modrn use of Litvish as a synonym for misnagdish or, sometimes, not chasidish. --Redaktor 16:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Desperate call for help

I will probably be banned within minutes for 3RR because I keep reverting vandalism on Joel Teitelbaum. PLEASE, does nobody else care about this??? --Chussid 22:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If not there, then because I have now done 5 anti-vandalism reverts on Anti-Zionism. PLEASE HELP... --Chussid 22:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help a troll and a vandal. Hmmm... Tom e r ^talk 02:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Says the unbelieving Zionist heretic. --Chussid 15:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nu, children, who wants a potch? SHARE YOUR TOYS! - crz crztalk 15:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vuz iz Duz, we want Ahavas Yisroel, even when the zionists are trying to undermine Yiddishkiet —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shaul avrom (talk • contribs) 21:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

What exactly am I an "unbeliev[er]" of? When did I become a Zionist? How am I a heretic? Tom e r ^talk 03:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're a heretic zionist, an underbeliver, and an UncleTomer. And probably a troll... </humor> - crz crztalk 04:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently. {{fact}} is screaming for use... Tom e r ^talk 05:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New article Elias Levi

I prodded it. Please correct me if I'm wrong. - crz crztalk 07:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{HeBible-stub}} on SfR

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SFD#.7B.7BHeBible-stub.7D.7D_.E2.86.92_.7B.7BTanakh-stub.7D.7D - crz crztalk 19:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halakha

Please see the editing going on there. HKT^Talk 01:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Criticism

A new draft of a proposed policy on criticism is being circulated. Since Judaism articles tend to have lots of controversy, suggest editors might want to review and comment on the proposal. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Takkanah

Please look over the newly created article. HKT^Talk 01:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Didn't see R. Gershom, so room for improvement. Other ideas: (1) we might want to give examples of how takkanot may be disputed, localized (incl. Ashkenazi v Sefardi), reverted. (2) how a hiddush (innovation) can be rejected as an invalid takkanah. (3) relevance of takkanot in relations betw Orthodox and the liberal movements HG 06:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article fixup needed

Aquila of Sinope needs a fixup ASAP. 203.206.248.147 12:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some mistakes

The Gamaliel II article says "Gamliel devoted special attention to the regulation of the rite of prayer, which after the cessation of sacrificial worship had become all-important. He gave the principal prayer, consisting of 18 benedictions, its final revision, and declared it every Israelite's duty to recite it three times daily." This is utterly misinformed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.206.248.147 (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I have tried my best to fit the sentence as well as the parts of amidah on the topic. Both article borrow to much material directly from the Jewish Encyclopedia. Jon513 14:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avrohom Blumenkrantz

Pitch in please - NYC JD (make a motion) 15:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halachic organ donor society

needs help - rescued from PROD. - NYC JD (interrogatories) 08:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merging Ramat Beit Shemesh into Bet Shemesh

In my eyes totally inappropriate and something I do not intend to allow without resistance. Please give your vote. See Talk:Bet Shemesh. --Bear and Dragon 07:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New project proposal

There is a new WikiProject task force proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Inter-religious content that is being proposed to deal specifically with articles whose content relates to several religious traditions. Any editors interested in joining such a group would be more than welcome to indicate their interest there. John Carter 15:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox Judaism template

It looks like on the Eruv article and a number of others, the Judaism template was replaced with a new Orthodox Judaism template. I would recommend that before replacing templates in this manner, please place a notice on both Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism and Wikipedia:WikiProject Orthodox Judaism and give the community an opportunity to discuss it. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox Judaism template

I have just added an Orthodox Judaism template. I think this is necessary because otherwise you have the absurd situation where the template links an article that's about Orthodox Judaism with other things that according to Orthodox Judaism have no connection at all with Orthodox Judaism. Yehoishophot Oliver 23:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Orthodox Judaism

Template:Orthodox Judaism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. IZAK 08:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]