|
Shortcut
IPA fot Zeev Suraski
Could someone provide the IPA for Zeev Suraski, the current article is a bit ridiculous. Thanks, JACOPLANE • 2008-06-27 10:14
Nomination for deletion
Please see: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Unification Church and antisemitism
Five current Judaism AFDs
Please see:
Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Make it six: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jewish fundamentalism -Lisa (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- From below Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mishk'vei ishah -- Avi (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Judaism should have all sorted Judaism related AFD's. Yossiea 19:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- There is no harm in listing notifications here if editors wish to and want to make the effort, it's simply a short cut to a broader discussion, and often there is follow-up editing to do after those AfD's like merging articles and incoroprating materials. From experience it seems that not all editors are that dilligent to moniter both sections. IZAK (talk) 10:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'd like to thank IZAK for listing AFD's here. Many folks do not keep a watch on AFD listing but do visit this page. Joe407 (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Articles in need of attention
Articles in need of attention:
These articles are written in the style of a Pilpul Shiur. I would propose deletion but the author put in a tremendous amount of work, so I'd like to hear what others think. Shlomke (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Mishk'vei ishah
Complex new article Mishk'vei ishah, spun off from Leviticus 18 article, that gives it a Hebrew name but relies almost entirely on modern scholarship, needs input. See talk page there. IZAK (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
AfD for CD on Terezin Music
Hi ... just fyi, there is an AfD now for consideration of deletion of an article on a CD with the music of Terezin, here.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Merge
I just suggested that Jewsweek be merged to Benyamin Cohen. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Genetics article title?
Should this be Medical genetics of Jews or Medical genetics of Jewish people? Which do people prefer? Tim Vickers (talk) 03:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- I suggst the latter. This is about as subjective as one can get, but my sense is: Jews use the word "Jews" when referring to one another/themselves, but don't like it when non-Jews use the word; Jews prefer non-Jews to use the word "Jewish." A big generalization, too, but this has been my experience. Maybe like in some families where you refer to your father as "daddy" but use the word "father" when talking to people who are not members of the family. The two words mean the same thing but are used by different people in different contexts. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, that fits with what other people have told me as well. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Possible merge? Opinions here please. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Jewish Museum
Please help convert Jewish Museum from list to article. It is very useful to have a series of articles defining each of the types of museums. Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 12:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- But it is a disambiguation page, meant to have the format of a list and not an article. Debresser (talk) 12:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeshiva's
Howdy,
Over the past half a year I've been making an effort to improve a lot of the articles about yeshivot. I've seen many of them that burn 3 paragraphs or more explaining what is a standard yeshiva curriculum and daily routine. And they all act as if they are the WP article about Yeshivas. Should I leave Carteret_Yeshiva or Mesoras Mordechai (just examples) as is with it's lengthy descriptions of yeshiva life and yeshiva learning or should these be cut down to "Hey! This is a yeshiva!" and let people click on the wiki-link? Joe407 (talk) 04:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Cut down, for the obvious reason you mentioned that it is redundant. Debresser (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think that it depends on what they're writing. To just describe, like the yeshiva article does, that there are three zmanim, or about iyun vs. b'kiyus, etc. or to write out the daily schedule does seem unnecessary. On the other hand, every Yeshiva considers itself unique in certain aspects, and even if those differences are relatively minute, they should be respected. Also I think its fair to allow a brief summary of what the curriculum covers, without going into details. Just my opinion.Geshmakster (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Anybody knew that some call "b'kius" - "gersoh"? Debresser (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. The only phrase I will take issue with is "considers itself unique". With WP, I would like to see some (at least) quasi-objective statement of uniquness. If my yeshiva learns Gittin or Shabbos I don't think that is particularly notable. On the other hand if my yeshiva learns Chulin and focuses on training shochtim - that is notable!
- The article on Chofetz Chaim yeshivos has a section titled Characteristics. There, while it does not bring sources, the article does explain why the yeshiva(s) are unique and deserve an article in an encyclopedia. Another example is Yeshivat Har Etzion which explains its value system as it's notability. Otherwise, I feel that we do not need to read about "morning seder is ________ given by Rabbi _____" Joe407 (talk) 01:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Update: This edit is an experiment in reducing the need for every yeshiva to reiterate the same curriculum as every other yeshiva. I put in a link to the main article, Yeshiva, for those who want to read more. I am doing this in the hope that it will force people writing about yeshivos to focus on the notability and uniqueness of each yeshiva and not just fill up space or use WP to advertise their institution.
Please offer any thoughts or comments on this effort and any suggestions or help towards improvement would be great. Joe407 (talk) 06:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Dov Hikind
A user is going through Dov Hikind and other related persons adding a charge of censorship for having American Express revoke the merchant agreement of David Irving, and going to David Irving's page and adding a "victim" of censorship blurb. Yossiea 14:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- In semi-related news, the user created an article called Financial Censorship, which is now up for AFD, I believe he put Dov Hikind and others, into that category. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Financial_Censorship#Financial_Censorship Yossiea 18:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Merge post AfD
Could someone who knows the topic carry out the merge of Bedikah cloth into Niddah? Ta. Fences&Windows 01:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have made some minor additions, based on my knowledge as a rabbi. Debresser (talk) 10:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you! Fences&Windows 17:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Request for a Conservative opinion
Howdy,
I just added a section to the article Religious response to ART addressing the views of the Conservative Jewish movement. Can someone here fact check it for me or maybe offer additional input from the perspective of the conservative movement? Not being in the movement limits my perspective and knowledge. Thank you, Joe407 (talk) 06:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
YeshivaWorldNews
I added a RFC at the WP:RS noticeboard for YWN. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#YeshivaWorldNews Yossiea 01:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
RfC Second Temple
An RfC regarding which archaeological categories the Second Temple should fall under is currently underway here. --nsaum75 10:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Is there a consenseus here?
I would like to see if we can achieve a consensus as to primary, secondary, and tertiary reliable sources, and update the manual of style accordingly.
Acccording to WP:PRIMARY, any "religious scripture" is a primary source. I would like to exclude from wp:Judaism comparisons between Judaism and other religions. I also believe that the trunk that units the branches of Judaism is the tanach.
- I propose that apochrichal works and other works not canonized by the Anshei Knesset HaGedola, are not to be considered primary sources in relation to WikiProject Judaism.
Secondary sources rely for their facts and opinions on reliable primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims.
Misplaced Pages articles usually rely on material from secondary sources if they have been published by a reliable secondary source.
- In my opinion, the material discussed in the article Rabbinic literature should be considered reliable secondary source material.
Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias or other compendia that mainly summarize secondary sources. For example, Misplaced Pages itself is a tertiary source. Tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources.
- In my opinion, The F&W Jewish Encyclopedia and the Eisenstein compendia (not yet available in english) are reliable tertiary sources. The Encyclopedia Talmudit (Vol.1 is available in english) is reliable, but copyright issues are unclear to me.
WP:Verifiability#Reliable sources describes the criteria for assessing the reliability of sources. Articles and posts on Misplaced Pages, or on websites that mirror its content, may not be used as sources.
Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebele (talk • contribs) 14:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Tubalcain
At Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Bible#Suggest an article for Tubalcain (currently a disambig) it has been suggested that Tubalcain be given his own article. I have to agree that based on what little I know of the subject that there seems to be enough material to start one, including the speculation that he might simply be Cain under another name. I am currently adding what information I can readily find to the his entry in List of minor Biblical figures#Tubalcain, but would appreciate any help or input on the subject. John Carter (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- How can there possibly be speculation that someone explicitly described as the descendant of another person is that other person? - - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- That actually happens rather a lot in mythological stories, which some regard this as. The story in one group is altered a bit, including giving a slightly different family tree, by another group, and some third party comes along later and tries to reconcile the two. But I do remember reading in some biblical commentary that there was thought that they might be the same person. In any event, I only mentioned that as one item relative to the subject. If anyone would be interested in helping develop the content in the list to the point where it could be spun out, I think we would all welcome it. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
This article came up at DYK, but we'd like to have some people more versed in Jewish matters have a look at it. The article relies on the Jewish Encyclopedia, which is quite a bit out of date, and on primary sources. In addition, I think the title doesn't accurately reflect the subject matter. Ucucha 00:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Conjugal obligations and rights in Judaism
See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Conjugal obligations and rights in Judaism, more POV-pushing by User Newman Luke (talk · contribs) depicting Judaism in negative lights. IZAK (talk) 08:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think its rather badly behaved of you to present the link in anything other than a neutral way. WP:MEATPUPPET expressly forbids this.Newman Luke (talk) 05:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Deletion review of Mishk'vei ishah
Seems that User Newman Luke (talk · contribs) cannot let go as he institutes a "deletion review." Please see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 30#Mishk'vei ishah. (Original AfD result was to Delete, at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mishk'vei ishah.) IZAK (talk) 09:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think its rather badly behaved of you to present the link in anything other than a neutral way. WP:MEATPUPPET expressly forbids this. Newman Luke (talk) 05:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Problem editor?
Newmanyb (talk · contribs) is editing numerous articles. Now I understand why he is changing 'Old Testament' to Hebrew Bible', but he is also changing 'Genesis' to Hebrew Bible, changing quotes (eg Lord to YHWH when the cited source says Lord), etc. I've asked him to use edit summaries but he's ignored that and continued editing. Could someone please take a look at his edits and see if they see a problem or if I'm just misunderstanding what he's doing (although he still needs to use edit summaries). Thanks. I'll notify him of this discussion. Dougweller (talk) 09:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Our article on Nefesh B'Nefesh (organization that encourages Jewish people from North America and the United Kingdom to emigrate to Israel) could use attention from Project members. It contains a lot of content that seems dangerously close to adspam, and should probably be somewhat re-organized (for example, it has separate section headings for many different aspects of the organization which should probably be combined or omitted unless the article becomes rather larger). Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Template need?
Is there a need for a template for articles whose titles indicate that they are discussing "Judaism's view" on a topic but are primarily based on secular sources? Something along the lines of "This article represents the secular Jewish view and may not accurately represent the traditional Jewish view"? I am concerned that many people may be coming to wikipedia to understand the traditional point of view and that is often missing or not accurately represented, in my opinion. Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Off the top of my head, what about when I see an article written from the point of view of the Fullerbuller Chassidim, and I don't think they are traditional, so I put that template on the article as well? I think it's a good idea, but there obviously is cause for concern. I am almost positive, there would be some misuse of the template.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yossiea (talk • contribs) 13:22, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
- For the record, using a pejorative name to as a representative name for an Hasidic dynasty is completely uncalled for. Please strike that. -- Avi (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Huh? I just meant that there might be some misuse if for example a litvak thinks an article is written by a YU guy or a YU guy tags an Israeli entry by a Chardal guy. But I do think it's a nice idea but it is open to misuse. (I'm not calling any chassidim fullerbullers, I am surprised you never heard of the term. Now I'm running through all the names in my head to see which ones you think I'm referencing.) Yossiea 19:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Would phrasing the lead in such a way as to make it clear that the article deals with secular Jews rather than religious views, and maybe categorizing them as such, fill the same purpose? John Carter (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm concerned more by articles such as the ones Newman Luke (talk · contribs) has been creating recently, which purport to explain Judaism's view on a given subject, but more often than not use secular encyclopedias as their sources with little to no mention of the classical Jewish sources. I do not argue that the views put forth by more modern scholars have their place in each article; I am concerned that an uninformed reader will think that the views listed (e.g. Dr. So-and-So from the university of Heidleberg) represent the traditional Jewish view and its development from Biblical times until now. Personally, I think many of these articles are too detailed for Misplaced Pages, but as long as we aregoinf to discuss Jewish views of a topic, we 1) should ignore neither the traditional nor the modern perspectives, but we should ensure that there is no confusion between the two either. -- Avi (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Right, Wiki is not Jewfaq. The issue is coming up with a template that is NPOV and will pass muster. (perhaps labeling the article academic, instead of secular might be easier.) Yossiea 19:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed; but for WP:NPOV purposes, we should not unintentionally misrepresent various opinions as universal in the cases which they are not; that is all. -- Avi (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yossiea, why wouldn't "Chassidim" be "traditional?" Bus stop (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Bus stop, minhagim that began only 200 years or so ago may not be considered traditional when looking at the 2000 years or so of halakhic development, at least I think that is what Yossi is driving at. -- Avi (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Correct, and also, it might lead to some opinions not being called halachic based on the person doing the tagging. Although the more I think about it, the less chance I see of this happening with halachic articles. Yossiea 19:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Avi, I would equate traditional with being basically observant which Chassidim basically are. Bus stop (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Right, my concern was that a kalte litvak might not think so and tag it, but I don't think it'll actually happen so I'm not that concerned about YWN vs. VIN fights on Misplaced Pages. Yossiea 19:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Bus stop, Being that there are dozens and dozens of strains of Observant Jews today, "traditional" should reflect something that is observed by the vast majority, if not all. For example, not eating gebrokts is mainly a Hasidic tradition (and the Kaminetzky family, of course) and the non-eating of it on Pesach woyld not be considered traditional, whereas the prohibition against chometz on Pesach, which has been in force for millenia and is stil observed by ALL observant Jews, should be considered "tradtional". Does that make sense to you? -- Avi (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Note, that in an article section discussing Hasidic tradition, then non-eating of gebrokts SHOULD be traditional, as IIRC, almost all Hasidim abide by it (except for Acaron Shel Pesach, but now we're getting too detailed.) -- Avi (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- I was just asking for the purpose of clarification. One observation I would make is that it seems "traditional" is yet one more word in the lexicon of the not-quite-perfectly-defined terms in use in these sort of contexts. Bus stop (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
A template isn't necessary as long as sections are properly headed "Academic" or the like; the key here is to properly represent what is in the article. -- Avi (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- A one word heading is a step in the right direction. It may be even more helpful to more fully indicate the sort of perspective that the following paragraph is intended to be based on in a short but descriptive sentence. Bus stop (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
There are articles, the Kabbalah article is the example I know best, where the traditional and academic views are mixed together in a way that makes things very confusing. I was never able to think of a good way to separate the two, but it would help if such a way to separate them could be found. 173.52.187.133 (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- In my opinion such a template is not needed. If needed we can always use the regular {{POV}} template, and explain the matter on the talk page. Debresser (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Debresser. In any case, the correct procedure in an article is not to create a mixture of all views in violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, but each serious notable view on any subject within any article must be outlined accurately. Hence there should be sub-headings for "Classical perspective"; "Orthodox perspective"; "Reform perspective"; "Secular perspective" etc etc etc. Many articles need the {{Cleanup}} and {{Article issues}} templates more than anything else. Finally, if people really want the absolute "Orthodox only" view they should NOT be coming to find it on Misplaced Pages, but rather they should seek out a local Orthodox rabbi/synagogue/outreach program/yeshiva to get that because Misplaced Pages gathers all views and it so happens to be that because of Judaism's long and complex history there are many varying serious and notable views on almost every subject within it. There are no easy solutions, and every editor must be prepared to raise the level of accuracy in each article.IZAK (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but we need to be careful to identify the notable views as to their provenance, and not unintentionally misrepresent academic perspectives as the traditional or more modern denominational perspective. -- Avi (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed! One of the greatest problems that some editors have is that they fail to follow the guidelines of WP:SYNTH especially in this regard, and most are ignorant of some fundamental rules in scholarship of knowing the difference between primary sources and secondary sources and that the latter do not trump or over-rule the former in terms of presentation and priorities. Thus if writing an article about any topic in the Tanakh or in the Talmud or in Halacha, the first and foremost priority is to express and state what that primary source states in and of itself, following the natural main line of Jewish scholarship as expressed in and by the Tanakh+Mishnah+Talmud+Rishonim+Acharonim+Shulkhan Arukh without imposing on it latter-day POV interpretations without first clearly delineating what those primary sources actually state. IZAK (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Please keep an eye on Żydokomuna
There appears to be some whitewashing going on. -- Avi (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, many editors of the Polish-Jewish articles as well many of articles relating to Jewish history and life in Eastern Europe have been prone to whitewashing articles in open frenzies of Historical revisionism and often outright lies of which they serve as conscious live prime examples all over Misplaced Pages for years already. They are a tiresome and belligerent bunch constantly violating WP:WAR; WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND; WP:NOR; WP:NOTMADEUP and more. IZAK (talk) 05:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
79 new images from the Jewish Museum (New York)
FYI, Category:Misplaced Pages Loves Art at the Jewish Museum (New_York). Please help integrate these new images into Misplaced Pages articles. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Please review. It seems unfinished and otherwise not sure if it refers to a specific or general framework. --Shuki (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I am becoming very concerned about this user's edits. They seem to consistently have personal opinion/research woven into them and they substitute accepted traditional sources with non-traditional ones when explaining the traditions themselves without clarifying the difference. I will inform the user of this note, but I believe that the user may have an ulterior motive in his or her edits, and they bear watching. I am still uncertain if an RfC is called for, but I would like the opinions of other people who spend a lot of time on Judaism articles. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 03:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- This is almost frightening; Newman Luke believes that the New Testament is a valid source for articles discussing Judaism's view on a topic. Please see the edit summary here! -- Avi (talk) 04:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- The New Testament is a valid source for information about the first century. Just like any other thing written in the first century. To discount it is just blatent pov. Jesus was a Jew, allegedly, so too was, at least at first, Paul. Their views are Jewish views, from the first century, just like Josephus is for slightly later, and Hillel and Shammai for slightly earlier. As it happens the only reason I put those references in is because the source article on the Jewish Encyclopedia had them in.
- But for you to regard it as frightening is a really bad demonstration of bad faith, and your own willingness to put your personal view above neutrality.
- Furthermore, your attempt to call for WP:STALKING is really very much against the spirit of wikipedia. Therefore....Newman Luke (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, Newman Luke, but the New Testament was written by a generally anti-Judaic group—including Paul—whose portrait of first-century Jewish practices and beliefs cannot be relied upon. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 05:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Please go and read Jewish Christians (the historic meaning of that term), and Ebionites, and you'll realise that generally anti-Judaic is not a universally accepted point of view by any means.
- Also, I'd say that in terms of professional historians, a source from the 1st century is somewhat more reliable than one from the 5th, even if the 1st century one is dubious. But that's irrelevant. The citation is made by the Jewish Encyclopedia, a professional encyclopedia, which clearly thought that these cites from the New Testament were valid here. Newman Luke (talk) 05:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- With the possible exception of the author of Matthew, the New Testament writers were not Jewish Christians or Ebionites (both groups fell out of favor when Paul turned the Jesus sect within Judaism into the new religion of Christianity). And none of the authors of the New Testament were professional historians. So what exactly is your point? — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 05:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know what the specifics are of this discussion, but the Bible is not considered here - Misplaced Pages that is - as a reliable source for historical events. If it's being used as one, it shouldn't be. Dougweller (talk) 06:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
MfD
Please see Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion#User talk:Newman Luke/Editnotice. -- Avi (talk) 15:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I am growing concerned that this user is utterly unwilling to obey WP:NPOV, by insidiously attempting to attack anyone who upholds it, if by doing so it fails to censor things that Avraham finds uncomfortable. I believe that the user may have an ulterior motive in his or her edits, and they bear watching. I am still uncertain if an RfC is called for, but I would like the opinions of other people who spend a lot of time on Judaism articles. Thank you. Newman Luke (talk) 05:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- I can haz cheeseburger? — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 05:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- In plain English, please, not slang. Newman Luke (talk) 05:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 Thanks for giving me a smile, Newman. -- Avi (talk) 05:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- LOL — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 05:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
|
