Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::Right away the knives come out with no rational discussion. Shame on you. ] (]) 08:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
::Right away the knives come out with no rational discussion. Shame on you. ] (]) 08:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
:::To clarify, I wouldn't call the nomination of the article for deletion anti-Chabad, but Izak's calling it "Chabad-Lubavitch POV pushing" reveals Izak's anti-Chabad POV. Oh well, ] (]) 08:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
== Expansion of Jewish Revolt-related articles. ==
== Expansion of Jewish Revolt-related articles. ==
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. Yossiea14:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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. Ucucha00:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
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.) Yossiea19:05, 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.) Yossiea19:28, 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)
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. Yossiea19:40, 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. Yossiea19:40, 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 Arukhwithout 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)
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)
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.
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 /Stalk05:17, 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 /Stalk05:44, 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)
Newman, when will you stop personlizing the discussions and deal with the real issues at hand which is your clearly-stated intention to totally obliterate any views you don't like, particularly if you suspect they may be coming from an "Orthodox" perspective as you have made abundantly clear again and again on your talk page and elsewhere, as an example please review User talk:Newman Luke#What do you mean by this? and more. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 05:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
User Avraham (talk·contribs) (Avi) has a sterling reputation on Misplaced Pages. He is unfailingly polite and fair, and has gained the respect of mainnstream Wikipedians to become an admin because he is reponsible, hard working and abides by all the rules of Misplaced Pages. On the other hand, User Newman Luke (talk·contribs) is prone to undertake a variety of demeaning WP:NPA when he does not get his way, and even resorts to attacks on streams of Judaism, such as Orthodoxy, that he openly and shamelessly has needlessly scorned and denigrated, as discussed at User talk:Newman Luke#What do you mean by this?. IZAK (talk) 05:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Image identification?
Unknown symbol
I just moved a bunch of images to Commons, and one of them was a photo of an unknown symbol in Pittsburgh'sHill District. The uploader was unsure of its meaning and speculated that it was a Jewish symbol, possibly some for of the Star of David. I'm not convinced. Is anyone here familiar with this symbol?--Blargh29 (talk) 06:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a new article about the Synod of Mainz (Jewish) in 1233, by User Newman Luke (talk·contribs). Particulalrly bothersome is the concern that it may well be that the sole purpose this article was posted from the Jewish Encyclopedia is because it contians a Takkana that was supposedly stated at the height of the murderous Christian Crusades (to restore Christian control of the Holy Land were fought over a period of nearly 200 years, between 1095 and 1291) that requests "that no Jew should show bad faith toward a Christian, nor be guilty of counterfeiting" that from experience with User Newman Luke, he may twist it around and then falsely allege that "aha, you see, Jews were showing 'bad faith' to Christians" with no word of the historical context and climate of fear and danger at the time that this was at a time in history when Jews were being mercilessly killed by the tens of thousands by marrauding Crusaders. Would it be possible to review it in order to ensure that it adheres to both the views of Judaism and to WP:NPOV of history. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I have both moved and completely re-written with a modern secondary source and encompassing the many synods of the times. Of course more work, and further appropriate sources are always helpful. Please see Takkanot Shum and its talk page for more. - Avi (talk) 08:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I just undertook a major revision of this article. However, I am not an expert, and would appreciate any more sets of eyes as are available to check my work, make suggestions, and generally contribute. Many thanks, Kaisershatner (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Um, Kaiser, if by your own self-admission here for the world to read you declare that you are "NOT an expert" on the Zohar what in heavens name are you doing undertaking to do a "Major revision" of this most complex and abstruse, prone to controversy, article for???!!! Would any sane person say it's "normal" for an editor who by his own self-admission is "NOT an expert" to do a "a major revision" on Einstein's Theory of relativity or admits that he's "NOT an expert" on Brain surgery or Astrophysics and then be allowed to undertake a "major revision" of those articles if he admits he ain't no expert??!! You need to perhaps spend time in WP:SANDBOX, try learning more about WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:NORbefore trying to undertake huge jobs you admit you are not qualified for. IZAK (talk) 06:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear Izak, I may not be an expert in Kabalah, but I do speak English and also know how to copyedit. Removing duplicated sentences, poor grammar, uncited assertions, POV, and other gross errors does not require that much expertise, and I have been around WP and WP:Judaism long enough to know how to do that. Also long enough to know that suggesting you check out WP:DICK is probably a waste of time. PS, if you have time for some constructive editing at Zohar that would be helpful. Best wishes, Kaisershatner (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to add that (1) you are welcome to see for yourself what "damage" I have done to this unreadable POS article that was a poor cut and paste job from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia: , (one couldn't even find a list of the actual contents of the Zohar in the article as it was written before my edits), and (2) my understanding of WP Judaism is that it is supposed to be a place where we can collaborate on improving articles pertaining to Judaism, ie, a place where one can come freely to ask for help without being pilloried for having the good sense to ask, (3) a helpful hint: next time you suggest someone check out the sandbox, consider scanning their number of edits and contribs first. (4) I'd suggest you review WP:BITE but after five years and 16000 edits I'm starting to feel less like a novice. (4) As a side project, why not take it upon yourself to revert all of my changes to Zohar, Maimonides, Hebrew calendar, Amidah, the Maharal, Talmud, Torah, Torah reading, Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and triennial cycle, just for starters. I can give you a more complete list of my major Judaism-related edits if you need it, and I freely admit I am not an expert in any of these subjects either. Maybe I should have waited for an expert such as yourself to donate the gift of his time and wisdom. But then again, im lo achshav eimatay? Kaisershatner (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Whoa, suggest you review WP:DGAF, achshav. Its just not worth it to be angry and/or stressed over this. If you know what you're doing (and from what you said, it appears you do, then DGAF what IZAK thinks. ɳoɍɑfʈ19:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Kaiser: Thanks for the list of all the areas you have edited next time I look them up. I don't have limitless time in any case. It is frightening to think that people will undertake to seriously edit subjects that they brazenly admit right here in public that they are not experts in. For example, how do you know when you deal with a concept that may not have a direct quote in an article and you decide to cut it out or re-arrange it that it may indeed be one of the most central and key ones in that article awaiting a source to be written in but in the meantime it's 100% valid and reliable without any citation or source inserted yet? This is like saying, that being handed all the tools of surgery and being dressed up like a surgeon, but lacking a medical school background, you would still undertake surgery, prescribe medication and "heal" the sick. I dunno, I would never do it, but I guess you would if you had the interest even though you lacked your own self-admitted "expertise" (and remember, it was you who came here openly declaring that you are "not an expert" but you were going to edit the Zohar article of all things -- so what did you expect? a medal or to get some rational guidance?) But I suppose given that we have many alert experienced and knowledgeable editors, if you had done any major damage some of them would have picked it up by now or is everyone asleep? Happy Chanuka to one and all! IZAK (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Side note: IZAK - it seems quite out of character for you to rip someone a new asshole in this case. Your Dec 9th edit was IMHO uncalled for in its language. You always have good points but in the future you might want to double check how you choose to express them. Joe407 (talk) 11:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Noraft, thanks for your excellent advice. Cram it, IZAK :) You are still welcome to help me improve the encyclopedia, though, starting with Zohar, if you have some constructive suggestions (I am not an expert, and perhaps there are things I have missed). Chag sameach to the project, and my apologies for being quick to anger. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Kaiser: Take it easy. There is no "anger" at work here. You should interpret my comments in light of my pride and expectations for all Judaic subjects. The mere fact that anyone can come along and make edits is a two-edged sword, on the one hand great things can be added on the other hand great harm can be done. Gone are the days when any one editor could roam over all aspects of Judaic subjects, the best we can do is when we come together here we can speak our minds freely and not be told to "shut up" when expressing valid concerns. I doubt if any subject-area on Misplaced Pages tolerates edits over the long term by any self-admitted non-expert editors by now. The days of free-wheeling editorship are long gone and we must all submit to serious oversight and criticism whether we like it or not. I cannot join you as you snap your fingers to come to points XYZ, but at least I can express real concerns here. Have a happy Chanuka! IZAK (talk) 09:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
IZAK, I apologize for my angry comments. I have no doubt that your goal is to have the best possible articles here. What set me off is your suggestion that my editing Zohar was like someone treating it as their myspace page, and your ignorance of, or indifference to, my contributions. (Would it make sense to look at my edits to Zohar before disparaging them?) To me it seems we here should encourage people to ask for help and to know when they are not experts in a subject, and to guide and teach them if we are lucky enough to understand better. That IMO would be more in the spirit of this wikiproject. Finally, I am reminded that "He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty," (Prov. xvi. 32), a teaching I for one have continually failed to live by. At the same time, there is Bava Metzia 58b to consider. Of course, IANAE. Best regards, Kaisershatner (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a major problem with Ethiopian related issues. Any time scholarly evidence is presented on the sites above suggesting that there was a Hebrew and Israelite presence in Ethiopia and Arabia before 586 B.C.E. it is almost immediately censored. It is clear from the Sheba-Menelik Cycle of the Kebra Nagast that its Old Testament references pre-date the 7th century B.C.E. and the Sabaean inscriptions at Adi Kaweh, Wukro, Ethiopia (below the alleged grave site of 10th century Queen Yodit) twice specifically mention Hebrew as subjects of three queens of Sheba. In conjunction with Chaim Rabin's linguistic work suggesting that there was an ancient Hebrew presence in Asir and Hijaz, and Noldeke's shock at the antiquity of the Ethiopian word for the Ark of the Covenant plus the Sabaean origin for the word "Falasha" and the Beta Israel's word for their house of prayer and other evidence it is unfortunate that no discussion appears to be permitted concerning the very strong probability of an ancient Hebrew/ Israelite population in pre-Babylonian captivity days in Arabia and to a lesser extent Ethiopia. Saudi Arabia and Syria have banned any books suggesting this probability. It is a pity Misplaced Pages editors have followed that example. Jewish interest in Ethiopian Hebraic and Israelite evidence is so disinterested that ironically it has been left to Adolph Eichmann's son to excavate Queen Yodit's alleged grave.
The material Ntsukunyane Mphanya is complaining about being censored appears to be material from the book by Dr. Bernard Leeman, Queen of Sheba and Biblical Scholarship; which is a book whose reliability has come into question. (See Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard for the relevant discussion.) And no, to my best knowledge, no one is suppressing the influence of Judaism to Ethiopian culture -- which is quite well documented in the primary & secondary literature. -- llywrch (talk) 06:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Do not use the term "Old Testament"
The correct terms for the Jewish canon of works is Torah for the 5 books of Moses (Chumash), plus Prophets (Nevi'im) plus Writings (Ketuvim). The three are collectively known by the acronym "Tanackh".
The term "Old Testament" is a derogatory description used by and invented by the Christian movement. It Infers that the Jewish holy works is replaced by a new testament, because the new Christian religion replaces the old Jewish religion.
This is called "supercessionism", whereby one movement supersedes and replaces an old one. The same tactic is used by Islam, where it is claimed that Islam replaces both Judaism and Christianity. Historygypsy (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge articles about Judaism usually use "Torah" or at least "Pentateuch" instead of "Old Testament", "Tanach" or "Hebrew Bible" (what an awfull term), and BCE and CE instead of BC and AD. But thanks for pointing our attention to it again, and please replace any occurances of Christian terms by the appropriate Jewish ones whenever you see them in Judaism related articles. Debresser (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
To clarify, I wouldn't call the nomination of the article for deletion anti-Chabad, but Izak's calling it "Chabad-Lubavitch POV pushing" reveals Izak's anti-Chabad POV. Oh well, Shlomke (talk) 08:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Expansion of Jewish Revolt-related articles.
Hello all, I just wanted to let any interested editors know that I'm currently involved in a major expansion of a dozen articles related to the Jewish Revolt including biographies and events.
Additional expansion of the above articles will continue, along with addition of new articles for more of the high priests, and other figures/events I may uncover.
That said, I could use some help. If someone can add in the Hebrew-alphabet names of those who do not have them, that would be great, as well as add in any other information that will fill these articles out. I'm adding infoboxes, succession boxes, and references as I go so that the pages will be of encyclopedic quality (although the stubs will still need more content). Thanks in advance for your help. ɳoɍɑfʈ08:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
