Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 39

Stanley Milgram

If anyone is interested, an IP is edit warring to include in Stanley Milgram's infobox that his religion is Jewish, even though there is no evidence that he practiced Judaism as an adult. There is a discussion at Talk:Stanley Milgram/Archives/2016#"No evidence he was a practicing Jew as an adult". I welcome any comments. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

We need to stop this once and for all. Being Jewish doesn't stop when you don't practice the religion. The Jewish religion doesn't require you to practice Judaism to keep your Jewish Religion. It is disgusting for editors to chime in and require a religious test to retain Jewish in the infobox. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with Sir Joseph. But anyway (just look at the talk page) this is the most baseless of articles. Sunday above does not state the truth. He states that "there is not evidence he practiced Judaism as an adult (and -- in addition, he doesn't say where he finds that as a test, esp for this guy who has been dead 30 years). As that talk page shows, and as that article shows -- the opposite is true. There is loads of evidence he was Jewish, both as a child and as an adult, and said so himself, and was in synagogue for bar mitzvah and marriage, and even that it drove his research that made him famous ... so please, go to the article but dont believe what Sunday said without reading the article and its footnotes. --199.102.168.8 (talk) 03:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

If anyone is interested go to the Milgram talk page to see the response to the above. Sundayclose (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Sundayclose—what leads you to believe Stanley Milgram's religion is not Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Have you actually bothered to read my comments at Talk:Stanley Milgram. My entire rationale is written there, which is where you need to discuss the issue. But it is a settled issue. Sundayclose (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Your edits show you know nothing of Judaism. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stanley_Milgram&type=revision&diff=715966939 Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The answer to the question: "Is someone a member of the Jewish religion even though they may not be practicing?" is YES. I don't think anyone here would say otherwise. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• FTR, an RFC has opened up on the talk page and I suggest you make your opinions heard. Jews are Jews regardless of their practicing the religion. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

A person who is/was culturally and ethnically a Jew -- let's go farther and assume that he was raised as a religious Jew by two Jewish parents -- but who in adult life shows no indication of being religious (never says a prayer, never attends temple except when attending a wedding or funeral, doesn't keep kosher, never celibates any Jewish holidays) and who has never expressed any opinion about any deity or religion, should not be labeled by Wikipedia as a religious Jew. He is a Jew, but there is no evidence that he is a member of any religion. According to WP:V, in such cases we must keep silent about his religion or lack thereof. See Who is a Jew? for a fuller explanation of the different definitions of the word "Jew". --Guy Macon (talk) 00:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for following me. Secondly, being a member of the Jewish religion does not require one to practice the Jewish religion. Thirdly, you keep implying that Milgram didn't do any of the above. Can you show your proof? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Portal: Weekly Portion

See Portal talk:Judaism. I'd like someone who works on that to have a look at something I've been working on at my sandbox. Details there. Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Peace be upon him (Judaism)

The above is a redirect to Honorifics for the dead in Judaism, See discussion of the redirect at Talk:Peace be upon him (Islam) In ictu oculi (talk) 08:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Article which you may want to look over

The following article currently claims that Jews worship a pagan Canaanite god (specifically, the son of the chief Canaanite god), while also claiming that Jews practiced human sacrifice in the main temple itself until the 7th century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh In particular, see the following sections for the biggest whoppers, although there are plenty of other whoppers throughout the entire thing:

• [Yahweh# Iron Age I (c.1200–1000 BCE): Yahweh, El, and Israel]]
• [Yahweh#Portrayal and worship]]

The guys who wrote the article seem to have cherry-picked the worst authors, including those who don't even realize that the term they're interpreting as a Canaanite god was not even a specific word but rather a base root from which words are formed by adding vowel patterns, and of course these specific words vary between the Canaanite and Hebrew languages. They also don't realize that "El" was a generic word for "deity" in Canaanite, and not the same as the Jewish deity. It's an absolute mess and a disgrace, so I thought you guys might want to look into it. Ryn78 (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I subscribe to your point of view. Unfortunately, the present climate in the world is highly anti-religion, and any second-rate academic who wants to say something that contradicts what it says specifically in the Bible or Jewish literature is automatically right and the traditional sources wrong, even if his theories are nothing more than conjecture and interpretations. Anyway, that is just a general observation of mine. I hope somebody can look into this issue you mentioned. Debresser (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

The largest section in the Modern Hebrew article describes the language as "non-semitic"

The largest section in the Modern Hebrew article describes the language as "non-semitic". This view is WP:Fringe, as confirmed by reliable sources, yet this view currently occupies the largest space in the article, going into extreme detail including a table for individual opinions, while everything else is presented at a broad/high level. In my opinion, and in the opinion of the majority of editors on the talk page, this is WP:Undue. Over the past year, six editors have expressed their view that the section should be removed or minimized, while only two have supported it. Despite this consensus, the section remains in the article in its current state, likely due to the slow nature of the subject. Any editors wishing to contribute are welcome. Drsmoo (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for input on draft article

I have long been dissatisfied with the article section International Date Line#Judaism, which in my opinion describes only one point of view and is not entirely consistent with current practice. Accordingly, I have written a draft article, which you can find at User:StevenJ81/sandbox/International date line in Judaism. I propose to publish this article in article space, and then to substitute a one paragraph summary of it in the main article on the International Date Line (along with a hatnote). Before I do that, I wanted to give other interested editors a look. I would be grateful if any material changes were to be discussed first on the talk page. Thank you for your help. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I have seen an earlier version of this draft, and recommend it warmly. StevenJ81 is doing a nice job, as usual. Debresser (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I would redo the first few sentences. Start with "The IDL is a line demarcating the bla bla..." then go on to discuss the purpose and why the IDL is important in halacha. Other than that, it looks real nice. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. FWIW, the reason I didn't do it that way is that the IDL page itself does that. Also, I wanted to find a way to place the entire page name right in the opening sentence (per WP:LEAD). So I did it this way. Let me see what other comments I get, and then I'll see if I can tweak that just a bit. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

No worries, I just like to know what it is and then see what it's for. Something like, "The IDL in Judaism is an imaginary line similar to the IDL, but used mostly for religious purposes...." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not interested in general in halacha, but this looks like really interesting halachic material for those interested. Looks like a lot of serious research work was put into it. Kudos! warshy ^(¥¥) 16:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your comments! I'm going to publish shortly.

@Sir Joseph, I'm going to leave it as is. I really understand your point. Part of the problem is that while in practice you can draw that "imaginary line" (and in fact near or identical to the conventional one), almost everyone thinks that either

(a) the line has "thickness"—it's really a zone, and if you're in the zone itself there is some uncertainty involved, or

(b) the line, such as it is, is really a locus of established practiced patterns, not really a drawn line

I think I've captured all of that in the body of the article, but I would prefer to avoid the "...line demarcating..." language for now. We'll see if (you or) someone else decides they want to change that going forward. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm OK either way, but I think it would be better to match the existing article and it reads better. How about similar to the IDL article, "The IDL is an imaginary line used for Jewish religious purposes.... bla blah" Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I really don't want to. But since this is supposed to be a consensus process, I'll concede the point and change it. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I just think the first sentence should describe the subject of the article and not the purpose of the article. But if you don't want to, then don't. We can see if others have similar opinions once it's in article space. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I meant the first sentence as describing the purpose of the concept of a halakhic dateline, certainly not the purpose of the article. Does that not come across? StevenJ81 (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

So how about something along: "The international date line in Judaism is an imaginary line used to demarcate the change of one calendar day to the next in the Jewish calendar." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

OK. How about this: "The international date line in Judaism is used to demarcate the change of one calendar day to the next in the Jewish calendar." This way, you essentially have the straight-up declaratory you're looking for, while I get to avoid saying "...is an imaginary line..." which is where I'm getting hung up. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Fine by me, I used imaginary because that is what the regular IDL article uses. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Done, then.

I do plan over time to expand a little bit on the "Crossing the halakhic date line" section, though I'm going to be careful not to get overly technical about it. In my view, there's a need to expand there a bit—but also a real risk of crossing into territory that @warshy would no longer consider interesting. And to me that's a good guide as to how far an article like this should go. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Jewish IDL (next steps)

I assume that we should mark this as |importance=low. Would someone other than me venture a quality rating? Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. (Still begs the question of the quality assessment...) StevenJ81 (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Jewish Women's History Online Editathon

You are invited...
	Women in Jewish History worldwide online edit-a-thon Hosts: Women in Red, Center for Jewish History, Wikimedia NYC 1 to 15 June 2016 #wikiwomeninred

--Ipigott (talk) 12:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Challah and covering

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've just added a short paragraph to pad out an annoying long-standing empty section at Challah#Covering the challah. I had intended to do a short paraphrase of some of the material at Challah cover, but I found that article to be rather incoherent, poorly sourced, and lacking a clear and understandable halakhic rational for covering the challah during the blessing of the wine. There's a Rabbinic anecdote and some theologically-heavy content about "not shaming" the challah, which just didn't lend itself well to a summary on another article.

The upshot is my addition to Challah is basically WP:OR based on my own very sketchy understanding and needs someone knowledgable to cast an eye over it. Plus the Challah cover article needs a bit of work. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Rather than saying it is WP:OR, I'd say that on its surface, the extent of detail you've added is more or less WP:BLUE and doesn't really need sourcing. But to suggest a correction: the cover doesn't even have to be cloth or paper. Plastic, wood, or anything else would be fine. (I wouldn't add the following, but in principle the cover can even be transparent, though that's not most people's preferred approach.) StevenJ81 (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I deliberately kept it basic for that very reason. I did want to explain in more detail exactly why the challah is covered, but the challah cover article doesn't explain this clearly at all. I took on board the idea that the cover could be anything. Just out of interest (it's just occurred to me), would a shatnez cover be forbidden, or does that only apply to worn garments? AnotherNewAccount (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I think so, although I don't know that you'd ever find one hanging around. Shatnez is only forbidden for wearing.

I was curious enough to go look at the Tur inside (without commentaries, it was on my iPad). Tur does quote that Yerushalmi about "shaming" the bread there. He goes on to say that he heard something to the effect of "in remembrance of the manna", which had dew above and dew below–hence the challah has a cloth below (the regular tablecloth) and a cloth above (the challah cover).

Really, the whole "shaming" thing has always seemed like a shortcut way of saying the following:

• Normally, if you approach a table on a weekday that has challah and wine on it, you say motzi first and then pre hagefen, because bread always takes priority as a food.
• Arguably, the same rule should apply on Shabbat, because bread is still the most important ("priority") food. And if the challah is uncovered at a Shabbat table, we would have to do that.
• Yet on Shabbat we say Kiddush on the wine before we make motzi.
• So when we cover the challah, it's as if it's not on the table at all. (Remember, it's a pretty common halakhic principle that what you can't see with your naked eye is immaterial by Jewish law.)
• By that mechanism, wine has at least as high a priority as anything else on the table at the time you approach the table for kiddush.

So if you can incorporate something like that into the two articles, with sources, you should be good to go. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that there is an opinion that the challah deckel can not be transparent. Debresser (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

If you make kiddush Friday night on challah, do you still cover the challah? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. I think I made kiddush exactly once in my life on challah, when I was caught away from home unexpectedly. I don't for the life of me remember what I did, and I certainly didn't do any research on what I was supposed to do! שבת שלום. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll take that as homework. I found this which has some sources for covering challah, http://matzav.com/kiddush-friday-night-part-3-covering-the-challah/ Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Just for the record, I did find one source that says you hold the challah in your hands while you make kiddush on the challah, not sure if that's covered or not. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

That is straightforward Shulchan Aruch, and not only on Shabbat, that you have to hold the bread with all 10 fingers when saying the blessing. Debresser (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Right, but not just for the Hamotzie, you need to hold it for the kiddush. What is interesting is that while looking for this, I found that Ashkenazim should wash first and then make kiddush. The Remah says that is "our minhag, and should not be changed." I wonder when the change occurred that only Yekkes do that. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Do we need to move this to Talk:Challah cover? StevenJ81 (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

That's truly fascinating! I don't know I'll go about incorporating this information, but I'm happy for the moment to have something short, clear and accurate in place; that empty section has been in the back of my mind for months. But I learnt something new today! Thankyou. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template:Jewish and Israeli holidays

Please see a new discussion that has opened at Template talk:Jewish and Israeli holidays § Changes proposed 2 June 2016. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion

Please see this move discussion, where I propose to move Ancient synagogues in Palestine to something like Ancient synagogues in Palestine (region). Debresser (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Jewish nose article for deletion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I found the Jewish nose article, and I nominated it for deletion. Please see my note there. In short: No other stereotypical features get their own page that I can find, and the references on the page are racialist turn-of-the-century writers. The article serves no purpose but does give casual visitors the sense that Jewish Noses are different and that there is scientific evidence to back this up. It should be removed as soon as possible.

SciutoAlex (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Apparently not nominated correctly, because there is no Afd template on the article. Debresser (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean when you write "No other stereotypical features get their own page". Virtually every stereotype mentioned at Stereotypes of African Americans has an article of its own. In any event, that's not a valid reason to delete an article. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I also opposed deletion, on the talkpage.[1] Debresser (talk) 23:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The article is antisemitic and should be deleted. The very notion of Jewish nose is antisemitic. Bus stop (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Bus stop Where is the reason for deletion in that? (Even if I were to agree, which I don't.)Debresser (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Debresser, educated people communicate by means of words. A nose is a symbol. When a person wants to symbolize "Jew", do they hold up a picture of a nose? Not usually. We are advanced beings. Unless we have mental issues we communicate by means of words. We are not gorillas. How can an encyclopedia host an article on "Jewish nose"? You mean, because antisemitism wants to replace the far more intellectual idea of a Jew with the mute picture of a nose, that we should enshrine this in an encyclopedia article? That page is offensive. Why should Wikipedia host it? Bus stop (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Leave it. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Could you be a little more brief? (sarcasm) Bus stop (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

OK. Seriously, many other stereotypes are enshrined here, because they're part of the world where we live, like it or not. As long as the article says it's a stereotype—and not necessary an accurate one—and that it is offensive to the _target population, there's no reason the article can't be here. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I have a Jewish nose, and never in my life felt any reason to be other than proud of this visible proof of my ancestry. Who says it is offensive? Debresser (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Even Wiktionary has the sense to write "derogotary". (Unfortunately it misspells "derogatory".) The Wiktionary entry contains more than enough "information" on this subject. There is nothing in the Jewish nose article that expands on the Wiktionary entry for that topic. Bus stop (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I corrected the spelling of "derogatory" on Wiktionary. Bus stop, if you think Jewish nose qualifies for deletion under any of the existing reasons for deletion, please nominate it for deletion. If an article's content satisfies the relevant notability criterion, it is not typically subject to deletion because it is racist or antisemitic. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

As the principle author of the article Jewish nose, I am delighted to see how much controversy it has engendered. And I am also pleased to find myself accused of writing something antisemitic. Many names I have been called in my long life, but this is a first for me.

I would urge the detractors of the article to devote a bit more concentration to reading it. I understand that the very term is a red flag for some of you. But, in fact, the article focuses largely on the ambivalence of Jews toward this aspect of the physiognomy (which, in fact, is not characteristic of Jews after all), and the changes in attitude toward it over the last fifty years.

The original version of the article, written by Altenmann, was somewhat superficial, and relied primarily on sources of questionable objectivity - Houston Stewart Chamberlain, for example, was one of the original developers of antisemitic ideas of the German Nazi party. But, not to belittle the groundbreaking work of Altenmann on the article, the article has moved a long way from that original skeleton, and it is hard for me to view it as anything like antisemitic.

That said, I am but one voice here, and if others want to nominate the article for deletion, I say, go for it! Ravpapa (talk) 12:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Ravpapa bears a lot of blame for my returning to edit wiki, so I'll barge in here. There's a lot of stuff missing, but some source (I have storms in my area and can't search at the moment, since I must go off line) surely must mention the probable connection between penis envy and this stereotype? I know from personal reading that the cultural context in which this stereotype developed (the medieval period) widely identified large noses also with the sexually well-endowed (there's an analogy with the American white stereotypical assertion equating blacks with virility). It's a very curious case of a put-down that could not but betray a certain enviousness by goyim with an inferiority complex. Perhaps the magnificently erudite scholar of the 'Jewish body' Sandar Gilman, touched on this in his essay on the topic, read long ago. Must switch off.Nishidani (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no shortage of material that can be put in the article. It is the existence of the article that is offensive. Wiktionary treats it with appropriate depth: "(informal, derogatory) A long, narrow and pointy nose". Bus stop (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I have a book that sold well, The Ears of Japan on Japanese ears (Ogura Rō, Nihon no mimi, Iwanami Shoten 1977), that never upset anyone. I have a whole monograph on Nietzsche's moustache, which generated huge commentary. This topic is actually studied extensively as part of the huge bundle of stereotypes afflicting Jews, and scholars who study it display an equanimity and even a comic touch, you almost never get, sadly, in this area. I suggest you read Sander L. Gilman, The Jew's Body, Psychology Press, 1991 pp.169-193 ('The Jewish Nose: Are Jews White? Or, The History of the Nose Job,' pp.169-193). If there were such a thing as a Jewish nose, then a notable percentage of my goyim acquaintances or relatives would be, unknown to them, Jews. It's a silly notion, but has a long history, which, unlike such noses, should be set straight. Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not it is derogatory, it certainly appears to have sufficient references. Similar articles do exist such as Watermelon stereotype, see Category:Ethnic and racial stereotypes and the subcategories.Naraht (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

As I've said twice before, Wiktionary treats this with appropriate depth: "(informal, derogatory) A long, narrow and pointy nose". Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The present article could be emptied out and refilled with replacement "information" on the Jewish nose. An article like Self-hating Jew is almost the same thing. All that these articles can be are essays. They are not encyclopedia entries. They show the creativity of Wikipedia editors, being put to a negative use. Any material, beyond that which we see in for instance the Wiktionary definition, is only serving as an excuse for the "article's" existence. These are formless essays at the whim of undisciplined "editors". As such they are unbefitting of an encyclopedia. Bus stop (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Why don't we have an article on Jewish horns? Here is a source for the article: "Ben Bernanke dealt with prejudice as a Jew crowing [sic] up in South Carolina — including being asked if he had horns — according to his new memoir. Several times, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve writes, elementary school classmates asked 'quite innocently, I believe' whether he had horns."[2] We can also mention that Michelangelo depicts Moses with horns on his head. I'll see if I can find any more sources. (sarcasm) Bus stop (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe, Bus stop, that Michelangelo actually intended the protrusions from Moses's head in the sculpture to be beams of light. Though I know there is some dispute in the matter. Ravpapa (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I would also note that the Wiktionary entry for Jewish nose is unsourced and incorrect - the Jewish nose, by any description I have read, is not long and narrow, but fleshy and usually with a slight hump in the middle. So I would not rely on that for a proper description of the phenomenon. Just some friendly advice. Ravpapa (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Articles should not be written about silly nonsense, or more correctly, silly nonsense should not serve as titles for articles. In an article on Stereotypes of Jews, the notion of a "Jewish nose" can be addressed. One thing that an article title does is it provides context. In the context of "Stereotypes of Jews", we can discuss Jewish noses, horns, cloven hooves, and tails. I have nothing against encyclopedic content. I am opposed to the misconstruing of the purpose of an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is not a place for the willy-nilly compilation of material related to just any verbal cue. That is what "Jewish nose" is. It is merely a verbal cue. It signals editors to add material relating to "Jewish nose". But the addition of such material is done without rhyme or reason. Each editor has their own conception of what belongs and what does not belong. There is plenty of material. But there is no structure because there is no context. Bus stop (talk) 02:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Bus stop that this should be merged into Stereotypes of Jews. The majority of sources are outdated and/or unreliable and if we went through it and got rid of all of the poorly sourced, dubious content, there wouldn't be enough for its own article. —PermStrump(talk) 05:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I have copied this discussion to the talk page of the article. I suggest we continue the discussion there. Regards, Ravpapa (talk) 06:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Categories: Judaic versus Jewish

Please note that I have proposed speedy renaming of Category:Judaic studies in academia to match the main article Jewish studies. Pinging @IZAK: as a courtesy. In case of disagreement, please discuss at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy#Current_nominations. – Fayenatic London 20:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Sounds reasonable, even though for some reason I personally would use "Judaic studies". - Debresser 20:23, 2 May 2016‎

For info, I have likewise nominated Category:Judaic studies journals for renaming to Category:Jewish studies journals. It wasn't previously linked as a sub-cat, but it is now. – Fayenatic London 20:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. Jewish studies is not necessarily the same as Judaic studies and most people would use Judaic studies or Judaica related items. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

So what is the difference? Debresser (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure myself but Jewish studies seem to be the study of Jews and Jewish things, Judaica is more academic and scholarly, not necessarily related to Jews, but to texts. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

That is what I would have said as well, but I am not a native English speaker. Debresser (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• I have moved this to a full discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_3#Judaic_studies. – Fayenatic London 22:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
• PLEASE NOTE: There is also a closely related CFD discussion listed on the same page regarding Category:Judaism terminology -- which I took to WP:CFD/Speedy for a SPEEDY RENAME to Category:Judaic terminology. As with the other categories, the issue now is "Judaic" versus "Jewish". Cgingold (talk) 07:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • There was no consensus to use "Jewish studies" for the categories. Now only the terminology category discussion remains open, choosing between Judaism/Judaic, relisted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_7. – Fayenatic London 19:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Seeking input on possible page move proposal

See Talk:Antisemitism and the New Testament#Move to Antisemitism in early Christian literature?. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on a move discussion

Please comment on a move discussion at Talk:Ancient_synagogues_in_Palestine#Requested_move_15_June_2016, where I propose to move "Ancient synagogues in Palestine" to "Ancient synagogues in the Palestine region". Last time I asked for editors to comment, two sections above, your participation was a bit disappointing, so I hope this time some more editors will show up. Synagogues are after all central to Judaism, and this article concerns the earliest synagogues in Judaism. Debresser (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Association_for_Jewish_Outreach_Programs

Association_for_Jewish_Outreach_Programs is up for AFD for the second time and comments would be appreciated. The main contributor IZAK doesn't seem to be around much anymore. You may comment at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Association_for_Jewish_Outreach_Programs

Thanks Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• I am still around, just have been busy with real life matters. I can ALWAYS be contacted by Email thru my User's page [3]. Thanks.IZAK (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@IZAK: Thanks very much. As it happens, it was closed as keep just this morning. (That said, we think the article needs to be scaled back and made a little less promotional.) StevenJ81 (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Should "Jewish nose" be moved to "Jewish nose stereotype"?

Should "Jewish nose" be moved to "Jewish nose stereotype"? A suggestion has been made to change the title of Jewish nose to Jewish nose stereotype. Whereas deletion of the article and merger into Stereotypes of Jews had been suggested, support for that has been lacking, therefore the current focus of the discussion is on the possibility of renaming the article. Additional input here is welcome. Bus stop (talk) 13:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

That discussion is ongoing for a long time, with most editors in clear opposition. I find this post here a veiled attempt to garner support for a losing proposition. Debresser (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

How would this be a "veiled attempt"? I think I used neutrally worded language in inviting other people to join in, and editors seeing this are as likely to come from the "Oppose" as from the "Support" camp. Can you explain how you see this as "a veiled attempt to garner support for a losing proposition"? Wouldn't we want additional input? Bus stop (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

IMHO the notification on this talk page is perfectly in order for the guidance found at WP:CANVASS. Another one had been posted here, also conforming to that guidance. This posting may however be a bit more questionable from the CANVASS viewpoint. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I felt there was little impropriety in summoning "SciutoAlex". They have a total of 12 edits to Wikipedia, stretching back to 2005, and they say of themselves "I don't really edit Wikipedia". "SciutoAlex" got the ball rolling with their post here. Bus stop (talk) 09:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move discussion: Oyneg Shabbos

There's a discussion at Talk:Oyneg Shabbos#Requested move 20 June 2016 concerning a proposal to move the article Oyneg Shabbos, about the group that chronicled life in the Warsaw Ghetto during World War II and the archive they accumulated, to a new title. Please provide us with the benefit of your thoughts. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Anti-Judaism/Religious antisemitism fork?

Am I missing something? What's the purported difference between the articles Anti-Judaism and Religious antisemitism? —PermStrump(talk) 18:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

RM discussion

There is currently a move discussion for article: Judaism's view of Jesus. Any additional opinions from this project would be appreciated. Thank you & Happy editing. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Titus GAR

Titus, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

CFD RENAMING Required from "BC" to "BCE"

See: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 21#Category:11th-century BC Hebrew people

• Propose renaming Category:11th-century BC Hebrew people to Category:11th-century BCE Hebrew people

Nominator's rationale: I started this one, but the entire series from "10th-century..." and onwards, see examples: Category:10th-century BC Judaism etc, etc, etc, need to be changed from "BC" to BCE" since this is about Judaism that does not believe in Jesus hence the choice of "BC" needs to read as "BCE" as per the article Common Era. IZAK (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Debresser (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Debresser: Thanks, please see the above CFD and vote. IZAK (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for comments on merger proposal

I have proposed merging the article Who is a Jew? into the article Jewish identity. The discussion for the merger can be found at Talk:Jewish identity#Merger proposal. I appreciate feedback on the matter. Ergo Sum 03:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Haven't we seen too many merger proposals there already? Debresser (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Help with an orphan

Hello all! I stumbled across the article Altaschith which has been small and orphaned for 7 years. This is well outside my realm of familiarity, so I'm hoping someone here might have more insight. Do we think this page is notable and/or expandable? If you could find some way to improve/deorphan it, you'll be my hero for the day. If not, perhaps consider proposing it for deletion. Thanks for your help! Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 03:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Classification of Jews on Template:Ethnic slurs

You are invited to participate in a dispute resolution discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Template_talk:Ethnic_slurs. This debate concerns how ethnic slurs relating to Jews should be classified on {{Ethnic slurs}}.

Prior discussion on this topic can be found at (warning: both very long) Template talk:Ethnic slurs and my user talk page. Deryck C. 23:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The relevant discussion has moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review_of_RfC_on_the_classification_of_Jews_on_Template_talk:Ethnic_slurs. Deryck C. 14:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

List of notable people but for the wrong reasons

Please see Talk:Off_the_derech#Lis_of_notable_people, where I argue that the "Off the derech" article should not contain a list of people who became less or non-religious. Debresser (talk) 15:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Redirects to Rav

I've just nominated several redirects, including Ribbi and Rubbī, that currently lead to the Rav article at redirects for discussion. Your input at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 16#Ribbi would be particularly welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

IP continually deleting sourced text and a category at The Hoax of the Twentieth Century

67.80.32.237 (talk · contribs) has been deleting not only Category:Antisemitic publications from this article but sourced text describing it as antisemitic. Their latest edit summary is "The people listing the book as anti-semitic are going by the notion that it follows anti-Jewish conspiracies involving reparations and Israel-Palestinian wars. None of these sources list examples of this, yet include real examples like Jews and Their Lies". This is pretty much the CODOH line, eg [4]. Doug Weller talk 18:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

After posting this I decided that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jewish history might be the best place to discuss it. Doug Weller talk 18:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Messiah in Judaism needs work

As a member of the Christian WikiProject, I am trying to get Messianic-related articles in good shape and possibly to GA status, once the articles are fixed up nicely. However, I need some help. I am asking for some help with the Messiah in Judaism article, and help from someone who may know a lot about Jewish messianicism. In Judaism, there are multiply "Messiahs" who are "anointed" with holy anointing oil. and than there are two Messiahs who would come to save the Jewish people as their savior and liberator, the Messiah ben Joseph and the Messiah ben David. I need help trying to fit all these views in an encyclopedic article introduction with reliable sources. Would anyone else like to help me with this project of making Messianic related articles in good encyclopedic shape? Thanks! ^Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 18:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Eliezer Samson Rosenthal

Hi, the article on Eliezer Samson Rosenthal has been tagged for notability since 2008. I wonder if a member of the project could have a look and decide if the article should be improved or proposed for deletion. I can only find very limited sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Based on the article he doesn't look notable. Debresser (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Debresser, maybe you would like to help with my above message! Since you are a rabbi, your knowledge could really help improve the Messianic related articles. Cheers! ^Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 16:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I saw that post. :) This message is not related to this section, though. Debresser (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

There is a prize named after him and there is some result when I use Shimshon Rosenthal, but overall, I don't think it passes notability. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

He is very important. He was an academic scholar who wrote enough to be notable. He then became the religious authority for the rising religious Kibbutz movement in Israeli in the 1930's and 1940's. He was the one responsible for determining the way to farm and raise animals and still adhere to Jewish law. His legal opinions stood for decades. There were public debates between him and the Jerusalem rabbinate. There are articles about him in Hebrew and a tribute volume in Hebrew dedicated to him. Maybe someone can post a potential delete message on his Hebrew page so as to interest someone in writing the English page?T here may be enough in the one English article that is linked on the English page to create a viable page.--Jayrav (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Nahum 2

Please see Nahum 2. There might be some issues we have to work out. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Abrahamic Monotheistic

This here is two versions on the lead of the article, the previous and the new one I edited:[5]. The reason I added the word Abrahamic on that sentence which was the second sentence of the first paragraph was because it started to talk about the Jewish religion itself, right after mentioning the fact that Judaism was more than a religion. The third paragraph imo deals more in depth as you mentioned but the term emphasizes that Judaism is an Abrahamic religion, a vital detail as pointing out as is also monotheistic (btw I just copied and pasted on what I wrote on the article's talk page to avoid the hassle). (N0n3up (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC))

Since User:N0n3up didn't just post a link to the discussion, but explained his point of view as well, I would like to do the same. I think that mentioning that Judaism is Abrahamic in that very first sentence diminishes the importance of Judaism as the first monotheistic religion, and think that that detail is best treated together with others in the third paragraph. Debresser (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Debresser You have a point there. At first I thought that it would make a defining detail in the lead but dismissed the detail of importance played by Judaism in history as the first monotheistic religion. I do think it should stay on the third paragraph. (N0n3up (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC))

Well, then this issue is resolved by consensus. :) Debresser (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion regarding Jewish pilgrimage to Rachel's Tomb

There's currently a discussion here regarding the history of Jewish pilgrimage to Rachel's tomb, and the wording of that aspect of the lead. Any comments would be appreciated! Drsmoo (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

It is not really clear there what the issue are and what the proposed rewordings. Debresser (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Contemporary antisemitism in Belgium

This article has been recently created and strikes me as rather problematic. I've started a discussion on the talk page and would welcome comments. —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Holy Spirit, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Notable?

Hello my fellow editors! I was wondering whether you believed Doniel Lander passes WP:PROF? I'm pretty certain he doesn't fulfill WP:GNG, that's why I'm asking. See here for brief background info. Thank you for your help, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Zero reliable sources. The only "reference" is a one sentence mention in a gossip rag/tabloid talking about his father being overpaid. Enigma^msg 23:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Vashti in the Book of Esther

Both Vashti and Book of Esther say that Ahasuerus summoned Vashti to come before him and his guests wearing only her royal crown. While this is a common interpretation, the text says "To bring Vashti the queen before the king with the royal crown, to show the peoples and the princes her beauty, for she was of comely appearance." Esther 1:11. It doesn't say that Vashti was to wear only the royal crown. My question is, how should this be dealt with in these articles? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Add a source. Debresser (talk) 09:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

One source would be Megillah (Talmud), 12b. Debresser (talk) 10:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Updating Conversion to Judaism

Controversy within Orthodox Judaism is back, and it is extremely time sensitive that it is edited, because one of the annulled rabbis is Rabbi Haskel Lookstein, who was the av beit din for Ivanka Trump. It is really not clear if the controversy was ever fully resolved in the first place, since Rabbi Lookstein is a surprising person to be an issue in the first place Shanac (talk) 22:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Debresser (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what point you are getting at or what needs to be addressed. He is controversial, and there have been issues with his conversions being accepted in Israel. What needs to be done about it? - Galatz^Talk 19:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

See Isi Leibler's blog or Jerusalem Post op-ed. These are two sources which explain the above controversy that some or all of Israel's state rabbinate does not recognize Rabbi Lookstein's conversions. The State of Israel's coalition politics favors ultraOrthodox parties, which allows abuses of power and state sponsored monopoly by ultraorthodox (haredi) rabbinical bureaucracy. Besides denigrating secular Jews and religious Jews who happen to belong to Reform, Progessive, Reconstructionist, Conservative non-Orthodox streams, Israel's state rabbinate also distances Orthodox rabbis from their monopoly, including American Orthodox Rabbi Haskel Lookstein. Abuses by the state-sponsored corrupt, nepotistic ultraorthodox rabbinical bureaucracy have led to civil court sentences on rabbis for bribe taking, false conversion certificates and even rabbis' sexual harrassment voyeurism in the ceremonial ritual bath mikvah. Sad and rotten state of affairs, but the state is still here.-Yohananw (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Help needed at Judaism and violence/warfare

I've come across unsourced and improperly sourced statements in the lead of Judaism and warfare and Judaism_and_violence#Warfare. My first attempt at correction was reverted and my appeals to policies and RSs have not made headway. I'm not well versed in this topic, but the RSs I quoted in Talk:Judaism_and_violence#Torah "repudiated by mainstream Jewish tradition" suggest serious violations of NPOV. If you're interested in this topic, please help make these articles policy-compliant. I'll be happy to share privately the publicly unavailable sources I quoted there. Eperoton (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Your edit was reverted by an experienced and well-respected editor and with a reasonable explanation in the edit summary. You should have raised this issue on the talkpage there, and at most notify editors here about that discussion. Since you already opened a discussion here:

I agree with Jytdog that the source is reliable and speaks for itself. On the other hand, the truth is with Eperoton. Perhaps a compromise text could be "these interpretations of the Biblical texts have been repudiated by mainstream Jewish tradition"? After all, it is not a direct quote, so we are at leisure to paraphrase. Debresser (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Debresser, I think that's a great suggestion. I meant to direct editors to the discussion I linked to at the article talk page, so I hope you don't mind if I copy your comment there. Eperoton (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Sorry for misunderstanding. Hope my contribution will turn out to be helpful. Debresser (talk) 16:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Opinions needed

Please express your opinion if the fact that Jerusalem's status as capital of Israel should be in the text of Israel, or in a footnote. Talk:Israel#Capital_wording_in_infobox Debresser (talk) 10:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Eyes needed on Rabbinical Biographies

Hi,

There is a new user majorly changing some old biographies, such as Ephraim Oshry, Yisroel Spira and Shmuel Kamenetzky. Adding an infobox is OK but he is also heavily modifying the text and damaging the prose. Thanks 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 14:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I would appreciate it greatly if you would defend your accusations to me directly as a man. Airing them here seems to be avoiding the fact that you haven't shown yet how anything was "damaged." The only "damage" happened when you quickly reverted constructive edits. StonyBrook (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

As an outsider who knows neither of you, I looked at the two side by side columns of your three biographies. I do not think that StonyBrook damaged anything. In fact, in many place he improved the prose and made a better article. His edits were clearly constructive and edifying. However, they clearly had a different editorial view than the older article, Yet the changes were acceptable and not inappropriate POV. As an outsider, I liked many of the changes but some of them I disliked and preferred the older text. This should be resolved on the talk pages working through the points in a civil manner. It should not be wholesale reversions on either side. I am not getting further involved in the pages.--Jayrav (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

CFD:Great Synagogue Article names...

It appears that the article names for the Great Synagogues are a mess.

• There is "of City"
  • Great Synagogue of Rome
  • Great Synagogue of Algiers
• There is ", City"
  • Great Synagogue, Łomża
  • Great Synagogue, Lutsk
• and there is (City)
  • Great Synagogue (Gibraltar)
  • Great Synagogue (Copenhagen)

I'm not sure that I have a preference, but someone proposed an AFC for the destroyed Great Synagogue in Nuremberg and I'm not really sure what the correct title of the article should be.Naraht (talk) 04:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that (City) make the most sense. Debresser (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I think "of city" makes most sense. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 00:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph I'll try to convince you. External sources would add "of city" to distinguish between the "Great Synagogue"s of different city, but each "Great Synagogue" in its city would simply be called "Great Synagogue" without a qualifier, and in such cases Wikipedia adds the qualifier in brackets. Debresser (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it makes much difference. The title should as closely as possible approximate the wording most prevalently found in sources and redirects should be used if there is doubt. Bus stop (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@Bus Stop My opinion is based precisely on the argument that sources are likely to use another name than the common name, for the purpose of disambiguation. If I were to write a treatise about the architecture of synagogues, for example, I would need to say "the Great Synagogue of Paris was build not like the Great Synagogue of London", even tough people in Paris would call their synagogue just "the Great Synagogue" and people in London would use that very same term too. In other words, we really just have two synagogues which are both called "the Great Synagogue". The usual way to disambiguate between two objects with the same name on Wikipedia is with brackets: "the Great Synagogue (Paris)" and "the Great Synagogue (London)". Debresser (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

So you are saying this is like Yeshiva Ketana, or Yeshiva Gedolah, in which a specific yeshiva is not indicated unless a city is additionally mentioned? Bus stop (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Not really, because those often have names. Debresser (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Here we have Yeshiva Ketana of Long Island. This would be an exception? How about Yeshiva Gedolah of the Five Towns? Bus stop (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps that is how they are actually called. Because there are many yeshives. But "Great Synagogues" usually only one. Debresser (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Middle East category for all Jews

Somebody re-opened an old discussion about the question, whether all "Jewish descent" categories should include a "of Middle Eastern descent" category as well. You are therefore cordially invited to partake in the discussion at Category_talk:People_of_Jewish_descent#Middle_East_category_Rfc.

This discussion is now at the stage where a survey of opinions is being conducted, to facilitate closing the Rfc. If you haven't posted your opinion yet, now is the time to do so. Debresser (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep an eye on United Synagogue

A new editor has recently added undue material to the lead of the article United Synagogue, regarding the 'Zionist' nature of the organization (with the unstated implication that this is somehow worthy of contempt). I think it is very likely a sock of the editor who was blocked for the same shenanigans a year or so ago. Can some other editors keep an eye on it as I am less active at the moment. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

L'Shana Haba'ah History

An editor has currently been adding what I believe to be undue and misleading/incorrect information to the L'Shana Haba'ah page. First the editor wrote that the phrase was "first used" in the 15th century, misreporting a quote from Sefer HaMinhagim. The editor also curiously added "The phase is not found in works such as the Tanakh, the Talmud or any of the Haggadot of the Rishonim period such as Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam", which seems misleading and undue, given that the sentiment of longing for a return to Jerusalem is found all throughout. The editor has also been serially removing the insertion of information relating to the history of the sentiment of longing for Jerusalem. Drsmoo (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

On a related note, this source (http://www.kolhamevaser.com/2014/04/the-meaning-of-next-year-in-jerusalem/) writes that the custom of saying it during passover is first recorded in the 13th century edition of Sefer ha-Minhagim by Abraham Hildik. However this contradicts a few other sources which only place it in the latest edition of the book, the 15th century edition by Isaac Tyrnau. Does anyone have a copy of the Hildik version to confirm? Thanks Drsmoo (talk) 01:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruchoma Shain

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruchoma Shain. -- -- -- 05:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Table of Olympic athletes in Hava Nagila

Hava Nagila § Olympic sports consists only of a table listing some Olympic athletes with their

• year(s)
• national flag thumbnail (but not name of nation)
• sport
• and event

but no explanation of why they should be listed in the article. See the talk page there. Please discuss the issue there, except for points specific to this WikiProject, if any.
-- Thnidu (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

AfC submission 2

Hello there! Could I get a hand with this draft? Draft:Pinus Rubinstein. Let me know what you think. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

"Hasidic Judaism"

Please comment on the proposed redirect of Hasidic Judaism to Hasidism. Thank you. AddMore-III (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

CfD discussion that may be of interest

FYI this deletion discussion may be of interest.Ottawahitech (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)please ping me

Marcheshvan -> Cheshvan ??

Please see the Marcheshvan talk page for a query regarding moving to Cheshvan. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh no, not again? Do we have to do this every year? Debresser (talk) 21:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I take it that this is a perennial suggestion, like renaming Who is a Jew? (or merging it with Jewish identity)? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

It is. :( Debresser (talk) 05:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Baruch Hashem

Baruch Hashem is currently a redirect to Besiyata Dishmaya, perhaps incorrectly. I've questioned this at Talk:Besiyata_Dishmaya. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding the scope of WikiProject_Jewish_culture

FYI. I hope you don't mind me posting this here? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me

Discussion underway

Concerning the possibility of merging the Who is a Jew? article into the Jewish identity article there is a discussion underway here. Bus stop (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Greetings WikiProject Judaism/Archive 35 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Heavy conflict about pictures on Haredi Judaism

Please visit the talkpage of Hareadi Judaism, where there is heavy conflict about which pictures should be in the article, and especially in the lead. Please comment at Talk:Haredi Judaism#Proposal for change in lead image and then add comments to other sections as your free time allows. Debresser (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Henotheism and Monolatrism

I have proposed a merge of Henotheism and Monolatrism. I can't see any real difference between the two, and at least one of the sources for the latter shows similar uncertainty ("Monolatry and Henotheism". Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. VIII: 810.). If anyone more knowledgeable can improve the distinction, or provide other comments, the discussion is at Talk:Monolatrism#merge proposal. Lusanaherandraton (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment

RfC on the subject of new religious movements is being held at Category talk:New religious movements. Input from this group would be welcomed and appreciated. Thank you, Happy Hanukkah, Joyous Christide, have a great weekend. ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Conflict on Menachem_Mendel_Schneerson and mention of the Crown Heights riots

Rococo1700, there's already been adequate notice here that there is a discussion there. Dayenu! — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Menachem_Mendel_Schneerson I have had many problems in past with this article, but the most recent problem is that the article fails to mention the Crown Heights riots, even if but to mention that Schneerson's motorcade was involved. Again my source, and my justification, for adding this to Schneerson's article is that the New York Times obituary [6], and every retrospective article I found on the riots, mentions Schneerson. When I add any mention there is a team of editors that raises extraneous and false claims. I would urge authors interested in this area to help edit some entry in this article that does justice to the link. My entry, which I thought was the least controversial, although entered in the controversy section (should it have its own section or his legacy?) stated: Crown Heights Riot The Crown Heights disturbances in August 19, 1991, which became a central issue in a New York City mayoral race, were set off when a car in Rabbi Schneerson's motorcade went out of control and killed a 7-year-old black child. In the days that followed, a riot erupted in the neighborhood, reflecting existing tensions between Jewish and black residents. Two men, one of them a young Lubavitch adherent, were killed during the riots. A grand jury found no reason bring charges against anyone in the motorcade. I could live with a shorter version. My quibble is that an article on Schneerson should include the words: motorcade of ... Schneerson and Crown Heights riot in the same paragraph.Rococo1700 (talk) 05:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC) References The discussion is on the talkpage. It is a subject that was discussed in the past. This proposal has much going for it, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 08:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC) I have closed the earlier dispute resolution, and moved to list it under Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Menachem_Mendel_Schneerson_and_the_Crown_Heights_riot. Debresser fails to mention that the discussion in the past mainly favored the inclusion of information into the article, which he opposed. He fails to mention that in the talk page of Schneerson he said this had been "decided" to be excluded by prior discussions, which if anything had suggested that the material be included. He also fails to mention that he deletes the material anytime it is introduced. He also fails to provide any alternative text to include in the article. I am glad he says now it has much going for it, but from my past experience, that has not prevented him from opposing it, and failing to be constructive. I would refer others to prior discussions on Schneerson that he has participated in. Again, I challenge him here as on the talk page, write down the text with citations that you want to include in the article linking Schneerson to the events in Crown Heights in 1991Rococo1700 (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC). You challenge me? Perhaps read WP:BATTLEGROUND. In any case, you lie. I agreed with your last proposal. It just happens to be that other editors disagree and reverted. Not nice of you to lie about me. Debresser (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC) Debresser has warned me not once, but twice on my talk page for being too contentious or calling him names. I don't recall calling him names but I am certain I called out his actions. Again, I have well-sourced relevant material that forms an important event in the life of Schneerson. You say you support it now, but you neglect to mention that this article for years mentioned the Crown Height riots in the text at least since before 2005, and in it own subsection from 2009 to 2015, this was deleted completely from the text without any discussion of why, and has since been blocked by you among other editors. Including a deletion of an entry on this topic from 3 June 2015 by 2601:A:6480:10E9:4CDD:C0B8:14D5:EBF0, that you completely deleted. My recommendation is that ultimately a neutral administrator arbitrate an entry into this article. There is a test now in place, that I have made, and modified according to requests by other editors. If Debresser and Bus Stop and Kemal Tebaast continue to delete this material (and Debresser has in the past as I cite), my recommendation is that we move to arbitration, my hope in this page, is that others would aid in this editing. The three authors above are not constructive in that they do not provide any sourced material to counter the biographical material from the obituary of Schneerson in the New York Times and other sources. They argue only that they do not think its important. That's all: they argue their opinions. I do not want to argue about their opinions or my opinions. The historical sources make a big deal of the events starting and surrounding the riots and their link to Schneerson, or the way we view his life, his biography. They fail to argue this point. There are two editors of those above now posting threats of administrative action against me. What fun!Rococo1700 (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC) As all can see, we have a bit of problematic child here. My opinion? Ignore and WP:DEADHORSE, or if he becomes bothersome WP:ANI. Debresser (talk) 04:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC) RfCs fail to reach consensus. The editors above delete any entry in text. Any administrator willing to insert themselves as arbitrator?Rococo1700 (talk) 06:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC) Alternatively, any admin willing to topic ban Rococo1700 for incompetence and disruptive behavior? Debresser (talk) 11:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Template:Bibleverse

A change to Template:Bibleverse is being proposed. Please comment at Template talk:Bibleverse#Replacing the tool with a Lua module. --JFH (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Missing topics list

My list of missing topics about Judaism is updated - Skysmith (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Video Lecture on the Ten Lost Tribes by Rabbi Eliyahu Kin

User:Gijaor keeps adding this video (using the clever markup though). The discussion has been through edit summaries, not on the talk page, but the new account, obviously not a new editor, seems happy with that. I can't find any evidence that the Rabbi is an expert on the Ten Lost Tribes, which is what we'd need for a personal website, and I don't see any basic difference between a link to a YouTube video and a link to a personal website, so this fails WP:EL. He also seems fairly fringe on at least some issues, see [7] and [8]. Doug Weller talk 17:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

He indeed does not seem to be an expert on the subject, just a general rabbi and Jewish outreach lecturer. Debresser (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

MOS:BIBLE?

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#MOS:BIBLE?. Input would be appreciated. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Arab Jews subject to ARBPIA sanctions?

Please see the talk page of Arab Jews where some admin decided that because there was a content dispute, he'd lock it up under ECP/ARBPIA and not just a regular semi protection as all content disputes. This is more of the same, if it has the word Jew in it, it is subject to the Israel-Palestinian conflict sanctions. Please comment and make your opinion heard. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

You should have pinged the Admin User: Casliber. Doug Weller talk 06:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

In any case, I agree with that admin. Debresser (talk) 14:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

If the question is whether WP:ARBPIA applies, the answer is of course. The wording is {{tq|could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict} (my emphasis), and a significant portion of that article deals specifically with the Arab-Israeli conflict: of the first three paragraphs, the first is a single sentence; 20% of the second, and 40% of the third, is about the conflict.

By the way, the message is not neutrally worded at all (Please comment and make your opinion heard) and so is a violation of WP:CANVAS.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep in mind that one of the editors kept removing anything the IP editor put in that would have expanded the article. I don't see any reason to have sanctions on an article where it's not the main topic and there has been no disruption, etc. This is just overkill and goes against the foundations of Wikipedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: You misunderstand. IPs and new accounts already are not allowed edit that page per WP:ARBPIA3#General Prohibition. The fact that extended-confirmed protection had not already been placed on the page was an oversight on the admin corps's part, and it having now been properly applied is something that has already been explicitly sanctioned by ArbCom and is not something you or I or anyone else on this page (or for that matter any random admin) is allowed to overturn. If you want to make an argument that either (a) the page does not fall within ARBPIA because there were Arab Jews before the formation of the State of Israel or (b) the General Prohibition in ARBPIA3 should be amended, you need to take it to ArbCom, and I can guarantee you that if you try (a) you will not be successful. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand my point. The page has nothing to do with the IP conflict and should not have been ECP protected. There was no vandalism and no disruptive editing. The editor who requested protection was using it to win the dispute. Not everything with the word Jew in it is subject to sanctions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The relevant ArbCom case specifies pages that [a]ll IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict (my emphasis). The article clearly places itself under that rubric by making roughly a third of its lead specifically about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Nitpicking over the fact that Palestinians are not involved is not going to end well. Requesting protection for a page that is already supposed to be protected is always acceptable, regardless of the motivations you want to assign to that user. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The phrase "could be reasonably construed" is apparently intentionally vague to allow for it being applied anywhere it might seem reasonable for possible sanctions to be appropriate. That does not necessarily mean that it would be applied in all cases, and I have no doubt that in some articles like this one some edits which might be somehow clearly unrelated to the Israel-Palestine question might not be. Having said that, I know from experience elsewhere in subjects that are both under hot current debate and ArbCom sanctions that it is fairly frequently the case that a given individual or topic becomes a bit of a cause celebre in one of the relevant groups, and supporters of that viewpoint fairly regularly disrupt the content because of it. Particularly in such cases, some sort of sanctions, including page locking in the short term, possibly until the most recent furor about a detail dies down, are not unreasonable. John Carter (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

ECP on an article that is not inherently about the IP conflict should be as a last resort, not a first resort. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: Please listen to me: inherently about the IP conflict is your original wording, and is not what ArbCom specified. They were very clear about the matter. IPs are not allowed to edit that page because it defines itself as being "reasonably construed" as being related to the "Arab-Israeli conflict". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Note also that (this is the first time I checked) the text the IP added is still in the article, and included the text Most of the population was either forced out, fled or voluntarily left after the founding of Israel in 1948, for the new Jewish state; claiming that either the article or this specific edit is not related to the Arab-Israeli conflict is laughable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

That comes very close to saying any page with Jew in it is reasonably construed as being part of the IP conflict. The Arab Jews has nothing to do with the IP conflict. Jews have been living in Arab lands since forever. The individual edits that may be part of the IP conflict should not make the whole page subject to sanctions, especially when there is no damage. It takes away from the bedrock foundation principles of the encyclopedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

That comes very close to saying any page with Jew in it is reasonably construed as being part of the IP conflict No. No, it doesn't. You need to get over yourself and read what I wrote. (1) Stop talking about "the IP conflict". The restriction is about the "Arab-Israeli conflict". (2) I have edited or read plenty of articles on Second Temple and medieval Judaism that have nothing whatsoever to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict. (3) The IP edit in question was explicitly about the expulsion of Jews from Arab states due to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If you ignore these key points again and post another IDHT comment like everything you've posted on this page so far, I will take this as an indication of bad faith. The page is clearly subject to the ArbCom prohibition, and the admin who enforced the prohibition was in the right. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

BHC - Genesis, 2016

Dear WikiProject Judaism, this is the published version of the Genesis from 2016 1 (amazon.com), first book of the BHC (Biblia Hebraica Quinta) by Avraham Tal from Tel-Aviv. I would like to ask that this is version of the Genesis have accurate translation all Hebrew words? E.g. this is the Genesis from the Leningrad Codex: professional and useful translation. Avraham Tal's Genesis (2016) have this professional translation for the Hebrew words? Doncsecz^talk 12:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Pictures on the Rabbi article

Please but in at Talk:Rabbi#Pictures_of_rabbis, where we ask if that article should contain pictures of rabbis, and if so, which. Debresser (talk) 10:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Seron

This article has it all wrong. See this (this was just the first convenient website for this in Google, I wouldn't recommend it!).

Here's what Josephus says:"After this the ark rested on the top of a certain mountain in Armenia; which, when Noah understood, he opened it; and seeing a small piece of land about it, he continued quiet, and conceived some cheerful hopes of deliverance; but a few days afterwards, when the water was decreased to a greater degree, he sent out a raven, as desirous to learn, whether any other part of the earth were left dry by the water, and whether he might go out of the ark with safety; but the raven, finding all the land still overflowed, returned to Noah again. And after seven days he sent out a dove, to know the state of the ground; which came back to him covered with mud, and bringing an olive branch. Hereby Noah learned that the earth was become clear of the flood. So after he had staid seven more days, he sent the living creatures out of the ark; and both he and his family went out, when he also sacrificed to God, and feasted with his companions. However, the Armenians call this place (Apobaterion) The Place of Descent [see footnote after this quote]; for the ark being saved in that place, its remains are shown there by inhabitants to this [Josephus'] day."

It's the translator's footnote that mentions Seron: "FOOTNOTE: [from the translator, William Whiston]: This Apobatrion, or Place of Descent, is the proper rendering of the Armenian name of this very city. It is called in Ptolemy Naxuana, and by Moses Chorenensis, the Armenian historian, 'Idsheuan'; but at the place itself, Nachidsheuan, which signifies 'The first place of descent': and is a lasting monument of the preservation of Noah in the ark, upon the top of that mountain, at whose foot it was built, as the first city or town after the Flood. See Antiquities 20.2.3; and Moses Chorenensis, who also says elsewhere, that another town was related by tradition to have been called Seron, or 'The Place of Dispersion' on account of the dispersion of Xisuthrus's or Noah's sons, from then first made. Whether any remains of this ark be still preserved as the people of the country suppose, I cannot certainly tell. Mons. Tournefort had, not very long since, a mind to see the place himself, but met with too great dangers and difficulties to venture through them." Doug Weller talk 22:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Bibliography articles on Biblical works

Anyone interested should feel free to take part in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#Separate articles of bibliographies of Bible works?. John Carter (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin

This article says the effort was still ongoing in 2010. can anyone update this and review the article? Ditto High Council of B'nei Noah. Doug Weller talk 06:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Syrian Jewish communities of the United States should be merged with American Jews

There's no particular reason for this page to exist, given that there are no similar pages for other diaspora Jewish groupings in the United States. And all it really does is list off Syrian Jewish synagogues. Why do we need this page?2601:84:4502:61EA:90A8:180D:6009:E38C (talk) 07:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Cat:Journalists of Jewish descent moved to Jewish Journalists

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 9 where I posted a CFD to reverse a cat move that happened without a CFD and where it's not correct cat anyway. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 6 for two redirects

Hi, I added an RFD at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 6 for two implausible redirects, IMO of course. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 8 for another one, Petira (passing). I am thinking some issue might need to be resolved. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

And another one: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 9 I think something needs to be done. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am thinking this might be headed to a TBAN of Jewish articles. Almost every edit needs to be reverted and it seems to be some sort of competency/English issue. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I had great trouble with him at Chaim Yosef David Azulai. I reverted or partially reverted him some 6 times all in all. Debresser (talk) 07:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Can anything be done about it? He is ruining good articles and it's a shame. I don't know if it's a competence issue or what. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hebrew fragments of the Book of Tobit online

Dear WikiProject, the Hebrew fragments of Tobit from the Qumran Cave IV is available in online? Doncsecz^talk 19:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment

Please comment at Talk:Chaim_Kanievsky#Kosher_cannabis_ruling whether the article about Chaim Kanievsky should mention a ruling of his regarding cannabis. Debresser (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

We're still at a bit of an impasse, though through concurrence have made other page improvements and expansion. Still welcoming more folks to state their views on the cannabis ruling inclusion. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Criticism of the Talmud

After years and years of being a redirect, this article has been restored today without discussion. On the talk page, there's reference to an arbitration case where this article was a focus, which calls into question the sourcing of the article. Can anyone dig out more? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

It's a cesspit. What's the best way forward here? The issues with the article are presumably very deep-set. Maybe this should be on the article talk page. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, I think the page should be reverted back to the way it was, as a redirect, as the talk page specifies. Then, we can discuss on the talk page if we should have an article page or not, especially considering the history of the page. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Chidush

Chidush AFD was closed as no consensus. This article needs to be majorly cleaned up. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

It absolutely does. I'm probably not the right candidate, but I'll help if someone else takes the main role.

Related: It should be in Wiktionary also, which is something I can eventually get to. Interestingly:

• While wikt:Chidush doesn't exist ...
• wikt:חידוש does exist (on English Wiktionary)
• This sense of the word novella does not appear at Novella (disambiguation). In Wiktionary it does not appear at wikt:novella on any language tab. It appears only at the plural (wikt:novellae), and that in a Latin, rather than English, tab. Similarly, this sense of the word does not appear in any of the major online commercial dictionaries at novella, and the plural form novellae does not appear in any of those online dictionaries at all.

StevenJ81 (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Two new categories

I have created Category:Jewish concentration camp survivors‎ and Category:Jewish people who died in the Holocaust‎. Surprisingly these categories did not exist yet. Feel free to further populate the categories. Or if you don't agree with them, feel free to nominate them for deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Displaying Holidays on Main page

Hi, I started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Selected_anniversaries#Jewish_Holidays_starts_at_night.2C_which_day_to_show_on_Wiki.3F about how to display holidays on the main page. For example, right now, Shushan Purim is not up there, it was there yesterday as "Shushan Purim starts at sunset." I propose that if only one can be listed, then it should be the actual day. Please comment there if you have anything to share. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The Eternal Jew (art exhibition)

I'm moving this message from Portal talk:Judaism. I think this page was probably its intended _target. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The content of the article is wrong: The exhibition was not about "degenerate art" . While there were several famous exhibitions about degenerate art, the exhibition "The Eternal Jew" focussed on the discredition of judaism in general. There was no exhibition with works of Max Beckmann, Ernst Kirchner and Emil Nolde in the context of "The Eternal Jew". This exhibtion was much more sinister and prepared the grounds to the Kristallnacht. For more correct information about The Eternal Jew see the german Wikipedia version. See very profound analysis in: Wolfgang Benz: „Der ewige Jude“ (Propaganda-Ausstellung). In: Handbuch des Antisemitismus - Ereignisse, Dekrete, Kontroversen. Band 4. De Gruyter, Berlin 2011, ISBN 978-3-598-24076-8, S. 114–117 [9]. My english is too weak to get the text in the english WP version straight. --Flyingfischer (talk) 07:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Rfc

Please comment on the Rfc at Talk:Jewish_diaspora#RFC_concerning_how_to_present_the_reasons_causing_the_Diaspora. User:Dailycare and I have been edit warring about an issue in that article, as you can see in the sections above that Rfc, and now we are looking for broader input. I won't hide that after some consideration, I think that both Dailycare and I have not tried to look at the bigger picture, and I hope that your input will help reach a balanced and optimal solution to this issue. Debresser (talk) 08:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

GAR

Jews, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

In simple words, this editor thinks that there are too many "Citation needed" tags in the article for it to be considered a good article. That is probably correct, so editors are asked to try and add sources where needed. Debresser (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Referencing Passover and related articles

All of the "On This Day" links relating to Passover (Passover, Fast of the Firstborn and Passover Seder) have been removed from the Main Page because they are not sufficiently referenced. (See Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#Errors in today's or tomorrow's On this day) I've had a go at improving the referencing on Passover myself, but in some places I don't really know where to begin. Any help would be appreciated (although of course I recognize that you may well be busy with other things today - Happy Passover!) Smurrayinchester 11:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

A shame nobody alerted this project a few days ago. And a shame these important and relevant articles were removed for so flimsy a reason. Debresser (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Infobox Jewish leader threatened with merge

{{Infobox Jewish leader}} was nominated for merge into {{Infobox religious biography}}. Please comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_April_12#Template:Infobox_Jewish_leader. Debresser (talk) 11:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

One over the eight

There's a character Special:Contributions/Luis150902 who claims that referring to the eighth month as Marcheshvan is "POV pushing". Really? He hails from Lisbon - I thought everyone who held extreme views had been weeded out from there 43 years ago. He may be a Sephardic Jew but he spends all day Saturday editing so I could be wrong. One of the functions of this board is to challenge the WP:FRINGE merchants, so has anyone any suggestions as to how to handle the situation? He appears to be a calendar nut - he's already coded a template for the year 2038. 80.44.95.95 (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

"420 Collaboration" to improve cannabis/marijuana articles, including Judaism topics

You are invited to participate in the upcoming "420 collaboration", which is being held from Saturday, April 15 to Sunday, April 30, and especially on April 20, 2017! The purpose of the collaboration, which is being organized by WikiProject Cannabis, is to create and improve cannabis-related content at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects in a variety of fields, including: culture, health, hemp, history, medicine, politics, and religion. For more information about this campaign, and to learn how you can help improve Wikipedia, please visit the "420 collaboration" page.

--- Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Particular to WikiProject Judaism, we could use some expertise at the following:

• Cannabis and Judaism: currently a redirect to a section, but could be expanded and split off to its own article. We could particularly use any coverage of Jewish writings on cannabis prior to the 1970s, like are there any interesting writings or rulings on cannabis by Jewish scholars during the Ottoman era?
• Redlink Efraim Zalmanovich, (first?) rabbi who declared cannabis kosher

Thanks for your interest! Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Sefaria Resources - COI

I'm Chief Data Officer for Sefaria, so have a COI on adding Sefaria resources to any articles.

There are whole bunch of texts that Sefaria has digitized and made available either under CC licenses or totally public domain. In many cases they're the only place to find this material digitally.

I believe that it's worth putting an external link to the text on the relevant articles, but I can't do so, given my COI.

There are probably about a hundred examples, and if folks are willing to sift and add them, I'm happy to provide good candidates.

Examples:

• CC-BY English Translation by R. Shraga Silverstein on the major halachic midrashim - Mekhilta, Sifra, Sifre Bamidbar and Sifre Devarim
• The full text of the public domain Silbermann English translation of Rashi on Torah.
• The English of the 1929 JPS edition of Sefer HaIkkarim

There's plenty more where those came from. What do folks think? Does it make sense to go through these resources and add them to the relevant articles?

LevEliezer (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

And while I'm exploring this WikiProject - Sefaria should probably go on the 'Resources' tab right here as well...

LevEliezer (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and added Sefaria to the Resources tab here; I figured that was a light enough touch. I'm still watching the tumbleweed drift by on my original question, though. Doesn't it benefit the users to add the links to original texts? LevEliezer (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, LevEliezer, and thank you for your contributions. Given that Sefaria is freely available—and speaking for myself, I use it a lot, and really appreciate it—I don't think you've done anything out of line. I suppose one issue is that in theory we ought to be trying to port some of the freely available content to Wikisource (in whatever language[s]). So how much we should fully encourage links to Sefaria and how much we should promote Wikisource instead is a bit of an open question.

In any event, חג כשר ושמח! StevenJ81 (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

We love getting the text into WikiSource, but there's often a lag. We're producing a whole bunch of it. There's also the advantages of having translation side-by-side. WikiSource misses out on that, with the language-silo model. Still - if volunteers want to help out with that, I'm happy to support.

As for adding links from articles to Sefaria, I've had my changes reverted, due to COI. I suppose that if I can point to a decision here, then I could go ahead with them, and perhaps point to the decision on the talk page of the article in question? I'm not super clear on the correct process. LevEliezer (talk) 10:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

If there's a firm decision here, that would probably be sufficient. But my say-so itself is certainly not enough.

Note that notwithstanding language silos, there is, in fact, some side-by-side content in Wikisource. See, for example, s:Bible (Mechon Mamre). Shabbat Shalom. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

A conversation on Sir_Joseph's talk page pointed me to toward Template:Request_edit, and I'm going forward with that method. Seems to be the right way to go. LevEliezer (talk) 06:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Gay concentration camps in Chechnya

Discussion about the use of "concentration camp" in the title of the Gay concentration camps in Chechnya can be found in Talk:Gay concentration camps in Chechnya#Rename. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Was there Jewish independence in the time of the Judges or the United Kingdom?

That question is being discussed heavily on Jews, where a statement to that effect was recently removed from the article. I then re-instated it with sources, and your input and especially additional sources would be much appreciated. Please post in the Talk:Jews#Redux section. The Rfc can safely be ignored, since its results stands or falls with the sources. Debresser (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Broken links in "Torah portions"

I just tried to follow some of the "commentary" links at end of the Portal:Judaism/Weekly_Torah_portion_box. Some were completely broken; others not very specific as to the particular text. To judge from the history, I guess the template has been around for a long time. I suspect that in that time, many link _targets were changed. JoergenB (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Antisemitism

Many Jewish related articles on Wikipedia are biased and not neutral. every time you try to edit them you get some editor acting like owner, which is against Wikipedia rules. instead of having an editor war with one editor, i recommend starting a new Antisemitism project on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Antisemitism

some of problematic articles are Haavara Agreement, Adolf Hitler, Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion Franklin D. Roosevelt all these articles do not have an Antisemitism category tag or may have some obscure tag that will lead to Antisemitism root! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Antisemitism

other problematic articles are Hummus and falafel claiming it is a "Palestinian" invention.

being that there is no Antisemitism project on Wikipedia, i recommend starting one, where articles deemed to be treated with Antisemitic bias can be brought for discussion by different editors involved! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Antisemitism

would like to hear your opinions on this, please. thank you Igor Berger (talk) 09:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Igorberger, please don't make up stories. As several editors explained to you at Talk:Antisemitism#Antisemitism Category, some of the articles you mention above are in subcategories of Category:Antisemitism. That's the way our categorization works. I'm sorry if you don't like it.

Also, neither Hummus nor Falafel say they were Palestinian "inventions". Both articles say they are of unknown origin but believed to have originated in Egypt. If you lie about something as trivial and easy to check as this, you will have no credibility with respect to other issues. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

the devil is in the details. that is how Antisemitism works. that is why i am proposing a Antisemitism portal so there will not be a need for edit wars. but as you very well know many Jewish editors left Wikipedia because of editor wars. and please do not imply that i lie. that is attacking an editor, and against Wikipedia rules Igor Berger (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

i added a {{POV}} tag to Haavara Agreement i hope my edit is respected! Igor Berger (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what "the devil is in the details. that is how Antisemitism works." is supposed to mean, but lying is not acceptable. Ever. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz i do not intend to debate every article with you here, and i do not "lie" as you have stated that i do. my point is, how do we address Antisemitism on Wikipedia without having countless edit wars? every article can be presented from a PVO of an editor, but i am interested in NPOV. Igor Berger (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

British Israelism and related articles

Many of these were created or heavily edited by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anglo Pyramidologist/Archive, a fringe editor who attacked people calling them anti-white, which gives you a bit of a flavor of his pov. BI itself is of course fringe, and besides Christian Identity which was a split from what was basically a philo-semitic movement it still has its racist and anti-Jewish elements, although few of the related articles mention this. Two officials representing one group are editing articles plus another SPA who won't state his belief. If anyone here knows anything about this subject they might be able to help improve some bad articles (which have been messy, poorly sourced, etc for years, lacking a lot of context and history). If not, no worries. Doug Weller talk 20:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Jews and Harems

There's currently a discussion ongoing on the Harem article based on changes made to the section "Slavery and the Harem System in the Ottoman Empire" The questionable insertion is as follows:

"Andrew Handler has written that Jews were the "main suppliers" of eunuchs.[21] In the medieval Ottoman Empire, Jews were one of the few groups who could move and trade between the Christian and Islamic worlds.[22][23] Although slave merchants were officially supposed to be Muslims, "unofficial" Jewish traders also participated.[24]When Islamic legal scholars prohibited the practice of castration, it became customary for Jews and Christians to carry out castration in areas outside Christian dominion.[19]"

Consensus on the talk page has unanimously been that the insertion is undue, but the editor who added it has refused to remove it. My view is that the section is completely undue and seems very sketchy, but I'm unfamiliar with the details regarding Judaism in the Ottoman Empire, so would need help from more experienced editors regarding balancing the section. Thanks Drsmoo (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Castration is not allowed in Judaism. Not even of animals. To the contrary, there is mention in Jewish law of giving animals to non-Jews to have them castrated. Based on that knowledge, I was surprised by the statement above. It is not the trading part, but the castration part, that sounds unlikely in light of Jewish law. Debresser (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, an argument based on general principles (castration is not permitted by Jewish law, so Jews were not likely to have castrated eunuchs for the Ottomans) is OR. I don't know very much about Jews in the Ottoman Empire; beyond a few generalities, my knowledge of Jewish history is pretty much limited to Europe, the United States, and Israel/Palestine.

However, I do have an electronic copy of the Encyclopaedia Judaica. I just searched the 6th volume (Dr–Feu) for "eunuch", assuming it would take me to the article on eunuchs. Instead, it took me to the article on "Economic History", written by Arcadius Kahan, which includes this interesting bit:

In his oft-cited Kitab al-Masalik ("Book of Routes"), written in 846 and revised some 40 years later, Ibn Khurdadhbah, who held in the caliphate an office approximating that of a modern postmaster general, described the routes taken by the Jewish Radaniya (Radhanites; a word of uncertain etymology and meaning) from northern France and southern Morocco to India and China. He wrote:

These merchants speak Arabic, Persian, Roman [Greek and Latin], the Frank, Spanish, and Slav languages. They journey from West to East, from East to West, partly on land, partly by sea. They transport from the West eunuchs, female slaves, boys, brocade, castor, marten and other furs, and swords. They take ship from Firanja [France] on the Western Sea, and make for Farama [Pelusium]... On their return from China they carry back musk, aloes, camphor, cinnamon, and other products of the Eastern countries... Some make sail for Constantinople to sell their goods to the Romans; others go to the palace of the King of Franks to place their goods... These different journeys can also be made by land (pp. 153ff.; E.N. Adler, Jewish Travellers, 1966, p. 2).

There is some reason to believe that Western Jewish merchants quite early reached even Korea and Japan.

Ibn Khurdadhbah's statement helped support what soon became a Christian ecclesiastical myth, adopted by some modern historians, about an extensive Jewish slave trade in the Middle Ages. Medieval and modern controversialists from St. Agobard, archbishop of Lyons, onward, often pointed a finger at the medieval Jews as the main slave traders who transported Christian slaves, especially from Slavonic countries, to the ever more manpower-hungry Middle East and Muslim Spain. They readily overlooked the staggering legal barriers erected against that trade by both Jewish and gentile laws. Islam and Christendom severely outlawed the possession by Jews of Muslim or Christian slaves respectively. On its part, the Talmud had long demanded that a slave acquired by a Jewish master should be circumcised, made to observe the seven Noachide commandments, and live an essentially Jewish life. If a slave refused to be converted within 12 months, he was to be freed or sold to a gentile master. Female slavery, mainly intended to serve sexual purposes, was made difficult for Jewish slaveholders by the strict prohibition on sexual relations with slave girls. Typical of the provisions of Jewish law was the following statement by the ninth-century Babylonian teacher Natronai Gaon: "If a son of Israel is caught with his slave... she is to be removed from him, sold, and the purchase price distributed among Israel's poor. We also flog him, shave his hair, and excommunicate him for 30 days" (Sha'arei Ẓedek, fol. 25a, attributed to Amram Gaon). The trade in eunuchs, so much in demand for Oriental harems, depended on whether the Jewish slave trader could acquire castrated males. Otherwise talmudic law had long included castration among the physical mutilations which entitled the slave to seek immediate release. Responsibility for a slave's hidden blemishes, both mental and physical, was greatly delimited by talmudic law and hence anyone acquiring a slave ran considerable risks. If some Jews, defying these legal difficulties, were attracted to this extremely lucrative commercial branch, they must have constituted but a minority among the international slave traders and doubtless played an even smaller role in the various domestic slave markets throughout the world of Islam. It is not surprising, therefore, to find that in the vast, populous, and affluent North African lands, hardly any reference to Jewish slave traders appears in the extant Muslim and Jewish sources of the time.

(The EJ article about eunuchs, by the way, is primarily about mentions of eunuchs in the Bible.)

Anyway, the over-long quotation above (for which I apologize) may be helpful at Talk:Harem. Or maybe the editor in question is beyond reasoning with. Drsmoo, have you considered WP:Dispute resolution or an Request for comments? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Malik Shabazz, that quote is helpful. I've posted here, as well as on the sexuality wikiproject to get more info. I've also asked for guidance from another admin. Drsmoo (talk) 02:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I hope it helps. For the record, I'm no longer an admin. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Book of Exodus vs Exodus

recently i stumbled on article Exodus while searching google about Israelits bondage in Egypt. As a religious Jew I was shocked and appalled by the pseudo science, conspiracy theory and opinion of the article. Book of Exodus is the Bible story of the Hebrew Bondage in Egypt. we all know someone wanting to read on the topic will Google "Exodus" While I am not against a diverging opinion, i think the title is problematic. as a NPOV editor i recommend renaming Exodus to something that will be like "Exodus Interpretation" and having a Disambiguation "Exodus" page with both articles links on the page, "Exodus Interpretation" and Book of Exodus This seems to be supported and advised by Wikipedia:Article titles and Wikipedia:Disambiguation would like to hear your opinions on this, and where to initiate the article move. thank you Igor Berger (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken: Exodus is a disambiguation page. Debresser (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

thank you Debresser, my mistake. i meant the The Exodus, it is very confusing. it should be renamed to reflect the Criticism of the Book of Exodus maybe, "The Exodus Story"? Igor Berger (talk) 11:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

or maybe "The Exodus Controversy"? Igor Berger (talk) 12:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

If you are talking about "The Exodus" then I have to disagree with you. That title would not be confused with the Book of Exodus. Debresser (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

i was confused, until i clicked the Book of Exodus link. had no idea some scientist want to debunk the Exodus story. To me Exodus means Exodus, with article "The" or without. Igor Berger (talk) 14:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Should Chaim Kanievsky be included in Template:Cannabis in Israel and Category:Cannabis and Judaism?

Please see discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cannabis#Should_Chaim_Kanievsky_be_included_in_Template:Cannabis_in_Israel.3F. Debresser (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

BDS and antisemitism

Should Category:Antisemitism be applied to the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions article? Feel free to join the discussion. Debresser (talk) 11:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Descendants of Adam and Eve for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Descendants of Adam and Eve is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Descendants of Adam and Eve (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.PaleoNeonate (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Central Committee ethnicity

While fixing some technical issues, I noticed that Central Committee elected by the 6th Conference of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (Bolsheviks) has a table with an "Ethnicity" column. I suppose there is a reason for the way that column is displayed, but is it a good reason? Johnuniq (talk) 01:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Anyone here with views on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grodzinski Bakery?

Keep/delete, whatever, but some debate would be good. I'm sadly occupied IRL with horrible stuff, so unable to throw myself in as I'd like. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Automated assessment of article importance

Hello everyone! I'm currently working on a project with Aaron Halfaker where we are studying how to do automated classification of article importance. In case you're wondering who I am and why I'm the one working on this, I've added a short explanation of that at the end of this post.

One of our project's goals is to make article importance predictions for articles within a specific WikiProject, and we have been making good progress towards that goal. We are now reaching out to a handful of WikiProjects to learn more about how useful and accurate our models are. These projects were chosen because almost all of them mention what the "average Wikipedia reader" is likely to look up as a criterion when determining article importance, a concept that corresponds to our usage of article views as input in our model, and because they have a large number of articles rated as "unknown importance", something we can build tools to assist with. WikiProject Judaism is one of these projects, which is why I'm posting here.

During the past week I have been working on building a model that predicts the importance ratings of articles within the scope of WikiProject Judaism. The model uses data such as number of article views, number of inlinks from other articles (and what proportion of those come from within the WikiProject), as well as information from the clickstream dataset. I have created a page listing almost 100 articles where our model believes the importance rating of a given article should change, you can find that list here: User:SuggestBot/WikiProject Judaism#Candidates for re-rating

We'd love to know whether our predictions are accurate or useful. For instance, you might find that a prediction is not spot on, but enough to warrant changing the rating of a given article (e.g. we might predict Top-importance for an article that should be High-importance, but if it is currently rated Low-importance both cases warrant an update of that rating). If our predictions are wrong, please let us know about that too! There might be aspects of importance that our model does not catch and we want to understand what those are so we can see if there are ways to fix them.

While working on building this model, I also identified many pages within the scope of WikiProject Judaism that appear to need an update of their importance rating. These pages are also listed on the page linked above. For example there are many redirects and disambiguation pages that do not have an NA ("not an article") rating, and I've updated the rating of some of them. I have also identified some articles that do not appear to have a matching Wikidata item, or where the Wikidata item is labelled a "Wikimedia disambiguation page".

As I mentioned in the introduction, in case you’re wondering who I am and why I'm the one working on this: as part of my PhD I studied using machine learning to predict article quality, and I helped develop parts of ORES to enable it to make article quality predictions. Besides doing research I also run SuggestBot, a bot which recommends you articles to edit, currently available in seven languages. Thanks for your time, and I’m looking forward to your thoughts and questions! Regards, Nettrom (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

So as not to clutter the current page, may I suggest we comment at User talk:SuggestBot/WikiProject Judaism? StevenJ81 (talk) 18:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

From what I could tell this talk page is fairly busy, so I have no problem with having the discussion elsewhere, both pages are on my watchlist. I went ahead and created the talk page with a reference to this discussion. Looking forward to your feedback! Regards, Nettrom (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation help

I've just added two Hebrew pronunciations to Rachel Bluwstein, but, while I am a linguist and Jewish, I don't know Hebrew nearly well enough to be confident of the pronunciation of המשוררת‎. The article would also (IMHO) benefit from the pronunciation of her last name, which of course is not Hebrew. See Talk:Rachel Bluwstein#Pronunciation. Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 02:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Rfc at Judaism and sexuality

Please comment on the Rfc at Talk:Judaism_and_sexuality#RfC:_Attitude_towards_Sexuality. Please also notice the extensive discussion on the subject in the sections above the Rfc. Debresser (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 35/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Judaism.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Judaism, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Relationship mitzvot and halahkha

Please comment on this question at Talk:613_commandments#Relationship_to_halakha. Debresser (talk) 09:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

After Rfc still need for input

Your input is needed at Talk:Jewish diaspora regarding the question whether the diaspora was the result of "expulsion" or "mass expulsion", and whether those who disagree with that are "historians", "some" historians" or "leading historians". Debresser (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Article on the 2017 Maccabiah Games

Hi. The 2017 Maccabiah Games are about to start. Perhaps someone can begin an article on them? There is one on the Hebrew wikipedia, here. Thank you. --2604:2000:E016:A700:4D64:B20A:439C:EE72 (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Under way. 2017 Maccabiah Games. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Amalek needs input from experienced and informed editors

There is a significant content dispute at the above named article which has also spilled onto WP:ANI. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

How the world learned about the Holocaust

Hello, Your thoughts and ideas are requested at Talk:The Holocaust#How the world learned, concerning how scholars, and then the public, learned about the Holocaust. Thank you, Mathglot (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Links to Midrashim on Sefaria

I'm still trying to get links to CC versions of texts hosted on Sefaria. I'm finding that without editors "in the domain", the changes will not happen. In particular, links to CC versions of Sifra and Sifre and bogged down, waiting for subject matter experts to weigh in. LevEliezer (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The bigger question is: Are the people active at WikiProject Judaism willing to allow free inclusion of links to Sefaria? I am; I think it's a fantastic resource, and one highly appropriate for use here. But others need to weigh in. If this WikiProject favors the idea, we can probably make it stick on pages we're interested in. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Is there any way for me to encourage the process? I've heard a few expressions of support, like yours, but can't seem to get the ball rolling. LevEliezer (talk) 09:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

"Qiddin"???

Any ideas what "Qiddin" could mean? It's apparently a source for an Aramaic word, cited in this edit. I'm wondering if it might be Kiddushin (tractate), with a Q for Kof and abbreviated, but I don't know. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

You've gotta be qiddin me! (I'm sorry, but I couldn't resist.) I think you're right about it being Kiddushin. This translation has the quote as "I am preferable to you" (instead of "I am more worthy") at Kiddushin 29b. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Nice thinking. It's the only such usage on Wikipedia, currently. I'll fix it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Aristotle converted?

Chime in at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Aristotle_conversion_to_Judaism_and_letter_to_Alexander --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Unreferenced information at Seventeenth of Tammuz, due to appear on the Main Page tomorrow

Can someone help by adding references to Seventeenth of Tammuz#Customs and Seventeenth of Tammuz#Cycle of fasts, both of which are sections without any references? The article is due to appear at "On This Day" on the Main Page tomorrow, but lack of referenced information could be a bar to this happening. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 10:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Bencherlite.  Done --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Second Temple period or Hellenistic period

Please but in on a discussion if we should use "Second Temple period" or "Hellenistic period" or perhaps something else altogether, at Talk:Shuafat#Second_Temple_Period. Debresser (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Tisha B'Av for main page

In order to get a head start and to avoid any issues, please feel free to look at the article and make improvements if necessary. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

It has no tags, no redlinks. Debresser (talk) 19:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

A Call for Interested Editors

In case anyone's interested, there is a Wikisource partial translation of the Bible, over at Wikisource:WikiProject Wiki Bible.

There's some disagreements occurring at Translation talk:Genesis and Translation talk:Exodus where a third opinion from someone knowledgeable (even moderately knowledgeable) about biblical Hebrew would be helpful here. The conversations are between myself an an anonymous IP -- the only two active contributors that I know of to the project. We're talking really basic stuff here -- nothing all that advanced. If you can look at a page of the Bible and half-way understand it, you can help. And if you take the side of the editor I'm disagreeing with on any issue there I'll quit arguing and stand down on that particular question.

For a sampling of what the new editor is brining to the table, see [10] and much more here [11].

Of course, for anyone who doesn't want to wade into this mess, there's also a number of totally untranslated sections that could use a look from anyone who knows their way around biblical Hebrew, ancient Aramaic, and Koine Greek. Alephb (talk) 04:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Judaizers

Judaizers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

File:Filename

is an article that really needs improvement. A new editor added some material that I reverted because it was dependent upon primary sources and was OR. They understand that but are concerned about the edits by yet a second new editor that don't seem to improve it either. I don't know if anyone here is interested, but if they are, as I said, the article needs work. Doug Weller talk 18:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

This is odd. Both new editors seem to have begun their editing careers at almost exactly the same time, producing edits to the same article. Well, I've looked at it and have stuck it on my watchlist. Alephb (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Doug Weller and thank you Alephb. I think my own poor contributions were better than those weird contributions of the new editor. I think the whole article is a bit of a rant at the moment and says nothing much about Judaizers in the church throughout history. It coukd be a very good article uf someone has time to work in it. Cheers. Judaizers (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Long-standing problems with chronology at Siege of Jerusalem (587 BC)

I don't know what to do about this but if anyone has an interest, their help would be welcome. Doug Weller talk 09:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Jewish content at the Definitions of whiteness in the United States article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Definitions of whiteness in the United States#Jewish material. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Heads Up, new user changing categories

For example on Avigdor Miller, a new user is changing the anti-zionism category. Please see if this is something that needs to be reverted or discussed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Traditionally, we don't label people anti-Zionists (or antisemites) although we may put them in categories related to anti-Zionism (or antisemitism). I've nominated all the new categories for deletion and provided ARBPIA notice to the "new" editor. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, it is a mystery though who it could be. I have suspicions but obviously can't do anything about it other than keep an eye out. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing policies w/r/t Biblical persons and events

I'd like to suggest that some more people should take a look at recent changes made to numerous articles about Biblical persons and events. Several articles have been edited to say that current scholarship rejects the existence of people mentioned in the Bible (such as Abraham, Keturah, and David); the historicity of events recounted in the Bible (such as The Exodus); and the usability of various traditionally respected sources (such as Josephus and Easton's Bible Dictionary). I'm not trying to argue here for a literalist interpretation, but I'd prefer to see broader input on the question of whether these changes are or are not in keeping with WP:NPOV. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I for one would be interested to see what the argument is for considering Easton's Bible Dictionary a "traditionally respected source." Other than the fact that many Wikipedians do seem to default to it, of course. I would also be interested to see a diff or diffs of whoever edited the David article to claim that modern scholarship rejects the existence of David. Certainly, as the David article exists now it claims that most historians accept the historical existence of David. Can you substantiate the claim that someone edited the article to say that current scholarship rejects the existence of David? Any editor who made such a claim, if any editor had, would certainly be out of line. Alephb (talk) 05:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Members of this project...

...may be interested in this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)