Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 16

message: I am looking to research information about Jews in North Omaha, Nebraska at the turn of the century. Working online I have not been able to find any information on synagogues in the area, although there are indications of at least one that was previously located there. I emailed the Jewish Federation of Omaha for information months ago and did not receive a response. The most information I have collected is to identify the location of Jewish cemeteries in the area, and to write a stub about one of them, the Golden Hill Jewish Cemetery. Any advice about where to look for information would be greatly appreciated. – Freechild (BoomCha) 04:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you researching for yourself or to improve a Wikipedia article? Perhaps you should try the reference desk for general enquiries. JFW | T@lk 06:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I didn't clarify that. I am hoping to write articles about the individual synagogues in North Omaha, as well as the Jewish residents of the community from the late 1800s through the 1960s. By way of example, you can see other articles I've written about ethnic groups in Omaha here. Thanks. – Freechild (BoomCha) 06:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested historical research sources? 

message: Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Judaism#Tanach_-_Hebrew_Bible. --Shuki 07:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tanack - Hebrew Bible? 

message: I am going to redo the template and set up the categories to allow for assessment of quality and importance, similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history and WP:Israel. I hope nothing breaks  -- Avi 14:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If anything goes wrong, contact me directly and I'll see if I can find what's wrong or, if you prefer, ruin everything completely. I'm probably better at the latter. :) John Carter 14:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'm done. Now go forth and assess! -- Avi 16:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: As some of you might now, the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team is in the process of selecting articles for the next "release edition", which will include all the articles already selected and new nominees, to reach a total of around 3,000 articles. Many/most of the religion projects, including this one, seem to me at least to be underrepresented. I notice Moses hasn't been nominated for a release version yet, for instance. If you want, list below the articles which you believe should be considered for inclusion and I'll formally nominate those articles you and other projects think should be included. Generally, we would only be looking for articles "B" class or higher unless they are of extraordinary importance. In those cases, of course, the article can be of any quality. John Carter 14:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release Version articles 

message: People like Nevi'im, Rishonim, etc. are they part of WP:JEW, WP:JH, or both? -- Avi 17:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important figure categorization 

message: I'm thinking it might be a good idea to have a template with links to various religious leaders in Judaism. I'm making a start at . Please help out, as I'm sure my choices are going to be a bit biased. --Eliyak T·C 19:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea. It looks very nice. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 20:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It's pretty arbitrary. Some are poskim, others are community leaders. Where are the Maharam of Rothenberg, Yossel of Rosheim, Maharil Moelin, Yehezkel Landau and S.R. Hirsch? All have a substantial record in leadership. What are your inclusion criteria? JFW | T@lk 23:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't jump on Eliyak too quickly - it seems like the point was to create the template to generate discussion, and his choices were simply "off the top of his head." But echoing JFW, it seems like such a template would either be endless or wrought with arguments over who gets in.--DLandTALK 23:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did I say I'm biased? I did. :-) --Eliyak T·C 06:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: In terms of criteria, I was thinking along the lines of the "big names," who have wide recognition. The question of cut-off criteria comes up on a lot of these templates, but that shouldn't stop us from creating them, if they could be useful. I think that one possible criterion for inclusion could be that the person is known outside of his immediate sphere of influence. For example, many recognize the names Joel Teitelbaum or Solomon Shechter even if they do not ascribe to their respective philosophies. --Eliyak T·C 06:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Why should recognition with the general public be the measuring stick here? Why leave out Moshe Sherer just because not everyone immediately recognises his name? Or Chisdai Crescas? Or the Rashba? Or Ibn Gavirol? Or Don Yitzchak Abarbanel? JFW | T@lk 15:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was giving one justification for inclusion. Another might be that the person was acknowledged as leader in an important movement or a large geographical community. --Eliyak T·C 17:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: JFW wrote, "What are your inclusion criteria?" I reply, Who cares? Eliyak doesn't own the template. This is Wikipedia, and you're free to add people who, in your view, belong in the template; likewise, you can delete people who don't pass your leadership test. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 18:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Oops, we missed one! The article on prophecy to which Israel had a greater claim then most with 55 named prophets and propheteses, has been become a part of WikiProject Charismatic Christianity. I started editing it, which is no mean task since it originally included oracles and some new age dribble, and all sorts information that bore only a very tenuous relationship to the subject of the article, and was heavily Chistianised with all of 3-4 sentences on Judaism, and only a single mention of Moses. The related Prophet article also needs to be looked at...a lot. I note that there is no entry in Judaism for prophecy or even nevua, and the only mention of prophecy, unlinked, is in the Rambam's 13 articles of faith! And yet the Torah, and all books of the TaNaKh with exception of Daniel were written with the gift of prophecy! How did that happen?--Mrg3105 11:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish leaders template 

message: has been deleted, for those who aren't aware, which, I'm assuming is pretty much everyone, since nobody in WP:JEW participated in the discussion.  The template was deleted without even the faintest glimmer of agreement that something should urgently be done to form a consensus for inclusion on the various lists of Jews.  So, the downside of everyone's apathy is that these lists are once again open to becoming the playground of antisemites and other fans of listcruft.  The upside is...oh yeah, there is no upside.  Way to make yourself useful, WikiProject Judaism.  Sheesh.  Just because it's the Three Weeks is no reason for editors to bring stupidity into WP through wanton apathy.  Disgusted in the extreme, Tomertalk 07:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear, the lists are still there, just the template is gone, right?.  What did the template say? Jon513 12:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  The template was rendered irrelevant by its opponents.  Discussion here.  Tomertalk 15:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  What a shame. Seems like many of the more vocal editors involved with that debate were heavy contributors to Christianity Project articles. The scales do not seem to have been tipped in our favor. If we can build a base of editors willing to defend the template, perhaps it can be put up for the deletion review process, based on the fact that Wiki Project Judaism wasn't notified. (Were we?) I'd be glad to help. Are there any other takers? MegaMom 04:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This page is a list of Jews. This list of Jews should be restricted to individuals identified as Jews by reliable sources, in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies. Any items not conforming to these policies may be removed immediately.
That tag hung on the List of notable converts to Judaism. It was deleted for one reason: The List of notable converts to Christianity did not want to abide by similarly restrictive criteria. The List of notable converts to Christianity had, and still does have, the overriding concern to put Bob Dylan on that list despite the fact that he is not a Christian, and despite the fact that there is not a scintilla of a source that he ever converted to Christianity. These are the facts. I am not allowed to edit that article. But my inability to edit the article does not alter the facts one iota. The best source the editors at that article have for conversion to Christianity for Bob Dylan is the opinion of a biographer. As far as the details of a conversion process for Bob Dylan are concerned they are entirely nonexistent. No date for conversion has been uncovered. No place of conversion is known. No witness to any such conversion process for Bob Dylan is known. But Bob Dylan is the reason the Template WP:JEW was deleted. That template was intolerable to the editors at List of notable converts to Christianity, who had one concern far and away above any other -- to keep Bob Dylan on that list of converts to Christianity. They even went so far as to renaming the list in oder to try to justify Bob Dylan's presence on that list. The renaming was utterly irrelevant to the other 200 names on that list, because the other 200 names on that list are either living people who are presently Christians or are deceased people who were Christian at time of death. 
Yes, I certainly am in favor of resurrecting the above Template WP:JEW. I see no benefit to be gained from flabby parameters. I don't think the Jewish articles should have to adopt the meandering parameters apparently favored by the Christian articles. In fact I think the Christian articles and lists should be trying to abide by the higher standards exemplified by the template above that used to hang on the Jewish articles. As a first step I think the Template WP:JEW should be re-instituted. It represents the higher standards that similar groupings of articles should aspire to. The deleteing of it does nothing but open the door for tons of point of view pushing, and yes, antisemitism. Bus stop 13:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: N -- I couldn't vote or otherwise weigh in with an opinion because I was blocked, blocked for reasons entirely connected to the deletion of this template, and in some cases by the same people getting me blocked. I have to say though, that if you want to notify people, or warn people, of a pending deletion of such a template, that they may want to weigh in on with an opinion, it is best to express that in some way that catches their attention, and calls their attention to why it matters. I find what you've posted by way of a notification to be a one-line cryptic notice that sounds more like officialese than a notice designed to catch people's attention. But thanks for posting it. No one else apparently took that step. It does constitute notification and it is unfortunate that it was overlooked by so many. Bus stop 14:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: N -- I like your wording in your reasoning for voting "Keep" for the template: You said: "We should maintain high standards for inclusion in lists." I wholeheartedly agree with that. Bus stop 14:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Jon, if you took the time to read the tfd, you'd realize that the template was sabotaged into the form it had when it was put up for tfd.  If you look at the original purpose of the template, compared to what it became, it's clear that the objections raised to the template are completely irrelevant wrt the original.  Unfortunately, tfd is quite clearly all about deletion, not discussion.  Tomertalk 23:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jew-list template deleted 

message: Please see the discussion here -- this needs more input from editors who actually work in this area. Badagnani 16:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category deletion discussion - Jewish American journalists 

message: There is what I perceive to be a somewhat troubling discussion taking place on the Jews for Jesus Talk page  that requires imput from editors with a Jewish perspective. It seems that an editor there is trying to develop an argument whereby a number of well known Jewish figures should no longer be called Jewish on Wikipedia (!) Sadly, his misguided arguments are garnering some support. Can a few more Jews weigh in on this? It is the last section on the page. MegaMom 01:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Jewish Viewpoint Much Appreciated 

message: An editor seems to think Prayer is biased. Everyone's opinion requested on Talk:Prayer, also whether a  tag is a way to start a discussion. JFW | T@lk 20:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Prayer]] biased? 

message: I have recently created a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Articles where the various articles relevant to this project can be listed so that the members of the project can check on recent changes to them using the "recent changes" function. I have also created another page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Recognized content where the various articles which have received some form of recognition can be listed. I will be adding articles to both of these pages as time goes on. However, I am also doing similar work for several other projects, and am currently going effectively one category at a time per project in alteration. I can't myself guarantee that all the articles which have been included in the Articles page on the basis of being in the parent :Category:Judaism really belong there, though, so I would welcome review from any interested parties regarding whether those articles in fact belong in the parent category, or within the scope of this project. Thanks for your attention. John Carter 15:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New project pages 

message: Please comment at Talk:Unclean animals#"Unclean" where I contend that the extensive use of the term "unclean" in the context of kashrut is inappropriate.--DLand<;;;;;;;sup>TALK</sup> 21:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclean animals 

message: which wikiproject should synagogues be classified under wikiproject judaism, wikiproject jewish history or both--Java7837 04:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All synagogues fall under this WikiProject. If they are of historical interest, Jewish History should cover them also. JFW | T@lk 08:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  synagogues wp jewish history or wp judaism 

message: Vote at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Moses so as too get Moses into a featured article
--Java7837 22:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you mean "please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Moses and consider based on the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria if it qualifies".  Jon513 19:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we should first build the article up to Good Article status before the trial by fire that is FAC (seeing as Moses was unanimously shot down). In fact I think a top priority is to get the article Judaism relisted as a Good Article (it was delisted last month). I reviewed the article Islam for GA and it quickly attained FA status. It requires some work and I suggest we somehow coordinate the task. I think we should make Judaism a collaborative project and bring it back to GA snuff. Valley2city 01:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kashrut was formerly a FA.  Jon513 16:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  vote for Moses to become a featured article vote 

message: There has recently been some discussion regarding which "stories" or portions of the Bible merit having their own articles. For the purposes of centralized discussion, please make any comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#What should have separate articles?. Thank you. John Carter 13:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am strongly opposed to articles on Psalms.  See for example Psalm 23 one of the largest Psalm article on a very popular psalm.  A third of it is translations, a third is when it is said in various prayer of various groups and the last third is "in popular culture". the translations should be on wikisource, the prayer should be in articles about the prayer services, and the "in popular culture" is junk.  Any meaningful content (serious scholarly review) should be in article about themes in psalms.  Wikipedia is not the place for line by line commentary on bible (perhaps wikibooks is).  The AFDs on the subject are includsive with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psalm 143 ending in delete and  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psalm 103 ending in a strong keep but only a vague idea what should actually be in the article.  Jon513 17:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So noted. I personally think having "collective" articles on a number of psalms (like, for instance, the Psalms of Asaph) is probably the best way to go myself. But the best place to place that comment would probably be on the page linked to above. John Carter 17:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not prepared to write a good article (or set of articles) myself and telling people how an article should be written when they don't want to do it either doesn't work.  It is easier for everyone to have articles with a bunch of translations and a large in popular culture section, even if it is ridiculous.  I have also stop trying to delete article on albums of barely notable bands that don't contain any information besides a track listing because they just keep coming back and I don't care that much.  Jon513 17:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What "tales" of the Bible merit separate articles? 

message: There has been a push in the last week or so (largely by User:Java7837, User:Eliyak, and myself), to tag appropriate articles for this project, and rate them. (You can see our progress if you'd like). In many respects it is slow tedious work, which is why I was thinking of getting a bot to help with the tagging part (a bot obviously couldn't do the rating part). Unless someone knows of a reason why this is a bad idea, I was thinking of making a request at WP:BOT for a bot to tag all article in :Category:Jewish law and rituals and all its subcategories (which include rabbis, synagogue, Hebrew Calendar, and others) for this wikiproject. Obviously we'd have to go through afterwards and rate all of the articles on the importance and article rating scale, but it would make at least part of our job easier. Are there any objections? --Bachrach44 13:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a semi-automated bot, User:Rabbot that is meant for the task of tagging talk pages with WP tags. If you can get me a list of articles that need tagging, I can program it. Valley2city 01:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  get a bot to help 

message: I found a seemingly dormant thread on Template talk:Jewish holidays#New Israeli holidays as religious holidays (dead for 3 years, anyway) in which a decision was unilaterally made to split Jewish Holidays and Israeli Holidays from a previously united template in which the holidays were split by section on the same template. There have been multiple discussions in the past, one of which appears in this very same thread, regarding a compromise on the status of Israeli holidays. The decision in the past has been to have a single template on which Jewish Holdays would be categorized in a different section than Israeli holidays. Without any other input, and probably because nobody else commented, Yehoishophot Oliver split the template into two separate ones. I have thusfar not received a response from him on his [[talk page from a week ago, but I have noticed that his edits have skewed solidly Anti-Zionist so I feel a real POV is going into the split. I am admittedly a Conservative Jew, whose movement is Zionist and therefore considers the Israeli holidays to be on par with Jewish holidays. However it is impossible to weigh in on this and not have a POV. Since we have decided in the past to compromise, I would like to see people weigh in on this to decide the future of the templates, whether to unite, split into sections, or into seperate templates. I have kept it as Yehoishophot Oliver for the time being, though the results of past discussion on this topic is to have a single template with split sections. Valley2city 00:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anybody have an opinion on this? Please weigh in, no matter what your preference, as it is basically a one on one debate. Here are the two proposals:
*Single template split into sections (previous consensus): :Template:Jewish and Israeli holidays
(shown on Jewish and Israeli holiday pages as listed below)
*Two separate templates (as per Yehoishophot Oliver's proposal) :Template:Jewish holidays (shown on the Jewish religious holidays listed below)
Israeli holidays (shown on the five Israeli holidays listed below)
Valley2city 18:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Jewish holidays]] and [[Template:Israeli holidays]] 

message: There has been a dispute going on between editors (mainly 2) regarding the content and article naming of
*List of Czech and Slovak Jews
*List of Czech, Bohemian, Moravian and Slovak Jews
If anyone from here feel like having a look at the situation it would be much appreciated. Pax:Vobiscum 09:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback requested 

message: I just got done copyeditting an article with some very nuanced aspects of halakha in it. I decided that the nuances were completely outside the article's scope, so I removed them. But I felt that the inclusion of seeming psak on specific cases in halakha should be tagged as non-authoritative, so I created Template:Halakha. Just wanted to let everyone know it exists. --Eliyak T·C 06:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not comfortable with the line "Please ask a respected rabbi instead." as POV.  Also this goes against Wikipedia policy of Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles.  I have, for now removed it from the article pending more discussion.  Jon513 14:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I didn't know about that policy. I guess we must simply be more careful in the wording of articles. --Eliyak T·C 14:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: A good NPOV article doesn't need such a template. JFW | T@lk 23:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tagged the template for speedy deletion. --Eliyak T·C 03:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Halakha]] 

message: What's the best way to deal with :Category:Jewish Roman Catholics: should it be renamed into something like "Catholics of Jewish ancestry" or be put for removal? ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd opt for renaming :Category:Ethnically Jewish Roman Catholics or something similar. It could also be listed for deletion, but I think the Catholicism Project might be strong enough to vote to keep it in any event, and it might alienate a lot of them if it were to be proposed for deletion without their prior consent. Maybe you could express your concerns on their talk page and get some input from them before you do anything though. John Carter 14:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish Roman Catholics? 

message: Per the prior conversation, we're going to get a bot to tag article for this WikiProject. What we need now is a list of cats to run through. I've made a list by digging through Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Categories and getting everything that looked appropriate. After removing the duplicates I'm left with 621 categories, although that's probably too high because I was just cutting and pasting everything. Please take a look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism/Categories and make adjustments as you see fit. I've probably been over-inclusive, so if you see categories which may contain a lot of articles not really relevant to Judaism, please remove them from the list. --Bachrach44 17:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the list I've put together at User:Eliyak/Judaism categories may be a bit better (it's certainly longer ;-) ). --Eliyak T·C 03:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  cats to tag - [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism/Categories]] 

message: :Cross-posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kabbalah
After de-listing 26 (number) from this WikiProject, I realized that de-listing similar articles such as 42 (number) might start a fight.  My argument is that Judaism/Kabbalah is not the primary concern of these articles, but rather a trivial element within them.  A statement such as "God's name Jehovah has a Gematria of 26" belongs more in an article about God's name, where such information can be centralized. Shalom Hello 02:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of articles about numbers 

message: Can we get a collaboration going to write an article to refute Messianic Judaism and groups like Jews for Jesus. I find the Wikipedia articles on them disturbing and I feel we need an article of our own to put the Jewish point of view.
Tovojolo 13:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a battle ground.  The article Messianic Judaism does make it very clear that Jewish denominations do not consider messianice judaism jewish.  There is also an article Judaism's view of Jesus.  Jon513 15:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Messianic Judaism" 

message: We've uploaded nearly all of our encyclopedia topics, a list of which is available  here. Most are under Judaism category "The Holocaust"--USHMMwestheim 04:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has the museum given permission for us to use all the encyclopedia (even copy and pasting) or are only you (as an museum employee) allowed to for select article?  Does this include pictures? Jon513 10:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The default way to interpret this is that they have licensed only the content they have uploaded to Wikipedia under the GFDL. That is not giving us permission as such - it's releasing the content under the same free license we do. So if it's not on here, there is no reason to assume it's been licensed. The OTRS ticket that these permissions were confirmed through also merely notes that USHMM will be editing - it gives no further reaching permissions. Phil Sandifer 12:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only the content copy and pasted from this user name is available for public domain usage from the USHMM. We also plan on adding pictures (we have already uploaded a good many from our Buchenwald collections as a trial onto the Wikimedia Foundation's site under "The Holocaust" category) but, again, only those selected by the museum are free from copy violations--USHMMwestheim 15:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States Holocaust Memorial Museum 

message: Ebionites has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Avi 18:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ebionites FAR 

message: Just a heads up that Andrew Saul (ex-CEO of Cache and Brooks Bros.) has been nominated for featured article status here. Any input, comment and suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Please feel free to comment and/or improve the article. Thanks! Mrprada911 21:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And what on Earth this blatant PR campaign might have to with Judaism I ask? M0RD00R 01:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WikiProject Judiasm]] article on [[Andrew Saul]] 

message: Can someone pls assess Sandy Koufax?  Tx.--Epeefleche 08:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not unless you are more specific about what you want. We are not here to adjudicate on WP:NPOV or something. JFW | T@lk 20:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sandy Koufax 

message: I think I just got a request to continue with the bot tagging?  What options did you want me to run with? Meaning:
# I assume from that request that the template to use is 
# Are there any sub/super projects related to this one, and if so, are there any banners that, if present, would mean *not* adding yours?
# Do you want me to automatically add a Stub, FA, or GA class, or will you want to review them yourselves?
Thanks!  Please reply on the bot's talk page. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there are , , . The banner should not be added, but probably should not be removed if present. --Eliyak T·C 20:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Eliyak, you removed :Category:American Jews from the bot's page - should that be included or not when it's tagging talk pages? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on bot tagging 

message: Methinks both Qumran and Dead Sea Scrolls could use some supervision from this group.  I am still working on the content for these pages - a little bit here and there - as my dissertation addresses both Qumran and the DSS.  But I'd love some wikification, as well as some watchlist adds, just to keep an eye on those pages.  You'll see what I mean.  Thanx!  IsraelXKV8R 06:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanx for adding the [[Qumran]] article to the Project.  Can we add the [[Dead Sea Scrolls]] article too?? 

message: This should be brought to the attention of all concerned here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-09 Chabad. Thank you. IZAK 11:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-09 Chabad 

message: Moses in hellenistic literature is up for deletion even though it is doesn't violate pov and quotes many important texts such as josephus flavius philo Eusebius (3 great historians) and quotes from Assumption of Moses a hellenistic text--Java7837 13:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moses in hellenistic literature 

message: I'm not sure how prevalent this is, but SatyrBot tagged a few talk pages with the WikiProject Judaism template, where the articles that have very little to do with Judaism:
* Talk:Martin Luther - Martin Luther was the founder of Protestantism.
* Talk:Chick Publications - Not a fan of the Jewish, but that doesn't mean he should be in WikiProject Judaism.
Looking at it now, I think it has to do with the membership of both in :Category:Antisemitism.  I'd ask that some WikiProject members who know more about Jewish culture than I do look through the Antisemitism category, and remove the template from articles whose subjects have little to do with Judaism other than hating Jewish people.  Surely there are some anti-semites who should be under the scope of WikiProject Judaism, but they all shouldn't be - otherwise, both these articles would be under WikiProject Catholicism because they both have/had negative views of the Catholic Church.  It might also be worth checking SatyrBot's contributions to see if there are any articles you think have a similar problem.  Ral315 » 03:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot has also been tagging Israeli political parties. Whilst there is some connection to Judaism, I don't believe most of them are in the scope of WikiProject Judaism (the exceptions being the religious parties Shas, UTJ and the NRP). Number 57 08:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Judaism - over-tagging articles. 

message: Why is the bot tagging Israeli cities, villages, songs, settlements, newspapers and rivers among other things? --Shuki 21:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Israeli cities

message: Category:Archangels  (I removed all irrelevant articles from the project manually and moved some if possible to more appropiate projects)  
Category:Classes of angel (I removed all irrelevant articles from the project manually and moved some if possible to more appropiate projects)    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Java7837 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 
move to WikiProject Religion


message: Category:Antisemitic canards Category:Antisemitic forgeries Category:Antisemitic publications Category:Antisemitism Category:Anti-Judaism Category:Anti-Zionism
::Thank you, Java. Could you action these moves ASAP so SatyrBOT can then carry on adding banners. Could removal of categories from the list lead to the bot removing the banners? JFW | T@lk 09:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: completely remove

message: Could Project Judaism add the article on William Schniedewind to WP Judaism?  He is an endowed, named chair at major university teaching Hebrew Bible.  I could use a few more sets of eyes to help maintain the page from a user who regularly vandalizes tha page b/c of a RL dispute.  Thanx. IsraelXKV8R 01:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the point - he is a person, not a religious topic. JFW | T@lk 06:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I saw that it had been added to Norman Golb's Page, another prof of Jewish Studies.  I thought we were adding BLPs to the Proj.  I have others if we are.  Frank Moore Cross at Harvard, etc. IsraelXKV8R 13:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the subject's notability is to a serious degree related to Judaism, I think it would make sense. In this case, as much of his work does directly relate to Judaism, including its history, etc., this project would probably include some of the people who would know the most about the subject. Whether that given article would be a major priority is another matter entirely, of course. Also, the members of this project might well be among those most qualified to comment on any questionable content in the article. The project might only function in a "support" role for the article, as opposed to actively developing it, but that support would be useful. Also, of course, if anyone member of the project does add content related to his work to the encyclopedia, it would be useful to know that the article already existed to be added to. John Carter 13:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we add the Proj Judaism banner to article on William Schniedewind? 

message: Does anyone here have thoughts on whether Yuri Andropov should be labeled a Jew? Haukur 11:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like it. I take issue with his "nationality" being marked "Jew" as well. It is a religion or maximally an ethnicity, not a nationality. JFW | T@lk 14:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, that's what I thought. I'll revert again, then. Haukur 15:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Yuri Andropov]] 

message: A healthy and prosperous new year, and a gmar tov to everyone. JFW | T@lk 21:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shanah Tovah 

message: For a good while, User:Rktect has been making significant modifications to various biblical articles — for example, compare his/her changes to Stations list here.  S/he has been blocked four times, twice in the last three months, after long insertions of original research.  Please compare the current version of Elim (Bible) with the way it was before Rktect began editing it in July.  I'd appreciate it if some of you in this wikiproject would watch a bunch of these articles, lest this OR be restored.  Nyttend 23:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biblical original research 

message: Is Appetizing for real? I've never heard of this term. --Eliyak T·C 03:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Send to AFD. No evidence, and a dicdef anyway. JFW | T@lk 12:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  as somebody who lives in a jewish neighborhood i can testify that it is true we call all lox and fish sandwich stores appetizing here, it may be a false term but the mases do use it.--יודל 12:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: So it's a dicdef. JFW | T@lk 14:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The result of the AFD was "Keep and clean-up --Haemo 18:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Appetizing]]? 

message: Hey y'all, there's a bit of a conflict at Magog (Bible) as to whether it should be merged into the main article Gog and Magog. It's intended to deal with the figure from Genesis, whereas Gog and Magog deals with the whole schmeer comprehensively. The way I see it, there's just not enough information there to justify it being seperate; virtually all of what's there is dealt with in a superior form at the main article. I'd appreciate some input!--Cúchullain t/c 16:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magog 

message: The jewish writer and rabbi Chajim Bloch (perhaps you can spell Chajim differently) is missing in the english WP, contrary to the German, see :de:Chajim_Bloch. The German National Library (Frankfurt) holds 28 books written by and about him, and his books about the Golem and Hersh Ostropoler were sold as piracy-prints (correct word?) in Berlin in the 80s. Plehn 10:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is he notable in this area? Some people may be notable for a German encyclopedia and not an English one. JFW | T@lk 10:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  missing Person in WP: [[Chajim Bloch]] 

message: * Hebrew language at WP:GAR; could lose GA status. --Ling.Nut 08:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hebrew language]] at [[WP:GAR]]; could lose GA status 

message: What is the youngest age that one can graduate from the Yeshiva and gain the rabbinical ordination in orthodox Judaism? --Ghostexorcist 10:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no formal graduation from yeshiva. Rabbinical ordination is probably valid from the age of 13 (don't ask me for a source), but nowadays is rarely awarded to anyone younger than 20. JFW | T@lk 10:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age limit on Rabbincal ordination 

message: Please see and join in at: talk:Baal teshuva#Should some of this article be split into Orthodox Jewish outreach? -- Avi 15:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Baal teshuva]] 

message: Would it be an idea to set up MiszaBot II to auto-archive sections once they haven't been added to for say a month, or six weeks?  Jheald 09:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is getting long 

message: Would any of you be able to provide some input into this question?  Thanks -- Arvind 13:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The world's northernmost synagogue 

message: 68.195.69.225 (talk · contribs) seems to believe that every Jewish holiday must have the word "ritual" in it, perferably in the introduction.  I saw no value to his changes and reverted them. Certainly the sentence "Purim is a Jewish holiday" contains more information than "Purim is a Jewish ritual". Jon513 19:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the Word ritual 

message: Who makes decision what is a jewish topic or not?
Why Gog and Magog is a Wiki jewish for example?
Gog and magog mentioned in Revelation ( christians) Quran (islam)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.12.132 (talk) 05:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: and Ezekiel 38-39.  The WikiProject Judaism banner on a talk page doesn't really mean anything and it is nothing that anyone should get work up about.  It does not give the wikiproject any greater say in the article, or prevent other wikiproject from also putting their banners there.  Frankly I think the whole idea of wikiproject banners is stupid and doesn't serve any point.  Some claim that it helps direct new users to the wikiproject.  As a wikiproject is just a common place to talk about issues relating to many articles, don't really see why we need to direct people here any more than we need to direct them to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion.  Jon513 18:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just new users who benefit from wikibanners -- it's good for anyone who comes to a page, and wants to know where they might go to get a second opinion on it.  Plus they're useful in the system, to make it more possible to track which pages of interest to a project have been changed recently.  Jheald 12:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topics 

message: The article Social justice currently has nothing on social justice in the Jewish tradition. I do not consider myself competent to edit on this topic myself. Thank you. -- 201.19.77.39 09:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Social justice]] needs mention of the Jewish tradition. 

message: Please see the centralized discussion about this at Talk:Baal teshuva#Should some of this article be split into Orthodox Jewish outreach? and add your views.
Until fairly recently, there was only one Baal teshuva article that was not well-defined about what its content matter should be, i.e. the conflict between defining the Halachik notion and whatever relates to teshuva and the status of baal teshuva as applied to every Jew, vs. how that label is applied to only a certain class of secular/assimilated Jews who become more religious. In order to clarify and clear up the long-standing confusion of content and purpose of the article it was shortened, and part of it were placed first into Orthodox Jewish outreach and now a new Baal teshuva movement article has been added into which material was placed dealing with the modern-day movement based on the frequent usage of that term was created focusing in the grassroots movement of Jews returning to Judaism. Another previous article helps to further clarify the over-lapping subject matter: Repentance in Judaism (which should logically hold all descriptions and explanations of teshuva and Baal teshuva) and the newer Orthodox Jewish outreach focuses exclusively on the efforts of Orthodox rabbis and organizations. A discussion is underway at Talk:Baal teshuva#Should some of this article be split into Orthodox Jewish outreach?, but more input would be appreciated on these key set of articles. Thank you and Good Moed! IZAK 18:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To set the record straight: There was and is no discussion about putting anything into anything. there was never ever one dissenting user who has expressed a issue that Jewish outreach shouldn't have its own article, and there was never ever a discussion that the proper fields dealing with outreach must be in a separate article. As it stand right now the only discussion is how to name the collective phenomena of Jews returning to Jewish orthodox practice, should we title them as a movement which most users have already declared that it is more POV then the other option. Ahead went as user on his own boldness against this consensus and created the article movement. This is now the discussion.--יודל 18:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good English again! Point number one, so many subjects have been dealt with in our debate so far that it's becoming pretty inclusive of lots of things and point number two is it's not about "we" it is about what is objectively out there and can be supported by reliable sources. IZAK 08:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baal teshuva & Baal teshuva movement & Orthodox Jewish outreach 

message: The article B'nai Mitzvah does not clearly define the meaning of the term "B'nai Mitzvah". While I believe that it is implied in the text of the article, I'm not positive that my guess is right. Let's add a clear definition of the term for those who need it. Thanks. -- 201.19.77.39 15:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that you and others have been working on this article -- Thanks! -- 201.19.77.39 12:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[B'nai Mitzvah]] does not define the term "B'nai Mitzvah" 

message: It's been suggested to me that I try to build consensus on this matter before I go about making changes.  Anyway, it's been rubbing me the wrong way that Wikipedia, which is supposed to contain scholarly articles, has many articles which use "Hashem" when directly quoting sources where an actual name of God is used.  I think this in particular makes the articles inaccessible to non-Jews, who might not understand Orthodox interpretations of the 3rd Commandment.
I think we need some standard for what name of God should be used in what types of articles.  My personal view is that direct quotations from the TaNaKH should use the relevant name (usually YHWH), quotations from prayer should use "Adonai" since that's what would be said in the actual prayer, and quotations of common expressions (e.g. ";baruch Hashem", "kiddush Hashem") should continue to use "Hashem".  And in any case, the first use of any given Hebrew name of God in an article should be linked so a non-Jewish user has a prayer (no pun intended) of sorting them all out.
Anyway, the short of this all is that I'd really like to make Judaism-related articles more accessible to non-Jews, and I think having a scholarly standard for uses of names of God is one thing that could help.  BeIsKr 00:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree when a Hebrew name of God is used it would be helpful to add links to an article explaining the usage, such as Names of God in Judaism. As to which Hebrew term to use, this issue originally arose in the context of the Birkat HaMazon article. One concern is that the purpose of the encyclopedia is to communicate what Jewish practice is in articles specifically on Jewish practice. One can explain the practice more clearly, but if one is going to refer to God in Hebrew at all in an article on traditional Jewish practice, why not use the Hebrew term that practicing traditional Jews use? I could see an argument to use English and not transliterated Hebrew at all, but I'm not sure why one Hebrew term would be clearer to a non-Hebrew speaker than another. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but I would add that for a direct quote of someone Hashem [God] should be used.  Jon513 19:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with BeIsKr that Hashem with no qualifiers or links is a bad idea. In the English language, God is the accepted term for a monotheistic omnipotent and omnipresent deity. In that sense, it is a perfectly acceptable term that every reader will understand. As per Jon513, the use of Hashem should be limited to direct quotes (with a link to Names of God in Judaism if necessary) or as part of clichés (Im Yirtzeh Hashem). JFW | T@lk 20:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Regarding the use of YHWH, I think there are certain places where etymology of names is discussed where there's no good alternative to using it.  E.g., in the Hebrew names article, I changed "devotion to Hashem" to "devotion to YHWH", because it was a paragraph discussing names ending in "-yah".  Or in the 1 Maccabees article, it's hard to discuss the possible etymology of "Maccabee" from the acronym MKBY without saying what the Y stands for.  BeIsKr 22:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So far it seems three options have been proposed: Using "HaShem", using direct names, using English. I can understand the justification for the third option. Could you please provide a justification for the second? That is, why use language in the Birkat Hamazon article that the kind of people who say Birkat HaMazon wouldn't say? Isn't accuracy and authenticity a desirable trait? In an article describing native customs that uses phraseology in native language, what's the justification for imposing a usage which is not only non-native but one which native speakers would regard as incorrect? The very idea that Jewish usage would be considered inappropriate for an article on Judaism beggars my imagination. Please enlighten me. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I recall, the changes I made to the Birkat Hamazon article were to change "HaShem" to "Adonai", which is what someone who says Birkat HaMazon would say in the course of actually saying Birkat HaMazon. Am I mistaken? Translating "Adonai" as "HaShem" in an otherwise English rendering doesn't make much sense to me. BeIsKr 09:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The only issue I'd have with that is that it could potentially be useful from a scholarly point of view to distinguish bewteen when a tetragrammaton-derived name is used and when an "El"-derived name is used.  I tend to only think of only the latter as being translatable as "God", though I acknowledge that's just a personal preference and others may differ. Then again, we should probably have a standard for how to translate "Baruch... melech haolam". BeIsKr 09:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Blessed are you, God, our God and King of the Universe..." There is no pressing need to distinguish between YKVK and E'l-based named in most articles. JFW | T@lk 10:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Some good points have been made here. But God is the accepted term for a monotheistic omnipotent and omnipresent deity certainly conflicts with Allah. Summed up, God usually refers to the bible only.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shuki (talk • contribs) 19:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In what way are Allah and God dissynonymous? The article says the opposite, and I have met many Muslims who use God. JFW | T@lk 10:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: We're talking about specifically Judaism-related articles here, so Judaism-specific terms are under discussion, and Allah is not such a term. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't believe it's appropriate to interpose the perspectives and usages of academic Bible scholars whenever a Bible verse gets quoted in a prayer. If a Bible verse was quoted in a Shakespeare play, we wouldn't change the text of the play on the grounds that Shakespeare's language isn't a sufficiently scholarly rendition of the Bible and substituting our own text for Shakespeare's represents better Bible scholarship. We'd recognize that we are primarily studying Shakespeare, not the Bible, and the Bible comes into play only through a lens of Shakespeare's usages. Same here. Articles on contemporary Jewish topics such as prayers are not primarily articles on the Bible. the Bible comes into play only through a lens of subsequent usage. The views of secular Biblical scholars are often relevant, but the primary subject, and usage, is not theirs. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Two comments. First, I don't understand why a claim a word is post-talmudic could be an objection to its use in an article on an aspect of contemporary Judaism. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Of the discussion so far, there have been various objections to different Hebrew words, but no objection so far to use of the English word God. Does anyone have such an objection? It would certainly make sense to use English in an English encyclopedia. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Hashem vs. other names of God 

message: David Adam Lewis (talk · contribs) recent made substantial changes to both Red heifer (diff) and Yom Kippur (diff).  Jon513 14:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This user has repeatedly made wholesale changes to articles -- generally replacing existing content with content copied from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia. This has resulted in the wholesale erasure of existing material reflecting different sources and points of view. Because the user has added substantial amounts of useful material to these articles I've attempted to work with and this user and to stress the importance of participation in the WP:Consensus process and to discuss any proposed large-scale deletions of existing material with other editors, but so far without success.  --Shirahadasha 21:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I've reverted this user's edits of Yom Kippur. and will revert the edits to Red Heifer. This user needs to work with other editors before deleting existing sourced material. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to a note on User talk:David Adam Lewis, the user appears to be claiming that religious sources are not reliable sources for religious subjects on the grounds and only academic sources are reliable. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I never heard of Duffy before, but you're absolutely right. Compare Mazzoth (by "Lewis") and Massah (by "Duffy"). — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides being an unusual name, the Mazzoth article merely repeats content which is in (or should be in) the Passover article. is ther any reason why it should not be deleted? --Redaktor 16:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I redirected it to Matzo.--DLandTALK 17:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The original article was used to discribe Passover, not Matzot. Of course it's not known by such a name -- the hebrew chag hamazot never became known as mazzoth. But perhaps it's not a bad guess for what contemporary people might call it if all one had to go on was the Bible, Peake's Commentary, and the Jewish Encyclopedia. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: User:Jon513 - the Holiness Code found in Leviticus and the Deuteronomic Code found in Deuteronomy refer to specific portions of the Torah so saying "according to the Torah" is not the same thing.  Also scholars have identified differences in tone and focus between the two codes so sometimes it is important to clarify that one or both have affirmed a tradition.  I don't have specific examples, but I suspect even our ancient rabbis were tacitly aware of the differences. They differ with the modern biblical scholars only in the way they handled them.  Traditionally the tendency has been to synthesize the text via midrash, talmudic debate, or halakah.  Biblical scholars are often more interested in the differences themselves than the synthesis.  Egfrank 20:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Followup: both User:Shirahadasha and I (User:Egfrank) have placed comments on User:David Adam Lewis's expressing concern over his methodology. I have expressed concern about over-reliance on sole secondary sources. User:Shirahadasha has expressed concern about his halakhic reasoning. Egfrank 21:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent changes 

message: Hi - anybody care to start an article on Arthur Kurzweil? -- geneologist, scholar of Judaism, writer. Thanks. -- 201.19.77.39 14:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about you? Best, --Shirahadasha 01:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Arthur Kurzweil]] has no article 

message: Please see my recent sourced insertion at this article that was brusquely reverted. I can't be bothered with an edit war with someone who'll happily be rude. If anyone wishes to take this up, they're welcome. Given that the article (like most round here) is full of entirely unsourced material, the addition of material sourced from a Rabbi's blog, backed up with some primary source material doesn't seem outrageous to me, but I'm not prepared to argue the toss over this one. --Dweller 10:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blogs are really poor sources for anything (WP:RS), unless the blogger is independently notable. I would not support the link you've inserted. JFW | T@lk 11:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was rather hoping someone would help find a RS for this suggestion. However, given that the blog is supported by unimpeachable primary material, the concept could be included in a simple read and compare manner, without the use of the blog or any ORish claim. --Dweller 11:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You didn't get my point. Apart from this iconoclastic rabbi with his blog, has any other source drawn parallels between Life of Brian and a quote from the Talmud? You're stretching the meaning of WP:UNDUE as well. JFW | T@lk 20:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to know that too. I've heard so many mentions of the similarity in day to day conversation that I'd be surprised if there's no mention in RS. As a second-best, the similarity is so self-evident from a glance at the primary source, it makes commentary unnecessary. --Dweller 22:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: John Cleese a Talmud scholar? Interesting people you have day-to-day conversation with - people who know both Life of Brian and Talmud! JFW | T@lk 06:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol. Are you kidding? LOB is very popular with Jewish people, who generally find it very easy to laugh at themselves. --Dweller 07:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You missed my point. Those Jewish people who like LOB, are they actually knowledgeable in Talmud? I doubt it. And to get back to my original question: has anyone apart from this blogging rabbi made the connection LOB vs statement in Talmud and documented this in a reliable source that is not a blog? Just pointing out clever parallels in a blog is not the same as identifying a trend. I can point to various interesting parallels between the Talmud and popular culture, but that doesn't make them notable from the perspective of a general purpose encyclopedia. JFW | T@lk 09:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On your first point, see Modern Orthodox. On your second, I agree (I have done consistently), I'm looking for a RS and would be surprised if there were none... see my first response to you in this thread. --Dweller 11:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: How about Rabbi Jeremy Rosen (British rabbi, Modern Orthodox), writing in the webzine somethingjewish.co.uk on the topic "Alexander the great?" () --Dweller 13:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't call that an RS either. Who the heck is Jeremy Rosen? I think JFW is asking for a source written by a notable person. --Ghostexorcist 18:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it happens, I know who he is (he founded the Yakar synagogue/community in London, amongst other things) but actually it's irrelevant and I think you misunderstand RS - it's the journal that published him that's the issue. It's not a self-published blog, which understandably was criticised as not reliable. It's a web magazine that's published his article. --Dweller 19:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: User:Dweller - I just took a look at the Jeremy Rosen blog - perhaps you may wish to take a closer look yourself.  Based on the wording he is making a homelitic point that both Alexander the Great and the rabbis of the talmud understood the importance of teasing apart the benefits of technology from its more questionable values.  I can't see anywhere that he is asserting that the Talmud was the inspiration for any part of the life of brian.  -- User:egfrank  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree. All he's doing is mentioning a parallel between the two. (Incidentally, it's not a blog) --Dweller 14:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Life of Brian]] 

message: Hello: Is there any article or information that explains what an "Isra'iliyat Salaf" is so that :Category:Isra'iliyat Salaf makes sense to those who have no idea what it means and can be "in on the secret", and why the articles that are in it are there? Thank you. IZAK 06:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Isra'iliyat and Salaf. --Shuki 06:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but why is there no explanation, and no direction to search individaul words? Who knows if they mean the same thing in combination? For example, if one were to look up Nationalism and then Socialism could one ever dream that one result could be Nazism (meaning "National Socialism")? Same thing here, you have to be an expert Arabic linguist and an impartial Islamic scholar to know if the term "Isra'iliyat Salaf" comes out right and not as a distorted form of a combination of two separate words. I hope you see what I mean. IZAK 07:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is "Isra'iliyat Salaf"?