Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 12

message: For the Ashkenazim in the house, perhaps an article on Aqdamuth (please don't put it at Akdammes or something scary) might be a good project for tonight and tomorrow... :-)  חג שמח!  Tomertalk 03:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not this year. It would require some research; I don't have a copy of the ArtScroll translation. I presume the Jewish Encyclopedia has an article that we can use, as long as the remove the quasi-scholary waffle for which it is known. JFW | T@lk 13:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aqdamuth / אקדמות 

message: I've been conceptualizing a Scripture Database website for several years now. I've finally gotten around to publishing a rough draft of the site online. It is wiki-based and would make a good compliment to Wikipedia scripture pages. Please use my dedicated talk page to discuss. --J. J. 19:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help develop Scripture Database website 

message: I've attempted to add material on this decision into the Who is a Jew article. I think it's a momentous event -- the rupture creates a de facto denominational split between Haredi and Modern Orthodox Jews and means that a large number of North American Orthodox converts and their descendents won't be recognized as Jews in Israel. Perhaps should be mentioned and flagged as a current event in other articles as well. See [] --Shirahadasha 13:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The London Beth Din and various other European battei din have been skeptical about certain Israeli conversions for decades. Why was that not a "denominational split"? JFW | T@lk 14:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems more like Israeli bureaucracy to me.  This is just like last year when Israel stopped (for a short time) recognizing YU degrees.  It does not seem to be a religious issue.  I am sure that there are many haradi rabbi who would recommend that the couple marry abroad to avoid this nonsense (just like many secular people, who are really forbidden to get married according to halakha, do).  Just the fact that the child of the convert had a letter from a prominent rabbi who did appear on the Chief Rabbinate's list, (certifying that the mother's conversion had met the highest standards of rabbinic law), and they still didn’t accept it show that there is bureaucratic, not halakhic thinking at work.  Jon513 17:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: IZAK, please assume good faith. This seemed to me like a legitimate question, especially coming from a perspective of someone who is not Haredi and disagrees with many Haredi concepts. JFW | T@lk 08:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JFW: I would normally agree, but when someone has consistently edited and introduced articles from the far-left spectrum of Modern Orthodox Judaism (some may even regard it as the "lunatic fringe" of Modern Orthodoxy), often bordering on original research and not far off from the proverbial "soapbox", so that then subsequent question/s come across as very tendentious, provocative, and desigend to cause guaranteed controversy. In this instance, for example, it would be enough to report recent news from the Israeli chief rabbinate (actually it was more of a deliberately aimed probe by a secular Israeli newspaper which goaded the Sephardic Chief Rabbi to make some comments and then the papers turned it into "hot news", when some of these policies have been in effect for some time.) When dealing with matters of religion in general, one needs to avoid any appearance of mudraking or unfounded sensationalism, especially, as it may come across as yet another attempt to paint the Haredim "blacker than black" or the Modern Orthodox as "more modern than ever". This is a very delicate subject and should be handled with kid gloves IZAK 09:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't want to get myself embroiled in this imbroglio, especially not since all I really "know" amounts to nothing more than unsubstantiated hearsay bordering on gossip...but from what I've read, the entire fracas has nothing to do with orthodox vs. non-orthodox, but is rather a result of a backlash from the leadership of the rabanuth against the OU because the OU condemned one of the rabanuth's "native sons" who was convicted of child molestation, a move which the rabanuth took as an egregious offense.  This explanation seems to hold a great deal of water, since the giyurim in question are across the board, giving recognition to only a few "favorites" on an age-old list, which has, from what I've read, been altered to omit certain rabanim who were formerly in its good graces, specifically because they supported the OU's condemnation of said individual.  All of this pontification about the leftward drift of modoxy and castigation of shira chadasha for her ... ahem ... views, is therefore, utterly irrelevant to the subject at hand, and NONE of this discussion is doing anything to actually promote the betterment of WP.  Tomertalk 06:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israeli Rabbinate's Decision Not to Accept Rabbinical Council of America Conversions 

message: I expanded Mezuzah significantly... Any comments on the additions? Karimarie 22:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mezuzah 

message: Since this project seems to be more active, I thought I'd point out my new comment Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias in religion#Latest in biblical terminology concerning specifically this project's Usage of words such as "Old Testament" and "New Testament" in articles. --J. J. 15:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest in biblical terminology 

message: I have had many complaints about the article on Yeshivish for over a year. I have made several corrections to it myself, but it has so many problems that it goes beyond my abilities to fix the whole thing. I need help!
First of all, what does "Yeshivish" mean? It's a pretty informal term, no matter how it's used. In my experience, it's most commonly the term for "black hatter" Orthodox Jews, who are stricter than Modern Orthodox, but who aren't Hasidic. But it's also used to denote the dialect that those same Jews speak amongst each other. The first problem with the article is that deals almost exclusively with the dialect, and very little with the movement.
The article's discussion of Yeshivish speech itself has numerous problems. It cites Chaim Weiser's book Frumspeak as a "serious" study of Yeshivish. I haven't read the book myself, but I somehow doubt this claim. Moreover, is the book talking specifically about Yeshivish, or more broadly about the speech of all American Orthodox Jews? That point is never clarified.
The article's most ludicrous claim is its section on "Yeshivish grammar." It actually argues that Yeshivish has a distinct grammar that sets it apart from other dialects of English, purely because Yeshivish-speaking Jews add English plural endings to Hebrew and Yiddish words! (By that logic, non-Jews are speaking "Yeshivish" every time they say rabbis.)
The article is sorely in need of genuine scholarly data. From my experience, "Yeshivish" is nothing more than Yinglish mixed with Talmudic jargon. It is in no way a genuine dialect. marbeh raglaim 07:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yeshivish

message: There is somewhat of a debate as to the appropriateness of the above paragraph in the article Judaism vs. the article Jew. I'd request this illustrious's assemblage's opinions on the matter. A brief glance at the article’s history, together with the more recent entries and repartees on Talk:Judaism should be sufficient to give an overview of the issue. Thank you -- Avi 14:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boyarin paragraph in Judaism article 

message: Another disagreement on which I am requesting project-member input: Please see Talk:Judaism#Orthodoxy: Founded vs. Maintained. Thank you. -- Avi 22:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orthodoxy: Founded vs. Maintained 

message: I'm having a bit of a problem with a user who insists on adding irrelevant material to the Kugel (disambiguation) page. Most of the material is German language compound words, and German surnames containing "kugel", and I don't see the relevance to the English language page. I've tried to reason with the user, first on his talk page, then on the articles, but I don't seem to be getting anything coherent from him. He just says that he's "listed the article for translation" (see the article's talk page. Some sane voices are needed.  Any suggestions what to do? Regards, Batamtig 10:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with Kugel (disambiguation) 

message: not sure these will pique anyone's interest here, but here they are for your consideration:
*Beyajad
*James Wickstrom
Cheers, Tomertalk 06:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  too tings 

message: I've been working on converting a lot of Jewish Encyclopedia articles to Wikipedia and I've developed what I think is a good citation format for the reference section that incorporates both the JE article itself and the sources for that article. For example:
*Gottheil, Richard and Samuel Krauss. "Onias." Jewish Encyclopedia. Funk and Wagnalls, 1901-1906, which cites to the following ibliography: 
:*H. P. Chajes, Beiträge zur Nordsemitischen Onomatologie, p. 23, Vienna, 1900 (on the name);
:*Herzfeld, Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael, i. 185-189, 201-206;
:*Grätz, Gesch. 2d ed., ii. 236;
:*Schürer, Gesch. 3d ed., i. 182, 194-196; iii. 97-100;
:*Niese, in Hermes, xxxv. 509;
:*Wellhausen, I. J. G. 4th ed., p. 248, Berlin, 1901;
:*Willrich, Juden und Griechen vor der Makkabäischen Erhebung, pp. 77, 109, Göttingen, 1895;
:*A. Büchler, Die Tobiaden und die Oniaden, pp. 166, 240, 275, 353, Vienna, 1899;
:*J. P. Mahaffy, The Empire of the Ptolemies, pp. 217, 353, London, 1895;
:*Gelzer, Sextus Julius Africanus, ii. 170-176, Leipsic, 1885;
:*Weiss, Dor, i. 130 (on the halakic view of the temple of Onias).
My reasoning is that if you're going to take a public domain article wholesale from some source you should identify the sources cited in that article (saying "this article came from JE" when the article is a verbatim repetition of the JE text doesn't seem very helpful).
I'd like to try and get this accepted as a standard, but obviously not without some consensus on the issue. Does anyone have any thoughts on the issue? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 12:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me, but I don't use the JE as a source myself for a number of reasons.Kari Hazzard (talk | contrib) 13:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kari, the issue of the Jewish Encyclopedia's reliability has come up on the talk page of another article.  Why don't you like to use it as a source?Timothy Usher 07:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of major events have happened to and involving the Jewish people since the JE was released. The fact that the JE is in many cases out of date doesn't invalidate it as a source outright, but I'd prefer to be working with more recent sources. Kari Hazzard (talk | contrib) 12:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Could be done. Can we get a list of articles that use the JE as a source? I'd be willing to help. Kari Hazzard (talk | contrib) 19:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, :Category:Jewish Encyclopedia.  Jon513 20:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the number of articles, that may only be a collaboration of the year. Pecher Talk 07:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In general the Jewish Encyclopedia articles about halakha or tanakh need the more clean up.  Those that are biographies are not that bad.  Jon513 12:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started the process at a few articles like Antigonus of Sokho, Onias, Jose ben Yochanan, where I've moved inline citations to footnotes in an attempt to streamline the text while preserving the citations to sources. The footnotes themselves I've tried to make more comprehensible, expanding obscure abbreviations and the like. I've also proposed this as a "to do" item at the Jewish History. Wikiproject.  Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  JE citations 

message: A serious, fairly new, article Get (conflict) (that is NOT part of the Get (divorce document) article) was posted by User:David91 and may require some serious review and further input and comment/s. Thank you. IZAK 10:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article review: Get (conflict) 

message: A mess. See Talk:Xueta#A_mess. Among many other things, claims about Halakha that I don't think are accurate. But I'm pretty ignorant on the topic of the Xuetes. Perhaps someone here is clueful and can help fix the article? - Jmabel | Talk 23:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made one of my typically productive comments on the talk page there.  Tomertalk 21:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Xueta]] 

message: You might be interested in:
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in the Bible
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in the Gospel of Matthew
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in 1 Esdras
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in 2 Esdras
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in 1 Maccabees
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in 2 Maccabees
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in the Book of Tobit
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in the Book of Judith
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in the Book of Wisdom
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in Ecclesiasticus
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in the Book of Baruch
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in the Story of Susanna
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in Bel and the Dragon
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in Second Chronicles
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in the Book of Ezra
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in First Kings
Clinkophonist 19:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the name of all that is good and holy and not submersed in flavorful chocolate sauce... What the heck? Honestly, I'm more torn between DELETE (the obvious conclusion) and SPEEDY DELETE the likely second choice. I do not doubt whoever made those articles went to sufficient effort doing so... But they're so utterly pointless! Kari Hazzard (talk | contrib) 20:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  36000 non existing articles 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Judaism and the article itself Criticism of Judaism. Not worth the bytes it's written with. JFW | T@lk 23:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my comments below... Tomertalk 00:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, see my inline-note in the Islamic criticisms section [you'll have to click [edit] to see it].  Tomertalk 01:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD, please vote 

message: In Muhammad and in the above-mentioned Criticism of Judaism article, the claim is made that "some medieval Jews" called Mohammed "al-meshuggah"...
*From Muhammad:
*:: In the Middle Ages, Jews usually referred to Muhammad as ha-meshuggah ("the madman" or "possessed"), a title contemptuously used in the Hebrew Bible for impostors who think of themselves as prophets.
*:This has a footnote to 
*::Stillman, Norman (1979). The Jews of Arab Lands: A History and Source Book, p. 236, Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America. ISBN 082760198.
*:Some of you may recognize the name of Norman Stillman from the fracas going on over at Talk:Banu Nadir.  That aside, however, 
*From Criticism of Judaism#Islamic criticism comes this completely uncited gem:
*:Defamation of Muhammad
*:There are Muslims who feel that Judaism belittled and continues to belittle Muhammad. In the Middle Ages some Jews deemed Muhammad to be ha-meshuggah or "the madman."  During the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy Muslims in several nations believed that followers of Judaism were somehow involved or supportive of the view of Muhammad.
Now, leaving aside the outrageous uncited assertions made in the "defamation of Muhammad" ("there are muslims who feel"...boohoo, but who?;  Judaism belittled muhammad?  how?  Judaism belittles muhammad?  how?  Judaism is now a person that it can belittle someone in the past?  "In the middle ages"...yank yank...Muhammad didn't live in the middle ages.  "relevance, your honor."  "During the Jyllands-posten...muslims in several nations believed..." yeah, um THAT'S BECAUSE THEIR LEADERS AND MEDIA LIED TO THEM AND TOLD THEM THAT CRAP!  It's called "anti-semitism", not "criticism of Judaism", and saying "followers of Judaism" instead of "Jews" is just a weak way to incorporate this crap into the article, but I digress...), the problem with this is that Stillman is being cited in a way that misrepresents what he wrote:  In The Jews of Arab Lands: A History and Source Book, on p. 236, there's a footnote to something the Rambam is writing to the Teimanim, in `Igereth Teiman.  Specifically, the translation says (talking about false prophets):
:The first to take up this course was Jesus the Nazarene, may his bones be ground to dust. He was of Israel.  Later, there arose a madman who followed his example...
which is where we find Stillman's uncited footnote, which says:
:Medieval Jewish writers commonly referred to Muhammad as ha-meshugga. The term was pregnant with connotations.  In the Bible, it was used contemptuously for those who think themselves prophets (Jer. 29:26; Hos. 9:7).  Furthermore, because the pagans of Mecca believed Muhammad to be just another poet or soothsayer [...], the Koran states that Muhammad is not mad or possessed.  See for example Sura 81:22.
Now, after all that, what do I want to do?  Until Stillman comes and provides us with a source that Medieval Jewish writers commonly called Muhammad "hammeshuggah", I want this crap removed.  The fact that Stillman says that Jer. 29:26 and Hos. 9:7 are examples of contemptuous use of "meshuggah" to refer to people who think of themselves as prophets, leads me to regard his scholarship contemptuously.  (Jeremiah says that the prophets were incarcerated with the insane, because of the corruption of the priesthood, and Hosea says the prophets are fools (not insane)--because of the iniquity of the people.  In neither case is the usage contemptuous of the meshug`im, in both cases the meshug`im are victims of iniquity...)  If it's true that medieval Jews referred to Muhammad as "ha-meshugga`", my guess is that it's for one of two reasons, if not both--they really did perceive him as crazy (a charge the Qur'an alone disputes) or because his followers were so bloodthirsty that if any Jew in muslimia had actually said the things about him that they were masking with "המשוגע", they would have been signing their death warrants.  Now, that all presupposes that Stillman's interpretation of the Rambam's use of "a madman" is correct.  Not only did the Rambam not call him  the meshuggah, but it's just as likely that the meshuga to whom he's refering is Bar Kokhba, Paul, Nero (read this if that assertion confuses you), ...  From what I'm seeing, Stillman's assertion is pretty flimsy, and way too flimsy to, on its own, stand in as a reliable source for the defamation of all Jews for all time, as the Criticism of Judaism article does.  
Thoughts?  Tomertalk 01:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shall I remind you of WP:NOR, Tomer? Norman Stillman happens to be Chair of Judaic history at the University of Oklalhoma; he is a student of Shelomo Dov Goitein and one of the greatest authorities on the Jewish history in Muslim lands, the book above being the basic reference text on this subject. Of course, you can disagree with him, but WP:NOR is there for a reason. I'm not going to argue against your interpretation of Maimonides' Yemeni Epistle, which is extremely dubious to say the least, for the very same reason: I'm not aware of any scholar agreeing with you on that matter. Ditto for everything else. Pecher Talk 21:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't bother reminding me of WP:NOR.  I'm not proposing to include my crackpot theories in the article, I'm only saying that this one assertion of Stillman's at the very least is based on very poor scholarship.  As for "extremely dubious", I'm not sure whether you're referring to `Igereth Teiman or my interpretation thereof as "dubious", but if you're saying the Epistle is extremely dubious, then so is anything Stillman expounds on based on something written therein, and if it's my interpretation that you find "extremely dubious", that's interesting, since I haven't interpreted anything therein.  What I have said is that the citations Stillman uses as a basis for his assertion that the word משוגע was, to quote him, used contemptuously for those who think themselves prophets, is extremely dubious.  There's no "interpretation" required.  Stillman even cites the verses he used to make this assertion (to wit, Jer. 29:26 and Hos. 9:7)...neither of which call prophets crazy, nor link the status of crazies with contempt.  Now, what exactly are you saying no scholar agrees with me on?  My interpretation of those two verses?  Or my criticism of Stillman's completely fallacious interpretation?  I've asked for another source beside Stillman that says medieval Jews "frequently" called Muhammad (who in no way a medieval figure) "המשוגע".  Unless Stillman just pulled this assertion out of ... thin air, someone should be able to find someone else besides Stillman who's made such a statement.  Cheers, Tomertalk 22:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I must you remind you of the basic Wikipedia policies such as WP:NOR and of the WP:RS guideline. Unless you can cite sources that support your opinion, your personal objections to Stillman's conclusions are of exactly zero value. Pecher Talk 07:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, what are we supposed to infer from the offensive title that you have chosen for the title of thise section? Your arguments boil down to the claims that you disagree with Stillman, not to your demonstrating that a certain editor has misreprented Stillman. Pecher Talk 22:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not supposed to infer anything from the title, although clearly you've chosen to do so.  Tomertalk 22:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is no need to infer anything because the title clearly accuses the editor who inserted that references to Norman Stillman of misrepresenting Stillman's arguments, even though everything posted below are your personal disagreements with Stillman. I'm changing the section title accordingly. Pecher Talk 07:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *as for misreading and misrepresenting Stillman, in Criticism of Islam, we have the following statement: "During the time of Muhammad [41] and later in Middle Ages, Jews usually referred to Muhammad as ha-meshuggah ("the madman" or "possessed"), a title contemptuously used in the Hebrew Bible for impostors who think of themselves as prophets. [42]"  The citations are: 41 (nothing more than a translation from the Qur'an, that says nothing about what Jews said about Muhammad) and [42] is "Stillman, Norman (1979). The Jews of Arab Lands: A History and Source Book, p. 236, Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America. ISBN 082760198.".  This is basically the same thing it says in Muhammad and used to say in Criticism of Judaism.  The entire quotation is presented as though Stillman is making assertions about what Jews were saying about Muhammad in the days of Muhammad.  Also, by changing "commonly" to "usually", and "Jewish writers" to "Jews", the entire tone of Stillman's statement is changed to say something he didn't.  Now, that said, Pecher, if you think the name for this section is "offensive", my user talkpage is the place to take that up.  On this page, stick to the topic at hand, instead of trying to delegitimize what I'm saying by mischaracterizing superfluous minutiae.  Thanks.  Tomertalk 22:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These are not "superfluous minutiae", but a correct observation on the way you have approached this discussion. If you cannot create a neutral section title, then please refrain from creating section titles at all. A couple of extremely minot paraphrases do not change the entire tone of the statement, nor do they make Stillman say something he didn't. If your problem was with a couple of words, you should have changed them to suit your liking instead of launching that spurious, but venomous assault. Pecher Talk 07:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:TShilo12|Tomer]] disagreeing with [[Norman Stillman]] 

message: Asenath Barzani: The article about this alleged female "rabbi" needs some serious reviewing. Thank you, IZAK 05:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you are a bit incredulous, but the basic facts are in fact quite clear: Her title was Tanna’it, her job was Rosh yeshiba. Extant letters show that she struggled a great deal with fundraising. The article needs a bit of stylistic work and some sorting out of elements from historical documents vs. elements from Kurdish Jewish folklore, but that’s a different story. -- Olve 09:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Does she have Semicha ? See my comments on the article.--yisraeldov 13:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifying a 17th centrury female "rabbi" 

message: :Wikipedia's NPOV policy often means multiple points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but different groups in the past.... Adherents of a religion may object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith. They would prefer that the articles describe their faith according to their tradition and understanding, which often differs substantially from the view commonly held by critical historians. Non adherents of a religion may feel the exact opposite, and prefer that the views of critical historians be given primacy; many articles on Wikipedia currently reflect the latter point of view. NPOV policy demands both points of view be presented without prejudice.  --WikiProject Judaism
I am sad to say that many members of this Wikiproject aren't adhering to these ideals at Banu Nadir, and those who have not are apparently reluctant to participate in mediation. I would like to ask the other members of this project to encourage them to do so.  Thank you. Publicola 07:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reminder: NPOV means multiple, sometimes uncomfortable POVs 

message: does anyone know why there are no [edit] tags on the various sections of the project page?  Tomertalk 03:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I localized the problem down to the table in ==Templates== section. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I went through and changed the whole thing from WikiML to HTML, and the problem is still the same...so the problem is with one of the templates themselves, not with the table itself...so I'm reverting to the WikiML version and I'm gonna go through them one at a time to see which one is making the mess...  more scintillating news to come, I'm sure! :-p  Tomertalk 23:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've localized the problem to , which I've commented out until someone w/ more time than I have right now, can fix that one...  Tomertalk 23:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Glad we got this out of the way. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  minor irritant 

message: On the talk page to Sheldon Silver, scroll down and you will see that someone has posted anti-Semitic nonsense with lots of fake quotes from the Talmud. The standard stuff that has been debunked a thousand times. We need to do something about this. marbeh raglaim 16:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 16:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somebody posting anti-Semitic garbage 

message: The present Modern Orthodox Judaism article has a large criticism section. It is the only article on a major Jewish movement/denomination that has one. I suggest equalizing the treatment of criticism tof the major movements. Do people think this observation is a fair one? Would people prefer to remove the MO criticism section, or add analagous criticism sections to Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, etc. identifying the major objections each has gotten from its right and left? --Shirahadasha 20:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it'd be most appropriate to start criticism sections for the other movements too, though I personally would not be the right person to write such sections. The fact that criticism of Reform and Conservative Judaism isn't being discussed in text is not a valid reason to cut out part of the MO article.Kari Hazzard (talk | contrib) 03:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think that the two things are comparable at all. Every article that has legitimate verifiable criticism should have a criticism section.  We do not need to add or remove criticism section so that all the articles are equal.  That being said, there are many legitimate verifiable criticism of reform and conservative and they should be expanded.  Jon513 20:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of Modern Orthodoxy vs. Other Movements Unequal

message: Dear everyone! I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism. Please put it on your watchlists, and please add relevant AfD's as you find them. Cheers. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism]]

message: As we mark Rosh Chodesh Tamuz, I am pleased to announce that the Arukh Hashulchon on the complete halachos of the three weeks and Tisha be'av (simonim 549-561) is now available online in digital form at Hebrew Wikisource.
These are free-content, typed digital versions of the simonim that may be copied, pasted, printed, used or adapted freely for any purpose.
You can call up one siman at a time, or view all of Hilchos 9Av together on a single page.
The online text is based on the printed book (public domain), but the abbreviations (roshei tevos) have been expanded, full punctuation has been added, and the text has been divided into smaller paragraphs.
Along with using it, feel free to improve it and add to it as well.
In general, I would be very pleased to increase interaction on Jewish topics between Wikipedia and Wikisource. Dovi 06:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Aruch HaShulchan]] on Hilchos Tisha Be'Av at Wikisource 

message: Hello. A Christian keeps on censoring Martin Rosen's abusive behaviour can something be done about it? 203.214.133.79 16:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now a Jew has done the same. Please follow Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. If you do, your contributions are more likely to remain part of the article. Calling JfJ a "cult" is troublesome. Listing criticism of Rosen before anything else is also not the accepted form. JFW | T@lk 17:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello! 

message: I have repeatedly offered to set up interviews between Wikipedia editors and people at the Shefa Network. Tellingly, not a single person trying to delete the article has accepted this offer.  They also refuse to read the sources that were given.  This total refusal speaks volumes. It is especialy bizarre that while people who know nothing about this group are trying to delete its article, members of all of Conservative Judaism's organizations are now working with Shefa.  At this point it is no longer a matter of personal opinion.  It is a now a fact that:
* Members of the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards are contributors to Shefa
* Members of the faculty at the movement's rabbinic seminary (Jewish Theological Seminary of America) are contributors.
* A growing number of rabbis from the Rabbinical Assembly are contributors
* Faculty from Conservative Judaism's Solomon Schechter schools are working with Shefa.
* Shefa Newtork has already held two conferences, and two more events are already being planned, as well as yet another journal.
* At this very moment people from the Rabbinical Assembly are preparing for a tele-conference with multiple people from Shefa about the new Shefa websites, and coordinating with the new Conservative Judaism websites.
This group is far more influential than dozens, perhaps hundreds, of other groups that currently have articles on Wikipedia.  Note that the history of the delete attempt is even more telling: A handful of people started an attempt to delete this article within minutes of its creation, based upon their personal dislike of me.  They started a campaign to delete it without even looking at the issue; they even have refused all attempts to give them interviews, and they clearly refuse to research the issue themselves.
We must not allow a few people to delete Wikipedia articles in this fashion. They are not applying that normal Wikipedia standards that we apply to all of our other articles. And they are egging on others to do the same, when those other people know literally nothing about the issue. Voting on whether or not to keep this article is of no use if some people voting are violating traditional Wikipedia standards. This is now a matter that Wikipedia administrators need to look into. RK 14:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obvious attempt to delete Shefa article in bad faith 

message: Someone recently made a claim on the Shefa Netork article that this article is not reliable as it is making unsourced claims and presenting original research.  Yet here on its Talk page I discovered that no one actually made such a claim.  First off, no research at all, from any point of view, is given!  Secondly, the article does contain sources, and we continually offer first hand verification of any detail whatsoever.  We have repeatedly offered interviews with people involved, in case they have any questions about the accuracy of any statements.  Sadly, however, every single person has declined this offer.  RK
Since when can Wikipedia editors simply deny the existence of sources?  How would they feel if me and a dozen of my friends went to an article about a new Orthodox Jewish organization, or a new environmental organization, and wrote "No sources are given. This article should be deleted."  Well, they would rightly protest "But many sources are given, and people from this organization really do exist;  I can introduce you to them personally!"  But as we see here, the new tactic being used by a tiny group is pretending that such responses don't exist, and write "Since they didn't offer any sources, then we must delete the article."  It is clear that this is gross dishonesty.  My colleagues would never do this to anyone, and I can't understand why it is being done to this group.
Refusing to accept the very existence of sources such as journal articles, websites, conferences with people from multiple states, and first-hand interviews with people involved is a rejection of the way that Wikipedia works for all other articles.  We are dealing here with a deliberate attempt to not follow the process. If Wikipedia policy is to mean anything, then it must be applied to all groups, not just one. RK 18:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Making challenges in bad faith

message: Hi folks: Could people please take a look at a new article: Wimpel created by User:Rabbi-m it strike me as being written as somewhat "tongue in cheek", and should perhaps be re-directed to another article. I don't know what to make of it. Thanks, IZAK 09:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: wha?  Tomertalk 22:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wimple" & "Wimpel" 

message: Hi everyone: 
User:msh210 has disagreed with me (see User talk:IZAK#Maftir) about placing  on each of the follwoing articles. He has placed the follwing basic objection on each page: "What is  doing on this page? Completelt irrelevant.—msh210℠ 19:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect the sections are out of place.  A "see also" is a link to another section not an entire section copied there.  The user should have to click on something to get information that is related (like all "see also"s) not click to hide something. As the Torah portion is out of the scope of all the articles (while certainly not out of the scope of a "see also") they should be converted into a single link.  Jon513 11:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jon: The user is intelligent and can click on links in "See also" links or click on a "Hide" click. With the "Hide" clicked, the entire template becomes one line at the bottom of the page and has the same function as any other "See also". IZAK 11:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a way to make it hidden by default? Jon513 13:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Per my initial objection, I agree with Jon513 11:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed.  The length and ever-changing nature of the template makes it completely inappropriate for the article namespace.  -Joshuapaquin 21:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite. Rich Farmbrough 19:32 3  July 2006 (GMT).—msh210℠ 18:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template: Torah portion 

message: IZAK just transcluded this template into a whole bunch of pages where I don't think it belongs. (See Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Torah portion.) I've commented on each of those pages' talk pages.—msh210℠ 20:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  The length and ever-changing nature of the template makes it completely inappropriate for the article namespace.  -Joshuapaquin 21:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite. Rich Farmbrough 19:32 3  July 2006 (GMT).</div>—msh210℠ 18:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transclusion 

message: There is now an article on Savora about the Savoraim -- can anyone review it and add to it? Thanks. IZAK 11:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Savora 

message: Perhaps an Administrator could take a look at what seems to be a revert war between User:RK and User:TalmudDefender.--Shirahadasha 23:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no revert war.  I am not doing reverts.  Talmud Defender is single handedly reverting censoring every citation from classical rabbinic and Orthodox sources, from the responsa, from classical rabbis, etc.  He seems to have a visceral hatred of any view that differs from his own theory, which appears to be a parody of ultra-Orthodox thought.
*Note: Please sign all comments with the four tildes ~~~~ so that it can be known which anon is saying what to whom. Thank you. IZAK 08:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Administrator help for Talmud Article 

message: I have been making edits on the Talmud article for years, and I take great care to research this subject in depth.  In recent days I have made great care to cite articles from Modern Orthodox scholarly publications, and offer a variety of quotes from experts on the Talmud from many historical eras.  Every single piece of information is cited and sourced in accord with our policies. RK
In response User:TalmudDefender has been a one-man revert machine.  He deletes every single reference, with no justification.  He makes insults and personal attacks.  He then writes absolutely false statements, and inserts them into the article (e.g. his false claim that historical study of the Talmud never existed until the modern era, and was invented by Conservative rabbis.)  TalmudDefender's false claims are not only egregious, but they are also totally unsourced.
In the last few hours the situation has become much worse. "Talmud Defender" is now making false accusations of lying and academic dishonesty.  I have the actual books and articles on this subject, all from Orthodox writers, with me as I type this. Yet get this - "TalmudDefender" now claims that these books and articles do not exist!  
Talmud Defender then veers into the bizarre; after deleting every citation from Orthodox Talmud scholars, he writes that I "hate religious people".  That really shook me up.  My own rav was Orthodox, and I study this topic mostly from Orthodox rabbinical sources.  There is a chance that he may be suffering from an emotional disorder.  Agreeing with Orthodox Jews is not hating religious people!  Denying the existence of real books and articles that anyone can get in the library is either a childish prank, or a sign of emotional disturbance. (Books and articles exist, even if someone has a temper tantrum and denies their existence.)
Imagine someone going into General relativity and deleting citations from real physicists, and then justifying this by claiming that the authors of this article "hate scientists."  Then this person claims that real, verifiable science articles cited "seem to be coming from his own mind", and are also deleted.   We wouldn't allow it there, and we shouldn't allow it here.
This isn't a dispute between how to present different POVs.  He refuses to bring forth any citations for his own POV, he accuses me of making up citations (even though I can photocopy these texts and mail them to you!)  He ruthlessly deletes every cited source, and then claims that quoting academic sources means that you hate religious people.  This is clearly crank or troll behavior, not a difference of views. RK
*Hi RK: Why aren't you using four tildes ~~~~ so that it can be known when and and at what time you make your comments? You seem to be using the old method of three tildes, but no-one does it that way anymore. IZAK 08:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for mediation

message: Kapparos, which I rescued from WP:DEP this morning, is in need of sources. Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ugh.  And you couldn't rescue it as a redirect to Kapparoth or even Kaparot? :-p  Tomertalk 06:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kapparos]] 

message: This article seems to have gotten a lot of edits and focus lately from Temple Institute and Evangelical Christian folks. I've no problem with showing pictures of the Temple Institute's ritual objects and the like, but suggest more content discussing the role of the Third Temple in mainstream prayer and thought, as well as some metion of the Temple Institute's many critics, so as not to be wholly focused on these two POVs. I've attempted to add a few stubs on these issues. Also, not clear to me that the Third Temple in Judaism and a "Third Temple" discussed in the context of evangelical Christianity are really the same thing. And I'm in no position to know whether the claims made about the role of a third temple in Christian eschatology represent a mainstream or a minority Christian position, although the current article seems to suggest the latter. --Shirahadasha 17:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Third Temple]] 

message: The following articles need a lot of work. Adam and Elohim they do not contain anything of what Chazal says. 203.214.153.235 12:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to Wikipedia, thank you for bringing these articles to our attention.  Please understand that many articles on Wikipedia require a lot of work.  The best way to change an article is to click on the edit this page tab at the top of the page, and change it yourself.  Make sure to quote your sources (midrish, talmud, rashi, etc) or it may be removed.  Happy editing.  Jon513 13:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attention! 

message: An important discussion is taking place at Talk:Telshe yeshiva that concerns issues relating to naming conventions for yeshivas. Your comments and observations at Talk:Telshe yeshiva would be very helpful. Perhaps it should become part of a broader discussion here at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Naming conventions for yeshivas. Best wishes, IZAK 06:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming conventions for contemporary yeshivas 

message: FAC vote underway. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yiddish language/archive1]] 

message: Dear all,
I am involved in a couple Wiki projects about Sefardim, and editors pound me about quoting sources. What is the proper procedure about quoting extant sources, that is books that are no longer in publication and are centuries old. --dramirezg Dramirezg 15:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a problem, just because there is no ISBN doesn't mean you can't quote it. The title and author should be enough.  Jon513 01:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quoting extant Rabbinic and Sefardic sources 

message: As some of you are probably already aware, Old City is presently a redirect to Jerusalem's Old City walls, which it probably shouldn't be, but rather than just deleting Old City, I'd rather see an article on the Old City.  I'm unsure of how to procede tho, so I'm looking for input here... should such an article be called Old City, Old City of Jerusalem (currently a redirect to Jerusalem, where it is not covered in nearly enough detail) or Old City (Jerusalem)?  BTW, when we come up with an answer to that question, I'll need a LOT of help actually writing the article!!  :-)  Cheers, Tomertalk 21:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you envision it containing?  Jon513 01:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Old City]] of Jerusalem 

message: My garbage detector says Ten Lost Tribes has been hijacked again. I known enough to say that the lead section currently endorses what I believe would be politely characterized as a particular theory; I don't know enough to fix this mess. I assume someone here does. It may be just a matter of reverting to an earlier version, but I don't know if there was ever a decent one. - Jmabel | Talk 03:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ten Lost Tribes 

message: For those who are familiar with the constant barrage the Baptists attempt to assail Jews with, the "Messianic Jews" section of Dispensationalism will be of particular interest, not only for its hideous POV, but for its obscene opening with a "disclaimer" section, followed by "per the above disclaimer..."  Like I said, "ugh".  I know too little about dispensationalism to edit the section constructively, but I know when they say that "one will come in his name, unlike our Lord who came in the name of the Father", that there is something very VERY wrong with the NPOV status of the article, and I noticed that hideosity before I realized there's a 6-line [depending on your resolution] "disclaimer" that starts the section out.  Ugh.  Gag.  Hack Hack Hack.  Puke.  Tomertalk 07:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new "ugh" article 

message: Please vote at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 19#Category:Jewish terrorists. --DLandTALK 03:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Jewish terrorists]] 

message: what the  203.158.35.252 15:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hebrew can refer to many things. So when someone types in Hebrew the page directs the user to where he wants to go.  Jon513 16:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  umm 

message: Should it be moved to Beth Medrash Govoha? Vote here: Talk:Lakewood_yeshiva#NAMING_POLL - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lakewood Yeshiva]] 

message: Welcome Wikipedia:WikiProject Orthodox Judaism. Please join if you are interested. Thank you. IZAK 08:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Orthodox Judaism 

message: Joshua needs serious help. 203.217.57.89 20:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Joshua]] 

message: what do you make of this? I assum its referring to Simeon bar Yohai. --TheYmode 00:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Secrets of Rabbi Simon ben Yohai]] 

message: recently, readers have been encouraged to "vote" on a category for deletion and on a page move.  The "gentle reminder" is that Wikipedia is not a democracy.  Inviting discussion is one thing; encouraging people to "vote" is another, and somewhat misguided.  Please keep this in mind when inviting participation.  Tomertalk 04:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  gentle reminder 

message: This article needs a serious makeover. For one thing, it is incomplete: Birkas Hatorah, for instance, is very important, and should definately be on this page. There are quite a number of other brachot that we make frequently, that are not mentioned, like birchos haroeh, birchos hanehenin, birchos hashachar and pesukei d'zimra; and many that we make less often like kiddush levana, bris millah, nisu'in, megilla, lulav, shofar, and nacheim, to name a few. In addition, the entire article is very badly organized, (There's nothing particularly wrong with the organizational structure, except that there isn't any.) I think it could use some major restructuring. Perhaps, it could also be split into two or more different articles, such as "Jewish Prayers" and "Jewish blessings", or even to make separate articles about different types of blessings (daily, special occasions, circumstantial...) Perhaps parts of the article could be merged into different articles on the same topic. I'm just throwing out possiblities -- my point is, it  needs renovation.
--Geshmakster 18:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Jewish blessings' article needs work 

message: I made a page on Rabbi Elijah Ba'al Shem of Chelm. I would like some feed back on its contents. I would also like for others to share information they known about Rabbi Elijah. Thanks. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 21:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Elijah Ba'al Shem

message: Kibbutz is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 14:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Kibbutz]]

message: I've been working on the Berakhot article and I intend to get to the others of Seder Zeraim in due time... I'm not sure where to go with them, though, or what style to write in. Should I just state the conclusions of each discussion or should I work in the dissenting opinions? How should I organise the articles? By chapter or by topic?
Thoughts? Ideas? Kari Hazzard (T | C) 21:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I appresiate the work you have done I think that the current article goes beyond the scope of wikipedia.  While I can't find any offical policy related to this Wikipedia:External links What should be linked to #5 does refer to "a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article".  This has also come up at Talk:Tzitzit#What is wrong with the tzitzit in the photo? where it was decided that the principle of lo min ha-asui was beyond the scope of wikipedia.  I think that the article should state basicly what each chapter is about and mention any major off-topic discussions.  I don't think we should be doing what shema yisrael has done. Jon513 00:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mhmm... I'm not looking so much for content stuff (I have the text of the tractate), it's more a matter of style and how to write it that I'm RFCing for. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 00:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I've a much shorter version of the article in my workshop... User:Karimarie/Workshop/Berakhot_(Talmud) Comments? Better? Worse? Kari Hazzard (T | C) 01:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Better. I think the tone could use some cleanup.  Jon513 01:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tractates of the [[Mishnah]] 

message: User:Biblical1 has a added a prominent section called Temple in Jerusalem#Scholarly consensus which claims that the view of two rather colorful academics represents a scholarly consensus about the Temple. The thrust of the POV presented is that anthromorphic imagery in the prophets should be interpreted to mean that they viewed HaShem and the Temple in essentially pagan terms. He has persisted and undone several attempts to soften the viewpoint he is presenting or its presentation as consensus or fact. --Shirahadasha 05:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Administrator help needed for Temple in Jerusalem 

message: Could you guys take a look at this and see if you can think of any names where it applies? I can't. Gzuckier 12:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that considered the same as the tetragramatton, though? I.e., because there is a pronounciation for Yehudah, does that imply that there is a pronounciation for "jehovah"? (PS i'm not arguing even if it sounds like, just want to make sure it's clarified, thanks). Gzuckier 17:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Name in a name? 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversial Israeli and Zionist quotes --Aoratos 23:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion debate 

message: Miriam now refers to a disambiguation page. Unfortunately, the link to the Miriam in the Tanach is self-referential, it's a link to the disambiguation page. If the original content on Miriam still exists, I couldn't find any way to get to it. Is there a way to untangle the self-referential linking, or has the content on Miriam actually dissappeared and in need of reconstructing? If so, what name should the article get since the original now refers to the disambiguation page? Miriam (Hebrew Bible)? Also, there's an article on Snow-white Miriam which refers to the episode over Miriam getting Tazriah (Tzaraath is intended here - JFW | T@lk 10:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *In the meantime, it seems, SlimVirgin has moved the page back to Miriam. Either way, problem solved. --Eliyak T·C 04:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miriam's Dissappeared