Talk:Judaism/Archive 11

message: The page says that it was protected because of a dispute, but I don't see any substantive dispute meriting protection. If the issue is just vandalism, I would think that semi-protection would be more appropriate. If it must be fully protected because of vandalism, shouldn't it use  rather than a template that falsely suggests a substantive dispute? - Jmabel | Talk 22:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  you are not a Jew, you do not know what us Jews go through in our everyday lives.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.42.211.4 (talk) 01:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: So... it's protected. But can we please get consensual agreement to remove an outright falsehood: 
* "The Talmud was a compilation of both the Mishna & the Gemmorah (Aramaic for the word Tradition)." Surely this means to say "Gemara". (Similarly elsewhere.)
Less drastically, but I hope we could still get consensus to edit:
* "that these oral laws were rectored by Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi": I have no idea why "rectored" here. I presume it means to say "recorded".
* "scholars Ravina & Rav Ashi" certainly should link. Probably should be reworded to include links to both Ravina I and Ravina II 
* The same passage also contains a misspelling, "compleated".
Also, does anyone understand why "They soon developed oral traditions of their own which differed from the rabbinic traditions, and eventually formed the Karaite sect," was removed? - Jmabel | Talk 22:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see we are down to semi-protected; I will edit. - Jmabel | Talk 05:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits I would hope we can make consensually 

message: Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 22:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Re-Review and In-line citations 

message: Hello this is a decent article, I did think the there was a huge gap in the begining of the article but I fixed it. There seems however that the article is too big. Any one else agree with me on this one. The Hinduism article is starting to take shape, but even it is still too big. --Seadog.M.S 00:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Misc.

message: An editor called Hkelkar insists on adding the large template for Jews and Judaism to a small article on Nadira, a recently deceased actress who was once a star in Bollywood movies. She was born into a Baghdadi Jewish family, but she seems not to have been a practicing Jew and she was certainly not identified in any way with Judaism in her film career. The article identifies her as Jewish and links to the proper articles; there's absolutely no need for the template, which is about the same size as the article. I removed the template once and Hkelkar immediately restored it, on the grounds that she was a JEW, therefore the template must be displayed. 
Hkelkar seems to identify himself as a Jew and he might be more receptive to counsel from other Jewish editors. Please ask him to desist from this silly provocation. Zora 06:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just like Zora "seems to identify" herself as Buddhist. Zora violated WP:OWN on many articles and any cat of template dealing with religion/ethnicity is immediately deemed (by her) "a tool for perpetrating massacre".Bakaman Bakatalk 15:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Nadira]] 

message: I reverted a recent edit because it opens a can of worms unnecessarily in the first paragraph.  The first paragraph should be as straightforwward as possible.  The subject of the first sentence is "Judaism" and the sentence as stands is accurate - Judaism is the religion of the Jews, not of any other people.  The subject of the sentence is Judaism, not jews.  If one wants to say something about the Jews and their belief, fine, but that is more appropriate to the first paragraph of the article on Jews.  Obvious the two are related and I have no objection to a section later in this article explaining that not all Jews adhere to Judaism.  But then one needs to say more about the complex relationship between being Jewish and Judaism - and this belongs in a section in the body of the article, not up top. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  revert of edit to first sentence 

message: There seems to be a dispute as to whether this should say "the first recorded monotheistic faith" or "one of the first…". I think the latter. I see that the person who changed this says that the monothestic worship of Aten was influenced by what he terms yiddishkeit. I'm unaware of any scholarship firmly establishing which came first. Certainly Freud, in Moses and Monotheism, made the case that Jewish monotheism derives from the worship of Aten. I know that there are scholars who think he was right, and scholars who think he was wrong, but I have no idea if the balance comes down clearly on one side or the other. 
I suspect someone working on this would know a lot more than I do. Can anyone point to some good sources on this? - Jmabel | Talk 20:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with that formulation, but it is still little more than hot air without cited sources. - Jmabel | Talk 07:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monotheistic faiths 

message: Is there a reason protection was removed from this page?  It's definitely a target, as evidenced by the rapid-fire vandalism yesterday evening.  -- Tuvok^Talk|Desk|Contribs  09:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection Removed? 

message: So what is the chief rabbi and the rabbinate and the rabbinical courts? From what I have read, they are comparable to to the Catholic Pope, the college of cardinals and the ecclesiastical courts. 
Chief Rabbinate of Israel
"The Chief Rabbinate of Israel is the supreme Jewish religious governing body in the state of Israel. The Rabbinate is the halakhic authority for the state, and controls many aspects of life in the Jewish state. Issues under the jurisdiction of the Chief Rabbinate include Jewish marriages, Jewish divorce, Jewish burrials, Kashrut and kosher certification, olim, supervision of Jewish holy sites, working with various mikvot and yeshivot, and overseeing Israeli religious courts."
Sounds like a central authority to me.
I have also read that the Israeli rabbinate operates courts in russia.
I know that the pope is elected by the cardinals and the pope appoints the cardinals. But the corresponding info about the rabbinate & the chief rabbi seems to be a deep dark secret. 
Is there some sort of taboo in judaism about mentioning this organisation? "the eleventh-largest organized religion" ?
Anyway, I will delete the stuff in the title above unless someone explains how the rabbinate, etc, is not a central authority.
24.64.165.176 06:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mentioning what organization?  There is no taboo, Jews talk about the Chief Rabbi of their country whenever appropriate - if their country has one.  The Chief Rabbi is a political position created by the state.  It exists in some states (e.g. UK) but not in others (e.g. US).  When a Chief Rabbi exists, it is because certain functions often monopolized by the state (e.g. performing marriages) are delegated to religious authorities; the Chief Rabbi has administrative jurisdiction over these functions.  A chief rabbi may be a well-respected legal scholar, but by no means is he always a well-regarded legal scholar.  Moreover, he does not by virtue of his position have any particular legal authority among Jews.  Historically the most important Jewish halachik authorities in the 19th and 20th centuries have not been chief rabbis.  The Chief Rabbi is an administrative position created by the state, even non-Jewish states (like the UK or Russia) to serve as a liason between the Jewish community and the state.  If those states did not decide to create Chief Rabbis, chief rabbis would not exist.  Moreover, the Chief Rabbi is in no way at all like the pope because rabbis are in no way like priests.  Jews do have priests, but rabbis are not necessarily them (if a rabbi is a priest it is pure coincidence).  Rabbis are not intermediaries between Jews and god, and ribbis do not necessarily speak for God (indeed a famous Talmudic passage has the majority of rabbis debating against God).  In short, the article is correct, and if you revert this passage I will revert you without any further comment. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "its central authority is not vested in any person or group" 

message: For anyone who is interested, there is a draft of a new article, Religious views on masturbation, at User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation. Please feel free to expand the draft, especially the section User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation#Judaism! After it looks good on user space, it can be posted on to article space. CyberAnth 08:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation#Judaism]]