Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 19

message: There are two proposals to merge Holy anointing oil, one to merge it with Shemen Afarsimon and one to merge it with Chrism. Please see Holy anointing oil for discussion locations. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Holy anointing oil]] merger proposals 

message: In the light of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews in Apostasy there are now three related articles about Jewish apostates/heretics/minnim, see: Jews in apostasy; Heresy in Orthodox Judaism; Minuth. Is there any way to create a connectednes and continuty within and about these subjects/articles? Any suggestions please? IZAK (talk) 06:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a suggestion: Create an article using an overarching term drawn from the study of religion. The best term may be "deviance" as used in the sociology of deviance. For sample articles, see Google Scholar for religious deviance. Ideally, it would help to have a class of Religion and Deviance articles. Meanwhile, we could have an article Judaism and religious deviance. (Other options would include Judaism and heterodoxy or Jewish heterogeneity.) An article on Judaic deviance could cover apostasy, heresy, sects, non-observance, Sabbateanism, herem, and a wide range of technical/historical terms (e.g., Ebionites, Minuth and Apikoros) and prominent Spinoza. New scholarly book on this topic: The Boundaries of Judaism by Donniel Hartman (Continuum 2007). See also Adam Ferziger's Exclusion and hierarchy. Both use the term deviance. Best regards, HG | Talk 15:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe  the religious concepts and the academic theories could fruitfully be regarded as two different subjects and deserving different articles. There are numerous analogies in the humanities and sciences for multiple approaches to subject classification co-existing. For example, languages are traditionally taught as distinct subjects, while linguistic theories often classify them into linguistic types. Articles on the distinct languages co-exist with articles on the linguistic types drawn from more comparative studies despite the existence of a certain amount of content overlap. Articles on distinct literary works co-exist with articles on genres and critical theories. One could argue the situation here is somewhat analagous. There's no need for Wikipedia to decide which way of looking at things is most fruitful. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shirahadasha, hi, are you disagreeing with my suggestion? I have no problem per se with the existence of the various articles, I'm responding to what I gather to be a request for an overall article that can explain how these various articles are related or connected. Scholarly sources on religious deviance would help us explain the connections and provide some continuity. HG | Talk 18:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The distinction I'd make is very minor and is more a matter of flavor than substance. I wouldn't personally consider sociology or a subarticle like Religious deviance to be the "overall" article; I'd probably personally regard Judaism or a subarticle as the "overall" article. As long as we can support multiple classification systems that have different "overall" articles in mind and don't impose one "overall" way of looking at things, I don't see this as a problem. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's see if I understand. Perhaps you like the idea of a Judaism and religious deviance article to briefly review such phenomena as heresy, minim, apostasy and apikoros. For this article, you'd regard Judaism as the overall article. Is that right? Sounds fine with me. Maybe Judaism could then offer a See Also link to Judaism and religious deviance. Pls let me know if I've misunderstood. Thanks. HG | Talk 23:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: "Deviance" is a sociological term, and if "religious deviance" is a current term in academia then there's no WP:NOR problem. However, I agree with one of User:IZAK's basic and fundamental points: the fundamental subject-matter of WP:JUDAISM is the Jewish religion, not sociological theories. I have no problem either with including sociological theories in Judaism articles or with articles on sociological theories that incorporate Jewish topics. However, the articles I'm primarily interested in working on involve Jewish concepts as such, discussed from various perspectives, not articles on academic theories applied to Judaism. If using a Hebrew word is necessary to clarify the conceptual difference involved, I could be convinced a Hebrew word is appropriate. Kohen and Levite are Jewish concepts; Judaism and caste systems represents a classification of those concepts based on a particular theory. The distinction is an important one. I am suggesting both kinds of articles are appropriate fro Wikipedia, so long as there is some overlap and cross-referencing to avoid WP:POVFORK. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well put Shira. My main point is that there needs to be a wariness of a shift towards renaming and recasting articles that deal with core issues in Judaism, i.e as they appear in the Torah, Talmud, Shulkhan Arukh, or other primary sources of Judaic scholarship and turn them into pathetic "he said-she said" POV drivel from sources that are not part of the 3,300 year old Judaic tradition. Not just sociologists have lots of POVs about Jews and Judaism, so do all the world's historians, political scientists, theologians, philosophers, and academics by the gazzillions. If their views are now going to crowd out the primary sources of Judaism itself, then it will be a sorry day indeed. This is already a huge problem in many of the Biblical articles, an issue which I have long wanted to tackle but have not due to time constraints, that articles about Hebrew Bible topics are flooded with the opinions of Bible critics, the documentary hypothesis POVs, various Christian POVs, Islamic POVs, and often splits of how various Jewish denominations view things, so that the actual subject as it has always been accepted, studied and taught by Judaism for literally thousands of years gets lost in the shuffle, and if anyone would come across these subjects for the first time, they would never get to know what the subject was in the first place, because the introduction claims that Bible critics say A, Christians say B, Muslims say C, this Jewish denomination says D, the other denomination says E and by the time the poor reader, who wishes to get to the core subject has a chance to understand it in and of itself, there are already at least five or six gatekeeprs of "political correctnes" waving swords who will make sure that chaos and lack of coherence takes precedence of clarity (all in the name of "Neutral-POV" of course, which has sadly become and excuse for "No-POV" -- sure Wikipedia does not have POVs but Judaism, like any religion or belief system does, and it should not be shot down before it's even given a chance to descibe and explain itself in the original context, language and meaning!) Likewise here, an article about "Apostasy" must not spin itself to death by first quoting the POV's of all and sundry sociologists, historians, theologians, philosphers, educators, all of whom think that they know best, before one knows what do the Jewish primary sources say, what does the Torah, Jewish law and Judaism for the the majority of its history say. By all means, add on the POVs of all the critics, sceptics, free-thinkers, naysayers or whatnots, in "Criticsim" or "Other views" sub-sections, but don't drown out the baby's voice, perhaps even suffocating the poor kid, before it has even had an opportunty to present itself in its raw naked self to the world. IZAK (talk) 08:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, Izak, it sounds like you missed my point. I'm saying, keep the articles on "apostasy" and heresy, minuth, etc. If you want a way to put them all in some context that shows the relationship of these terms, you can do it through current sociological scholarship. There is no term in what you call the "primary sources of Judaic scholarship" that can otherwise cover this family of article topics. HG | Talk 17:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, IZAK (talk) 06:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apostasy & Heresy & Minuth 

message: Can anyone translate into English the words on this page: Bsisa? Thanks. IZAK (talk) 07:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arabic to English translator needed. 

message: An odd situation has arisen in the course of adding to :Category:Jewish history by country. In that parent category (part of the larger :Category:Jewish history) the "Jewish histories" of any country has been categorized under "Category:Jewish country-xyz history" but :Category:Jewish Saudi Arabian history has now been challenged because it contains articles about events "before" Saudi Arabia came into official existence. But my objection is, in that case, one could then exclude the facts and events of Jewish history within almost all modern countries because when Jewish history events happened in them hundreds or even thousands of years ago, the modern countries in whose territory they happened had not yet come into existence. See the discussion at Category talk:Jewish Saudi Arabian history. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish history in Saudi Arabia 

message: Two troubling and controversial categories were created by User  , see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 21#Category:Jewish political status (and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 21#Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict issues) for more information. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 13:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The troubling" categories you refer to, , are simple, to the point and convenient, and help to discuss issues on Judaism, as befits a member who is an Orthodox Jew living in Brooklyn, NY like myself. But go ahead and say how "troubling" they are. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Sm8900: The statement that you are "an Orthodox Jew living in Brooklyn, NY" is of no significance to this discussion. Editors are evaluated and responded to based on their edits and contributions and not on their religious beliefs or personal backgrounds which should never be dragged into discussions as defenses, justifications, or credentials. Others can only judge you by what you write and do on Wikipedia, and not who you say you are or are not. These categories you created are very troubling indeed and I have explained why in the CFD nominations. I could have said more but I did not. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: wow, thanks. ok. I am starting to find your comments a bit unwarranted, if you don;t mind me saying so. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Troubling new categories 

message: Epson291 (talk · contribs) has change the naming of the articles Menorah, and Hanukiah.  Changing menorah to a disambig page, Hanukiah to Menorah (Hanukiah), and menorah to Menorah (Temple).  Before this change Menorah was about the temple menorah (with a disambig link on top), and Hanukiah was obviously about the 9 branched candlelabra.  I strongly disagree with the change.  The discussion in on Talk:Menorah (Temple)#Menorah.  Jon513 (talk) 13:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Menorah 

message: Views on merge of Song of the sea please! Chesdovi (talk) 02:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Song of the sea 

message: There is a WikiProject Judaism tag on the page at Talk:Cinnamon, yet the article doesn't seem to relate at all.  Thought I'd check here before removing it.  --75.89.130.114 (talk) 19:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. At least it isn't about antisemitism. I've removed the message, and hope that someone will teach his bot how to read. JFW | T@lk 19:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only herb that I can think of that relates to Judaism is Hyssop (used in the Red heifer, the treatment for Tzaraath and in the The Exodus), but the article is currently devoid of that information.  Jon513 (talk) 23:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That information is in the article Ezob. Jon513 (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The Talmud lists cinnamon as ingredient number 11 of the 11 core constitutent components of the Ketoret, the incense offered in the Temple in Jerusalem. A standard 368-maneh annual batch had 9 maneh of cinnamon. The ingredients are studied as part of the standard Orthodox daily prayer book for the Shacharit service (And other times: at Mussaf on Shabbat, and Sephardim also say it at Mincha) It is even called 'kinamon' -- the English name comes directly from the Talmud version. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I started an article on Ketoret listing the ingredients. --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the term is probably Greek in origin, Shira. JFW | T@lk 22:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Online dictionaries seem to give it a Semitic origin. --Eliyak T·C 17:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cinnamon? 

message: Hi guys, a slight problem I've noticed that you could probably fix:
From the Synagogue article:
The Dohány Street Synagogue or Great Synagogue in Budapest, Hungary is the largest synagogue in Europe and the fourth largest in the world, after the Beit Midrash of Ger in Jerusalem, the Belz World Center and the Congregation Emanu-El in New York City. It seats 3,000 people and is a centre of Neolog Judaism and hosts the Jewish Museum of Budapest. The building was built in 1854-1859 according to the plans of architect Ludwig Förster.
Straightforward enough? However, there seems to be some discrepancies across a large number of articles as to which order these Synagogues rank. The Hungarian Synagogue's article declares it the world's 2nd largest for example, and at least two have articles proclaiming to be the largest. Grunners (talk) 22:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder what determines "size": the actual surface of the building or the number of worshipers it can seat? JFW | T@lk 00:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the respective articles the Belz World Center seat 6000, Dohány Street Synagogue seats 3000, and Congregation Emanu-El of New York seats 2500.  Both Belz and Dohany claim to be the second largest.  The Belz World Center was completed in 2000 so the fact that dohany is the second largest may be out of date. I would suggest removing all references to "raking" of the synagogues since it is very hard to verify, and just state the seating capacity. Jon513 (talk) 14:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A difficulty here is that size can be a notability claim, and just listing the seating capacity may not necessarily convey notability to editors used to 10,000 seat + megachurches. Perhaps something like "one of the largest in the world" would satisfy the notability issue without having to be too precise. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, some reference should be made, the Guiness Book of Records may be able to guide us on this matter? Chesdovi (talk) 12:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syangogues - size ranking 

message: See discussion at User talk:IZAK#Jacob(Ya'akov)Valero. Maybe someone can help solve a mix up, or else we have a hoax on our hands. Thanks a lot, IZAK (talk) 14:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verification help please 

message: Hi, hope all goes well. Maybe you can help improve the History of the Jews in Saudi Arabia article. It links to smaller articles about Jewish tribes in the areas of present-day Saudi Arabia, such as Banu Awf, Banu Harith, Banu Jusham, Banu Najjar, Banu Sa'ida, Banu Shutayba and they all cited sources. Now User:Bless sins is requesting "sources" for the same information about the tribes in the History of the Jews in Saudi Arabia article, as well as making other requests for sources and whatnot. (If you like, and have a minute or two, see the discussions that have been taking place at Category talk:Jewish Saudi Arabian history.) Please help out in the History of the Jews in Saudi Arabia article. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Input with Saudi Arabian Jewish history 

message: There's a new article entitled Glossary of Jewish terms. To be sure, the history of this article is rather idiosyncratic, having come out of discussions comparing Messianic Judaism and Christian terms. Nevertheless, since there are quite a few glossaries for various subjects on Wikipedia, this article may well be a keeper. (Though I do see some grounds for deletion, too.) If so, perhaps folks here would like to help define which terms should be selected for the glossary? HG | Talk 23:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glossary of Jewish terms 

message: Does anyone have any info on this. Theres a section in the Bethlehem article on it but it is too short. 
I have no clue about this so any volunteers? Thanks! --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bethlehem - City of David 

message: I came here a few months ago as an IP to state that it was strange Crticism of Hugo Chavez was part of the wikiproject, because his antisemitism is not confiremd and if it was, it was hardly a defining part of his policy. The response I got was that except in certain cases wikiproject:Judaism dosent deal with antisemitism. The Iron Gurads antisemitims IS confirmed, however as you have stated the project is not really meant to be about antisemitism as such (at least thats what I thought), so I thought Id let you guys know that the Iron Guard was part of this project. I confess to not reading the whole article, but there dosent seem much relation between the Iron Guard and Judaism excpet from antisemtism.R.G.P.A (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If I were you I wouldn't get too worked up about where any particular wikiproject banner appears.  The banner appearing on the talk page doesn't give the project any particular power over the article, nor does it guarantee that it will be watched by any project members.   Frankly, I have never understood why there are wikiproject banner in the first place.  If a banner doesn't belong be bold and remove it.  Or just ignore it.  Jon513 (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romanian Fascism [[Iron Guard]] 

message: This is a new Judaism-related article today with edits by only one editor so far. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added it to Portal:Judaism/New article announcements.  Jon513 (talk) 11:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Shituf]] 

message: Nuff 'said.  68.112.202.189 (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a wiki that attracts several edits a day, as compared to about 2 edits a second on Wikipedia (if not more). JFW | T@lk 21:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, "interesting".  71.87.23.22 (talk) 02:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmmm interesting... 

message: I just noticed this. There are a number of pages that are a part of this project that contain links to Homiletics (e.g. Midrash, Leah, Rachel, Louis Jacobs, Aggadah, Israel Abrahams and a number of others). These pages use the term "homiletics" in a clearly Jewish context. Yet the "Homiletics" page deals with the subject from, as far as I can tell, an exclusively Roman Catholic perspective. Should there be a separate page for Jewish homiletics? Does the page need attention from this project? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I think it would better to balance out Homiletics and (its Protestant rival, Sermon) with Jewish (and other non-Christian) approaches. There's only a brief mention of divrei Torah in Torah study. Any elsewhere? Good luck. HG | Talk 23:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a note, we also have Homily, which is probably a more direct counterpart of Sermon. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, though "Jewish homiletics" is more common than "Jewish homily." E.g., Rabinowitz, Ozar Hadrush V`Hahatapha - An Encyclopedia of Jewish Homiletics. But both terms are less common in Jewish culture today than, say, dvar Torah. HG | Talk 00:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: HG, do you think it would be better to create a separate article on Jewish homiletics or modify the existing homiletics article? Also, I found this entry in the good old 1911 edition of the Jewish Encyclopedia. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as I look more closely, I'm not sure you could easily add in a Jewish section to either Homiletics or Sermon; maybe it'd rock the boat unnecessarily. Encyclopedia Judaica ('71) has great articles on "Homiletic literature" and "Preaching". Very good: "Literature of the Synagogue" with section on sermons by Joseph Heinemann, and Saperstein's Yale volume Jewish Preaching, 1200-1800: An Anthology. Another idea: On Gaster's work. You could cover the homiletical forms of midrash (e.g., petihtah), ethical homiletics, and modern (post-Wissenschaft) sermons, including shift to vernacular. I think the JE article you linked should be used quite selectively, for key works, darshanim, and history. Thanks. HG | Talk 04:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point, I'm fairly sure that the way to proceed is either to add a Jewish section to the existing article or to create a new one on Jewish homiletics. I think the second option would require changing the name of the current article to "Catholic homiletics." What about leaving a friendly note at WP:Catholicism to see what their reaction is? The article is currently part of that project. Also, the talk page at "Homiletics" is currently blank except for a couple of templates. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Checking the history, you'll see much of Homiletics is from a Catholic encyclopedia. That whole article structure is quite ill-suited to integation with Judaism. On the other hand: Talk:Sermon is already discussing how/whether to add in Islamic, Indian, etc materials, so Judaism could probably fit in there. Maybe you/we could add a Jewish subsection there. If it grows, it could be exported to its own main article. What sayest thou? HG | Talk 04:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Update -- I modified Sermon to see if we can add in non-Christian preaching traditions. Then I put in 2 sentences on Jewish sermons. Maybe you could use this as the seedling and work from there? Hope this is helpful. thanks, HG | Talk 05:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So pipe the "Homiletics" links in the Judaism-related articles to Sermon? Doesn't seem like a very good fit to me. Check, e.g., Israel Abrahams. "Abrahams taught secular subjects as well as homiletics at Jews' College." It seems to me that a link to "homiletics" should go to an article on homiletics, not an article on sermons. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, homiletics is the art and study of sermons. So I think the piping to an eventual Sermon#Judaism could work fine. Whatever route you pursue, I hope it goes well. HG | Talk 05:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, I'm Thw1309, I'm a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism. I have read the notice on our project's talkpage. I would like to remind you of the best principle of Wikipedia: Be Bold! "Homiletics" is a therm, shared by Catholicism and Judaism. This should be reflected by the article. If there would be an article with only the Jewish view on the topic, I would not hesitate to add the position of the Catholic church. If the therm is used by two regilions, there should be a general section and one section for each religion, not an all catholic article with a small jewish section. Don't add a jewisch section to a catholic Encyclopedia article. Create a neutral Wikipedia article and link the Judaism related article to the Jewish half. Happy editing.--Thw1309 (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homiletics 

message: Does anyone find it strange that pretty much that possibly one of the most important articles to this WikiProject is so terrible it can't even maintain GA status? See Judaism Masterhomer  05:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been reviewed for good article status twice. The first time, it passed. The second time, it failed, primarily because the standards had changed after Wikipedia started requiring citations. It's in considerably better shape than it was after that failure, but don't hesitate to try to improve it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article "Judaism" needs work 

message: There is much heated discussion surrounding the Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms. See Talk:Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms#VOTE: Split the glossary into two for a proposed solution that could help bring the heat down from its ongoing unceasing boilingpoints. Thanks IZAK (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous content of this glossary has now resurfaced as Glossary of Messianic terms. I don't think a glossary of Messianic terms alone would be objectionable on WP policy grounds; however, the new article again compares Jewish and Christian terms, with the same concomitant problems of original research. Thanks. HG | Talk 22:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constant controversy at Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms 

message: A photo was recently added to this article of an Orthodox couple, taken on Shabbat. I raised the question of whether an Orthodox person might find being the subject of such a photo taken at such a time problematic or uncomfortable. I understand that this type of situation is a very gray area and there can be multiple views on this somewhat sensitive issue. I'd welcome your opinion at Talk:Orthodox Judaism#Recent photo. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Orthodox Judaism#Recent photo]] 

message: There has been some discussion about how best to categorize the Jerusalem article which also has an extensive :Category:Jerusalem. Please see Category talk:Jerusalem#Placement of parent categories. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category issues about Jerusalem article and Category:Jerusalem 

message: I've been having difficult removing monetary crankery from Wikipedia. There is a heterodox school of economics on Wikipedia called Austrian economics that is regarded as pseudoscience. There is currently a mob around these edits, involving several groups:
*Neonazis
*Fascists
*Conspiracy theorists (see Rothschild family and Illuminati Bankers)
*Market Anarchists
The first three groups are insane. The last group isn't totally off the wall, since they're just an obscure group of ideologues -- wrong, in my opinion, but not necessarily wholly unreasonable.
Here is the reason why I'm writing: Although Austrian economics is not openly associated with anti-semitism, in practice, it usually is. Even though their founders, Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard were both Jewish, their beliefs could simply be understood as self-hate. The authors seemed to have made it a practice of regularly appealing to anti-semites and subtly supported Fascism and Nazism as late as 1969. See Rothbard's horrible choice of words here.
And about Ludwig von Mises himself, here is some source material for you.
::Ludwig von Mises, which the Wikipedia article names as the "uncontested dean of the Austrian School of economics," says of Fascism in Omnipotent Government (published in 1944, re-published in 1969):
::http://www.mises.org/liberal/ch1sec10.asp
::
::And of Nazism:
::http://www.mises.org/etexts/mises/og/chap9b.asp
::
The above four groups have engaged in ridiculous wikilawyering and the fact that Wikipedia IS a democracy means they can get away with it. I thought that by perhaps asking for your aid you could help address this issue. Zenwhat (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This WikiProject is about Judaism, not about its opponents. JFW | T@lk 22:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish bankers conspiracy theories on Wikipedia. Did you know? 

message: Hello.  I flagged this article up for attention on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mordechai_Gafni, and it was suggested to bring this to the attention of WikiProject Judaism.  -  was editing this article repeatedly to replace the article with a hagiography about how great Rabbi Gafni is. It is very possible that Fructify and Mordechai Gafni are one and the same (so this may also be a conflict of interest). I have tried to edit down the article a little to reduce the undue weight on Gafni's rape allegations, but some more knowledgable eyes would be appreciated, perhaps to expand the other areas of the article and check what is already there. Thanks. Neıl ☎ 07:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks all for your help. Neıl ☎ 16:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mordechai Gafni]] 

message: This page might need a review/rewrite, as it seems to exist solely as a coatrack for a conspiracy theory. Brimba (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Harold Wallace Rosenthal]] 

message: Glatt kosher is currently a redirect to Kosher foods which doesn't seem to mention the topic. It's certainly worth its own article. Would anyone have access to sources on the history of the approach? Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It may require its own page. Obviously glatt kosher should sensu stricto only refer to the quality of the shehita, but in practice it is used to refer to the standard of kashrut as a whole. Sources needed. JFW | T@lk 14:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Glatt kosher]] 

message: I'm continuously having to deal with "Ritual Decalogue" advocates on Talk:Ten Commandments. Could some of you please watchlist this and participate in the discussion? The relevant policies are WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOR. JFW | T@lk 07:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could I again urge contributors to review recent edits by  and the completely circular discussion on the article's talkpage? JFW | T@lk 21:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ten Commandments 

message: Recently there have been many edits claiming that the Qohelet is a women, because the word is grammatically feminine. But grammatical gender often disagrees with physical gender,  so I find these arguments quite flawed. What do you think ? Please see Talk:Ecclesiastes. Y.t. (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. The opening verse says that he was "king (not queen) in Jerusalem". All other mentions of Kohelet in the book are also grammatically male. Not very hard to refute then. JFW | T@lk 08:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I have manually removed all the unsourced as weasel word-laden material. Without a source I am inclined to dismiss this as original research. JFW | T@lk 08:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ecclesiastes]] 

message: Hi, I've been doing some work with the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration and am Jaakobou's mentor.  Some of the project's work is to help improve cultural topics.  We've recently done a good article drive for a Palestinian cultural subject and gotten a historic photograph (103 years old) featured on Commons.  So it's time to seek an Israeli- or Judaism-related article that can rise to the next level.  Our goal is to foster a positive and productive atmosphere.  One page I noticed is ripe for improvement is 613 Mitzvot: your project lists it as high importance and the list itself is already thoroughly referenced.  It's not far from becoming a featured list candidate.  The introduction needs work.  Footnotes and stub articles for the redlinks would be a big step forward.  I could help with copyediting and with Photoshopping images.  Welcoming feeback and ideas with best regards, DurovaCharge! 20:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured list drive? 

message: Hi, I am trying to make sense of the media organization described in International Media Help. Does anyone know something about it and if it is can be called a "Jewish media organization" so that it may fit into :Category:Jewish media? Thanks a lot, IZAK (talk) 07:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Media Help 

message: Came across Nunt it's a kind of desert supposedly but cites no sources and the only ones I could find by Googling were sites that mirror the Wikipedia stub about it. Does anybody have any idea what this is? Thanks. IZAK (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I never heard of it.  The article started as a translation of de:Nunt.  Jon513 (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nunt 

message: Gathering of Israel needs to be reviewed and it needs a lot of help. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gathering of Israel 

message: Shomer Shabath  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brewcrewer (talk • contribs) 16:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had the audacity of merging the relevant content with Shabbat under its own header. JFW | T@lk 23:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi I added alot more data and refs, moved it back to an article. Want to help DYK it? Thanks. HG | Talk 03:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The mekhallel shabbat is mentioned in Heresy in Orthodox Judaism and does deserve more fuller treatment there. I also noted it in Shomer Shabbat, thanks. I think the mekhallel is a more interesting and contentious term, with much more halakhic significance. While it's obviously central to Judaism to observe the sabbath, the term itself is notable yet tame. Speaking of which, shavua tov, Izak! HG | Talk 04:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Would somebody kindly do me a favor and add the Hebrew phrase to the beginning of Shomer Shabbat? Thanks! HG | Talk 09:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yep. JFW | T@lk 09:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  hot off the press, and needs work: 

message: I'm not sure what to make of recent changes to Talmud. Apart from being completely unreferenced, there may be some NPOV problems. JFW | T@lk 23:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talmud 

message: Reposted for continued broader discussion here from User talk:IZAK#Mashpia: Yiddish?. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Background: There are two categories: :Category:Hebrew words and phrases and :Category:Yiddish words and phrases. Recently I have added words to the Yidish category that are derived from Hebrew because of their accepted common usage in Yiddish. As a result of that the following discussion has ensued IZAK (talk) 03:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would disagree with Izak and agree with YO and JFW only because a Title isn't part of the language it is a name of something. like YO has very eloquently eleberated on this that surely Yiddish is in essence comprised from other languages, but if only "Frum" people call it like this its because they use still their Hebrew language when talking about something holy, to notate a 'Hebrew' connection and explicitly not to make it a 'Yiddish' word, just like "Torah" or "Chumesh" isn't a Yiddish word even though there is no alternative in Yiddish, i think "Mashpia" is in the same category. True we use it in daily Yiddish conversations but in essence its still recognized as a Hebrew word.--YY (talk) 14:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Update, i now reread Izak's comments and he says that the the Yiddish Dictionary also has it as a Yiddish term than i must retract my above statement, and do as Izak says, we cannot overrule the professional Harkavi. Thanks Izak for bringing this to our attention.--YY (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yiddisheryid, thank you. As I have said about this subject that one must be super-careful not to over do it, to throw in all the Hebrew words into Yiddish, but on the other hand, there is no way to escape that "even though" Hebrew words are the basis of Yiddish words they cannot be divorced from (the Hebrew words) being Yiddish as well. Just as we cannot divorce the Germanic origins of the other half of Yiddish words to say that if words can be identified as having proven German orgins that they cannot be Yiddish, such a claim would be futile and false. Therefore, because Yiddish is inherently a mixture and fusion of two main languages, (classical) Hebrew with (old) German, the etymology of Yiddish words can most of the time be traced to one of these two languages, the other much smaller segment of Yiddish coming from Slavic languages to a lesser extent. By the way, as with all languages, one finds that the educated classes, tradionally being the Torah scholars, tended to use more Hebrew and some Aramaic in their Yiddish because they were studying the Torah and Talmud and used a lot of those languages that then worked its way into the way they used Yiddish. In later centuries, after the Haskalah, the more educated secular Jews were prone to use more high-class German words in their Yiddish to express themselves. (This can be found in English too because English is also a combination of two languages, Latin and Anglo-Saxon, a Germanic language, so that the more educated "higher classes" use the more Latin, i.e. Romance, side of the language, as in legal and medical terms in English that are almost all in Latin, but when speaking "simple English" the tendency is to use the Anglo-Saxon Germanic part of English.) IZAK (talk) 11:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hebrew words in Yiddish 

message: Seems that User  has just added articles about Jewish Gestapo and a "Rabbi" Abraham Gancwajch who worked with.for the Shomer HaTzair? Is this legit? Sounds very odd and the sources seem POV antisemitic. I redirected Jewish Gestapo to Group 13. See also some of the "funny" discussions at Talk:Tykocin pogrom. IZAK (talk) 13:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Jewish Gestapo" and "Rabbi" Abraham Gancwajch? 

message: I would like someone to check a source add to Judaism's view of Jesus about Milton Steinberg's view of jesus' life (this edit).  A link to Amazon's search insider feature of his book is here, but needs an account that has made a purchase on amazon in the past.  Jon513 (talk) 08:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked out their search inside the book feature, his page numbers are off, it's on 104, and I'm not sure what the exact context is, I see this "... who is incidently the Jesus of many liberal Christians. To Jews, that Jesus appears as an extraordinarily beautiful and noble spirit, aglow with love and pity for men, ..."
NachMS (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  source checking 

message: Greetings. I would welcome help with Emanuel Feldman and especially Charles Liebman, which maybe we could turn into a WP:DYK esp if somebody wants to recap some of his major works or the new memorial volume. In addition, I'm concerned about the newly-created Marshall Sklare Award because I got a copyright tag. Can anybody help add some info about the Award that doesn't come from the ASSJ website? Thanks. HG | Talk 18:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Charles Liebman is no longer a stub and will shortly be on the Main Page, as a DYK. Thanks. HG | Talk 19:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New stubs to expand 

message: Please see the discussions at Template talk:Books of the Bible concerning the new troubled and troubling  template. Your attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic new Christian/Jewish template 

message: For WP:NPOV.  Do all Jews believe the rebuilding of the temple is necessary for the Messiah to return? ScienceApologist (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is very little that 'all Jews' believe.  Adam Sandler and Mel Brooks (and this is an observation, not an evaluation) are secular Jews and probably do not believe in much.  They have much in common with the majority of the current Jewish population whose perspective is perhaps not actively against religious consensus as much as it passively indifferent to things that they either never learned about or have no care for.  A basic, fundamental concept asserted by numerous prayers included in the liturgy, based on scripture, expresses a desire for a hastening of the final redemption with an emphasis on the return of Jewry to the Land of Israel and the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem.  If there are Jews who actively campaign against this perspective, they are not only operating outside of the realm of classical Jewish values but are eroding the very essence of the religion. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 00:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Reform Judaism actively opposed both the rebuilding of a Temple and the concept of a personal Messiah from early in its development, and systematically rewrote its liturgy to remove all references to them. Conservative Judaism is essentially neutral on the issue, retaining elements of the traditional liturgy but not necessarily interpreting them literally (not necessarily a personal Messiah or physical Temple). So only in Orthodox Judaism is there enough belief in both events personally and physically occurring for the question even to make sense. Orthodox Judaism has no definite belief about which one will come first. Maimonides held that it was a waste of time to speculate on the exact nature or order of eschatological events. However, a lot of people have done it anyway. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, according to the discussion here, I changed the sentence from reading simply "Jews" to "Orthodox Jews". ScienceApologist (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd add "some" there and perhaps remove the reference to Jews entirely. It's not an article of Orthodox faith that the Temple needs to be rebuilt in order for the Messiah to return. Many Orthodox Jews believe the exact opposite, that it is necessary for the Messiah to return in order for the Temple to be rebuilt. And still others believe both events will happen, but don't claim to know in which order. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: CORRECTION: No Jews of any persuasion believe in the "return" of any Messiah. The idea of a "return" (second coming) is a purely Christian belief. --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I had already edited the article with this point taken into account.  Secondly, it is not a belief of Orthodox Judaism -- it is the belief of Judaism.  Why do the articles on Judaism not specifically state that practices are performed or binding only on Orthodoxy?  The answer is because they are binding on all Jews.  Irreligious Jews of the Conservative, Reform or any other persuasion do what they do in disregard to the laws, though most probably not deliberately because they were raised without a proper appreciation for the correct manner in which to act.  Why is there a liberal bias to Jewish references?  If there are splinter groups that redraw the rules of engagement, why are they given any special status as transmitters of the faith?  Granted, they are unfortunately in the majority, but even so, that is a only a current phenomenon -- historically, there have been more Torah-observant Jews than Torah-non-observant Jews.  How can the illegitimate views of corrupt Jews be expressed as the standard of practice? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 01:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Shira's edit that changes the sentence to "Jews await the initial arrival of a Messiah of the House of David, or a Messianic age." is very good. It avoids the relatively minor issue of when the temple is built (if at all) and focus on the major theme in Judaism of a "messianic age" which has universal (or near universal) agreement. Jon513 (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See Rambam Hilchoth Melachim, he says that one of the things the Messiah will do is rebuild the temple, meaning he comes before. Furthermore, "Messiah to return", is not a Jewish idea. NachMS (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please check this edit 

message: This letter was written shortly after the fall of Jerusalem to the Crusaders. I will be expanding the page in the future, but I'm looking for someone who might be able to locate a Hebrew website that features the letter in it's original Judeo-Arabic. I know the historian who discovered the letter, S.D. Goitein, first presented his findings in a Hebrew magazine, but I do not know the title of the article. All I know is that it appeared in Zion 17 (1951-52), 129-47. That's all of the citation that I know. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 12:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Letter of the Karaite elders of Ascalon]] 

message: What where the names and backgrounds of the wives of the Karaite exilarchs Hezekiah ben Solomon and his son Hasdai ben Hezekiah? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wives of the Karaite exilarchs 

message: I would just ask the administators and authors to remove the evil pictures from WikiProject Judaism, such is not found in any other template and it causes a Chillul Hashem.
Wikiplantjud (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, you need your sense of humour BIOS flashed. In what way, exactly, do these pictures constitute "evil" and "Chillul Hashem"? JFW | T@lk 21:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yfyll!  68.112.202.189 (talk) 10:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: So the pictures are not "evil and Chillul Hashem", they're just silly. But does it all need to be serious? It's a long time 'till Purim. JFW | T@lk 14:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it looks like we do have an evil and stupid picture. Here's one.  It says right on the picture label, "Is stupid and evil". Isn't that a reliable source?:
Come to think of it, this one probably isn't quite putting our best foot forward, either:
Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: However much I admire Photoshop skills by , I think an alternative picture would put an end to this highly exciting discussion. Anyone in the mood to design a pretty logo? JFW | T@lk 22:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Image:Decalogue parchment by Jekuthiel Sofer 1768.jpg, it is a little dark though, but it's on the , the Wikipedia:WikiProject Religious texts template, see more choices at :Category:Images of Jewish literature:
and I happen to like the Mogen Dovid at :Image:Judaism Symbol.png
See more possibilities at :Category:Images of Star of David. Just some ideas. IZAK (talk) 11:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evil Picture Removal 

message: What's the best way to enlist some assistance in updating biography information for Converts and Returnees?Tim (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Brief Description:The project will list people who need biographies and books that can be useful for writing the articles about said people. The group will also try to add already existing articles to the Baalei Teshuva or convert category if the articles belong there. Also most convert articles should be listed on the convert list--Java7837 (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: We're only interested in adding people who are notable, or those for whom the fact of conversion itself is notable -- such as clergy from other religions.  Right now the normal process is lagging behind.  On the list of converts page, for instance, we have a bunch of names that were added a few months ago that still don't have their own articles.  I had to resurrect the Asher Wade article from the dead.  A lot of the former clergy have been too cagey to document (I know one who is still waiting to be notable for other reasons before 'coming out').  I've emailed a few that I know personally who are on the list, looking for the best bio sources.  The problem is that a number of them are documented in full books (and buying twenty books for a Wiki article is a bit much for a single editor to do), and at least one only has his bio on audio.  So, we're trying to hunt down what's verifiable and notable, adding what should be added, and deleting the name if it truly does not meet notability standards.Tim (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Convert and Baal Teshuvah Biography Project 

message: For the stamp collectors among us, there is no article yet for Postage stamps and postal history of Israel (part of :Category:Postal history by country) that would have so many Jewish themes. Feel free to go ahead and start it. (See the other country's in :Category:Postage stamps by country that have theirs.) Nothing for Israel on :Category:Postage stamps by country neither on List of country articles containing postal sections nor on List of philatelic bureaus. (but just a teeny note on Israel at Compendium of postage stamp issuers (Io - Iz).) This is truly a great shame and pity because Israel, and before that when it was the British Mandate produced and continues to issue the most beautiful and extensive stamps by any country. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely this is a job for WP:ISRAEL and WP:PHIL, given that there are preciously few religious issues with Israel's stamps? JFW | T@lk 22:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Dr. Wolff. Israel has been extraordinarily prolific with its stamp publishing. Just having a casual knowledge of its stamps, there have been untold mutiple series on the Jewish holidays, Biblical themes and topics, and subjects from Jewish history, and much more. But I have placed notices on a few other pages to give this subject greater exposure. IZAK (talk) 09:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See also List of people on stamps of Israel Chesdovi (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The DYK for the new the Israel stamps article is on the Main Page, with an image. Feel free to help expand the article. Cheers. HG | Talk 11:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Postage stamps and postal history of Israel 

message: Please direct attention to the Ahmed Deedat page , where anonymous vandals keep removing mention of his antisemitism and anti-Christian rhetoric. Saws38 (talk) 07:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We are a Wikiproject on Judaism, not antisemitism. JFW | T@lk 12:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ahmed Deedat]] 

message: User  prodded the Chofetz Chaim Heritage Foundation article and I am disputing his move. Please add to the article and see the talk page at Talk:Chofetz Chaim Heritage Foundation. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So, please fix the sourcing and notability issues. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 07:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. But you could have just easily done it yourself because you know full well it's an important organization and it has lots of sources about it online and in print. Your wording justifying your prod was also pretty lame, that: "Not every anti-Lashon Hara organization is notable. Nor is every Monsey organization" -- was really silly and uncalled for because there are no other notable organizations like it in the frum world! That was no way to conduct business. Next time, if you see the problem, fix it yourself instead of threatening to delete it which is never a good "tactic". How would it look on your "resume" that you deleted the Chofetz Chaim Heritage Foundation article? IZAK (talk) 12:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

text: There is little doubt about notability. WP:POINT? JFW | T@lk 12:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chofetz Chaim Heritage Foundation 

message: Hey I think its a great idea to add a section dedicated to Jewish Jewelers. There are many prominent Jewish Jewelers out there; enough to make a whole sction about. Im new to wikipedia but I think someone with more knowledge can create this.Levi Seigel (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A list is useless unless its members have Wikipedia articles. Could you provide us with a list of notable Jewish jewelers? JFW | T@lk 14:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lev Leviev, Shlomo Moussaieff! Chesdovi (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Jewish Jewelers! 

message: Am I the only person who has a problem with the title of this article?--Kimdime69 (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What problem do you have with it? --MPerel  19:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My problem is that this article is about antisemitism in UAE and about UAE-Israel relations, it's not about the "history of the Jews in the United Arab Emirates", anyway I'm not sure that a jewish community existed in this country.--Kimdime69 (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is probably a more suitable discussion to bring up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jewish history, since it's not about Judaism, the focus of this project. --MPerel  20:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The concern etc remind me somewhat of the discussion at :Category talk:Jewish Saudi Arabian history. HG | Talk 18:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi HG: In both cases I added even more material about the internal Jewish history of those countries. It seems that people do not realize that the recent regimes of these countries have chosen to ignoreand suppress that their modern-day countries are on top of territory that over the last three millenia have had Jews living there. Some countries in the Arabian Peninsula still have small numbers of Jews living in them, and others have proven historical records of large numbers of Jews having lived and thrived there at various times and eras. So the concerns are unfounded because there are written sources and more of them are being posted online about the history of the Jews in almost any point on the Arabian Peninsula, indeed anywhere in the Middle East. IZAK (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[History of the Jews in the United Arab Emirates]] 

message: How about a central page about (ashkenaz/sephardi/mizrachi) Jewish superstitions e.g. the evil eye?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.45.29 (talk) 05:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You will find that "superstition" has a negative ring to it, and is not generally appreciated. JFW | T@lk 09:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish Superstitions 

message: Hi. What's happened with the Talmudic concepts effort, described above? What progress has been made? I just started geneivat da'at and would welcome 1-2 collaborators to get it into shape for a Did you know... nomination. Thanks! HG | Talk 14:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, it's currently up as a Did you know.... thanks to Jfdwolff. Improvements most welcome! Thanks, HG | Talk 22:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talmudic concepts encore 

message: *Moses Rischin, Jewish historian, coined the phrase New Mormon History
Thanks. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: is a collection of essays in his honour. I must say it is hard finding useful biographical data on a cursory Google search. JFW | T@lk 09:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes Google has become a vast commercialized digital oceanic cesspool and desert-size quicksand, but we have no choice but to use it and there is no better tool on Earth to find information on the web about anything provided one is patient and is willing to  check out links intelligently. Best wishes, IZAK (talk) 10:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Say, IZAK, I was trying to be helpful in identifying some sources. Lay off the bashing will ya? JFW | T@lk 09:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Who did I bash besides Google (as I simultaneously acknowledged their supremacy)? I was trying to encourage you to persevere as I have done myself under such circumstances. IZAK (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting article 

message: I would request that an additional subcategory of the above category be created. The problem as I see it with the extant category is it does not allow for differentiation regarding what might be called "secular" antisemitism by "secular" entities, like communist governments, for instance. The lack of such subcategorization makes it harder to differentiate between "religious" persecution by other religious groups, and state-sponsored or secular antisemitism, and I believe we would all agree that there is a pronounced difference between social antisemtism, like the religious kind, and institutional antisemitism by governmental entities. Would there be any objections to the creation of such a subcat? I would propose :Category:Antisemitism from secular parties or maybe :Category:Governmental antisemitism or :Category:Institutional antisemitism as possible names for such a new category. John Carter (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think the above is itself a misreading of what I had said. I was not proposing a separate subcategory which would be in any way an "exclusive" category, that it, one which would remove articles from other categories. Rather, that there are and has been, unfortunately in several cases, instances when there has been direct governmental antisemitism. At present, given the existing category tree, there is no place to find such content. It would be useful for both the WikiProject Politics and WikiProject Jewish history or Jewish culture, and possibly any projects relating directly to individual governments, if such a subcategory, or perhaps more than one such subcategory, would exist for the purposes of letting all the relevant groups know that the articles are directly relevant to them. At present, there are several WikiProjects which relate to one or more separate governments, and it would be in everyone's best interests if they could find content relevant to their subject as well. In this sense, antisemitism is a subject which is probably of interest to more than just the Judaic projects. John Carter (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I will note that WP:JUDAISM considers antisemitism to be outside the scope of this project. A better place for this discussion might be WP:WikiProject Jewish history. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably accurate, and my apologies. However, I do believe how you could see how religious antisemitism from other religions would probably qualify as being an "interfaith" topic, considering it deals with the interactions of different faiths, whether the members of this project have decided that it qualifies for inlusion in this project or not. John Carter (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Antisemitism]] 

message: :See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Block User:John Carter:
It is incomprehensible how after such an uproar and with so much across-the-board rejection of his position and his bot, that User  does not back down, dump his bot and his strategy, and apologize for all the aggravation he is causing, in clear violation/s of WP:SPAM, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:DISRUPT, WP:POINT, WP:NOR, WP:NEO, WP:SOAP, WP:IINFO, WP:BATTLE, WP:ANARCHY and WP:REICHSTAG. If he does not cease and desist immediately he should be blocked for all these multiple violations. IZAK (talk) 09:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In all fairness, I don't think it's actually his bot. However, the bot in question seems to be doing his bidding, and as I said above, I think he's suffering from a case of "I'm right and everyone else is wrong." I don't know if administrator tools are the best option here or it would be better to do some kind of RfC to undo the bot's actions. I think we were much better off with the status quo ante, but I'm not enough of a wikilawyer to know the best way to get there. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Steven: See the upheaval going on at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Block User:John Carter, that's what my post was in response to, and I reposted it here for the benefit of those editors here who are only getting a smaller taste of what User:John Crater is attempting to impose without discussion. 12:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

text: *What I find incomprehensible is that IZAK never bothered to let me know this discussion wasa even taking place. That is a clear violation of etiquette. He could also learn how to spell my name a bit better as well. And I am frankly appalled at the presumptuousness displayed by IZAK. It seems to me that he is basically trying to unilaterally declare ownership of much of the content of wikipedia. Also, he has clearly shown no indication of even bothering to check to see if his comments are supported by any relevant facts. If he had bothered to check my own subsequent edit history, he would have noticed that I have in fact removed the banner from several articles, added some other relevant banners to the articles if they weren't already there, and assessed the articles for all projects involved. The majority of the disruption that I see taking place is, for better or worse, from IZAK. He has explicitly failed to AGF, has jumped to conclusions which are not even remotely substantiated by facts, and shown not even the most basically civility, by notifying me of the discussion.
John Carter (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: John Carter: Why would I have to notify you if you were involved in discussions right here(see above)? IZAK (talk) 09:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: IZAK, I wasn't yet involved in any discussions here, as the records will indicate. Are you trying to dodge the issue? John Carter (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I just want to remind the WikiProject that WikiProject Judaism has no more ownership of or say in any article than any other WikiProject. Thus far the rest of Wikipedia has often defered to WikiProject Judaism on Judaism-related articles. However, if members of WikiProject Judaism start doing things that tend to reduce the rest of Wikipedia's trust level, such as a proposal that was construed as proposing bypassing regular notability criteria and referring the notability of religious matters to WikiProjects, this will tend to increase the likelihood that other Wikipedians who disagree will respond by having other WikiProjects pay more attention to articles that have previously been left to us on trust. And they have every right to do this. Responding by proposing that leaders of other WikiProjects be blocked for exercising their review rights will not help regain trust either. I don't like being blunt, but sometimes I feel I have no choice. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Block User:John Carter

message: Anyone want to write an article about the recently deceased Rabbi Sharfstein on Cincinnati, OH? Google News has sources. -- Y not? 04:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I started an article. Chocolatepizza (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Zelig Sharfstein]] 

message: has been categorising rabbis into "Orthodox rabbis", even those who lived well before the term "Orthodox" was ever applied. I think this is a form of POV and a complete anachronism, and was wondering what others thought about this before reverting the whole lot. Please also see our exchange on Java's and my talkpages. JFW | T@lk 09:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Dr. Wolff: While Java7837 does tend to be a spirited editor, he does have a basic sound sense of Judaic subject matter. Now while it may be true that technically the term "Orthodox" only came into use in the early 1800s, but nevertheless it also has a generically true meaning and sense of a "Torah Judaism" Judaism that adheres to the 613 Mitzvot, the Oral Torah as applied through the Shulchan Aruch. Thus the term could also be applied retroactively. In the past we have had non-Orthodox editors who have objected more in principle than on the facts, because after all, before Reform came along, all Jews were essentially "Orthodox" (as defined above), unless they abandoned Judaism entirely or became part of breakaway movements like the Karaites that are now essentially defunct. So I would say, let's see where he goes with this, as a review of his editing history shows that he's sticking to rabbis in the last few centuries. If he gets into the Acharonim or Rishonim it may get tricky. But let's see where it goes. It would help if he would come over here and discuss the matter.IZAK (talk) 10:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: IZAK, to use the term "Orthodox" for mainstream Jews prior to 1795 is simply an anachronism. The whole concept of Orthodoxy was unnecessary because apart from movements like Karaism etc there was only one form of Judaism, without a need for further labels. There were obviously subdivisions, such as Ashkenaz and Sefard, Hasidic and non-Hasidic etc, but these only apply proactively. I would greatly hesitate to label the Rosh or the Raavad "Ashkenazi", because they predate the actual split between those groups and their views inform both schools. Likely, it would be ridiculous to call the Rama or the Maharal "Misnagedim", because they lived more than 200 years before the Baal Shem Tov. Yet many later Misnagdim identify with the Rama and the Maharal. Can you see my point, and the impossibility of applying such labels retroactively? JFW | T@lk 21:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I would dispute that.  What Orthodox Judaism means today (as distinct from Haredi / Ultra-Orthodox Judaism) basically is the movement defined by Hirsch and others in the nineteenth century; and represents a substantial reformation from what went before, both in terms of intellectual position and of self image.  Labelling someone like Maimonides as "Orthodox" is unneccessary - and unhelpful.  Jheald (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Java, I am sure your changes were well-intended, but as I indicated above it is simply not possible to apply labels retroactively. I will not address the argumentum ad Paulum separately. JFW | T@lk 21:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI -- these quotes are from Encyclopedia Judaica on Orthodoxy. HG | Talk 18:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For an up-to-date explanation, see pp.1-4 & extensive footnotes in Adam Ferziger's Exclusion and hierarchy: Orthodoxy, nonobservance, and the emergence of modern Jewish identity 2005. HG | Talk 18:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A similar anachronism can be found in :Category:Mishnah rabbis. Were the early zugot Rabbis? HG | Talk 20:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, while they are not called Rabbis they all had Semicha; the term "rabbi" is from the late Second Temple period and is (for that reason) obviously derived from Aramaic. I have no problem labeling the Zugot rabbis. It becomes more problematic for the few remaining prophets who sat on Ezra's Great Assembly. Were they Rabbis, Prophets, or both? JFW | T@lk 21:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Please look at :Category:Rabbis by period. Strikes me as adequate periodization. HG | Talk 21:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with HG on this one. JFW | T@lk 21:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me as well.Wolf2191 (talk) 04:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly agree with HG. It is anachronistic.--Jayrav (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Hello, I would like to comment on a different issue than whether someone is Orthodox or not. Java7837 has been making up new categories for people who are not even rabbis — like "Russian Orthodox rabbis" for Michel Dorfman, who was a shochet and bookbinder. Then Java7837 created a new category, "Austrian Orthodox rabbis," for Hanoch Teller, who is an American/Israeli citizen who was born in Vienna but left at the age of 2. Furthermore, many of these people that Java7837 is categorizing have already been categorized into other categories that make it clear that they are rabbis (e.g. Hanoch Teller is already entered under "Haredi rabbis in Israel" [fair enough] and "American Orthodox rabbis" [stretching it a bit, since he doesn't live there]. Yoninah (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks for pointing that out. It's a mistake and I will fix it. The position of rosh yeshiva of the Breslov yeshiva was an honorary position, more along the lines of "administrator." Yoninah (talk) 11:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orthodox rabbis