Wikipedia talk:Orthodox Rabbinical Biography Collaboration of the Week/Archive 1

message: It seems to me that these collaboration can only be successful if there are many sources for these article ( preferably online).  Otherwise it would be very hard for the uninformed to add anything of value.  Perhaps this should be a major criterion for which articles to focus on.Jon513 18:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Nesher 19:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sourcing

message: Can I just point out that there is no rush to add names to this list - all can be worked upon in good time. I think we should stick with the current candidates and stop adding too many more names to the list - otherwise none will gain the 5 votes needed. Nesher 19:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No rush 

message: Copied from User talk:Nesher#collaboration of the week by Nesher.
First of all - good idea. There's a lot of pages in there that need work. I was thinking though - maybe we should broaden the scope a little to "rabbinic collaboration of the week". That way we could include some people from the middle ages, as well as the eras of the mishnah and talmud. Broadening our cope would hopefully also broaden the number of people working on the project. Just a thought. --Bachrach44 15:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would love to broaden the scope - except how do we ensure Reform (and other non-Orthodox) people don't get nominated? Nesher 15:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Call it "Frum Rabbis Biography Collaboration of the Week Project". :) --רח"ק | Talk 06:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: So what if they do? You and I might not be able to contribute as much to some rabbis as others, but I think that's true no matter what scope we have. (For example, I can contribute a lot more to an article on Avi Weiss than I can to one on Karelitz.) Wikipedia is inherently a collaborative environment, and getting more people to edit more pages is almost always a good idea. --Bachrach44 15:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we broaden it too much, the focus becomes lost and we may have nominations that are completely a waste of time. Still, I'm cautiously hopeful that we can expand the collaboration to what you suggest. To do that, we must first find an editor like IZAK or someone else to move the page to "Rabbinic Collaboration of the Week" and edit it a little.  But remember - before this we'll have to open this up to discussion and other's user's opinions and inputs - so I will copy this discussion to the talk page here. Kind regards, Nesher 16:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding the Purview of this Collaboration 

message: I think we should remove the three new additions by anon w/o explanation. I don't know who these are - does anyone else? I think ORBCW should be limited to current stubs, not redlinks. R' Shachter can be grandfathered. Agree? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 03:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure about those new nominees - but we shouldn't delete them. This is, after all, wikipedia and democratic voting elects these candidates. If there is enough support, they'll be the Col. of the Week and if they don't have two votes by the week's end, they'll be removed. Simple. Also, I don't agree that we should limit this to existing articles. There are literally hundreds of worthwhile articles on this subject that need, and should be encouraged, to be started. Nesher 12:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 3 new nominees

message: Just thinking, shall we up the votes an article needs to remain listed to 3 or leave it at 2? If we raise the bar, they'll be less cluttering articles hanging around. Its an idea... Nesher 09:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support, and eliminate the five votes to be chosen requirement. The highest vote getter should be picked among the qualified proposals, even if it only has four. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 12:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with CrazyRussian. Ayinyud 14:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't that encourage apathy and mean that on a bad week, an article with 2 or even 1 vote becomes "the" colloboration? Virtually all the other collaborations (I've basd this one on many of them) have a minimum threshold of 5 votes. Nesher 16:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, 3 votes minimum - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If you want to, then do it... Nesher 18:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 Strikes or 3? 

message: Should we add a subpage where wikipedians put down their names as official members of the ORBCW? Alternatively this could just serve as a central database of wikipedians known to be interested in the subject and they could be contacted on their discussion pages to vote when the need arises. Many thanks, Nesher 13:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding to the Tools Section 

message: People, Abaye is a copyvio from the OU. Does anyone want to put together a non-copyvio stub for him sometime soon? I am a little swamped between the new job and the RfA, so I cannot do it myself. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Abaye]]

message: People, please don't use Ultra-Orthodox, a term I lifted out of the Sonnenfeld article this morning. This is a term I despise, a term used by American papers whenever they want to pain frum Jews as unacceptably too religious, an offensive term. Just use Haredi, which is what Ultra-Orthodox redirects to, anyway. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 12:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you have to ask? The unilateral decision to obliterate virtually any mention of 'ultra-orthodox' on wp is quite amazing given that this project is supposed to be NPOV. In fact, I myself find the term Haredi to be on one hand offensive and on the other hand arrogance. Who decided that dressing in black pants with a white shirt means you are Haredi? I know many other kinds of Jews who are also 'Haredi' = God-fearing people. Haredi is also a hebrew term. --Shuki 17:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My unilateral decision? I was extremely upfront about it, and nobody has called me on it yet. As to the black pants thing, I am not sure what you mean. R' Sonnenfeld was obviously Chareidi - there's no argument about that - and it has no bearing on non-black-pants people (read: me too) being G-d-fearing or not. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, in bona fides, I believe that to obliterate "U-O" is to further NPOV. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Finally, U-O is present in redirects and is mentioned on the Haredi Judaism article as an alternative term. That is enough. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Hate crime is a little strong, but "never use Ultra-anything" is I matra I subscribe too. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ultra-Orthodox" 

message: User:Crzrussian is 100% correct! Please note: That over the years there have been discussions (see early talk pages of Haredi Judaism and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism) whereby a consensus has been established on Wikipedia for quite a while NOT to use the term "Ultra-Orthodox" anywhere on Wikipedia because it is rightly considered to be a pejorative term, especially by most Jews who would be classed as "Ultra-Orthodox" by others who use this dark term. The term is constantly used in a derogatory way in the media and Wikipedia is not in the business of insulting anyone. On the other hand, in recent years a natural agreement and consenus has arisen in all spheres outside of Wikipedia that the word "Haredi" could and should be used peacefully without insulting anyone instead of the highly toxic "Ultra-Orthodox" nomenclature. The  correct Wikipedia link is actually Haredi Judaism and the word "Haredi" alone simply redirects to there so technically speaking one should "dab" Haredi (Haredi). The argument by User:Shuki that the word "Haredi" is just a Hebrew word and who is to say that it means if someone is "truly Haredi" or not, does not carry any weight because at this time the term has obtained acceptance as a NEUTRAL name, i.e. it's become a universal proper noun and proper name that all sides can live with peacefully without anyone's feelings being hurt and it's not about a "judgment" about anyone's yirat shamayim based on dress or anything else. By the same token one could argue that the word "Ultra" anything should never be used since one never hears the term applid to secular Jews who have married gentiles as being "Ultra-secular" or Reform Jews who hate any kind of Orthodoxy as being "Ultra-Reform" -- somehow only some of the Orthodox got "blessed" with the prefix "Ultra" being available as a verbal stab against them. Therefore please use Haredi Judaism when required and never use "Ultra-anything" because it's an offensive and misguided label that borders on being a "verbal hate crime" of sorts. Thank you, IZAK 09:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hate crime is a little strong, but "never use Ultra-anything" is I matra I subscribe too. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Past decisions not to use the term Ultra-Orthodox

message: See my talk page. I asked a photo-genius acquaintance to work it through Photoshop to lighten it up, b/c it was taken in one of those huge old shuls with stained glass and one lightbulb. Which one of the three he produced do we like? - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think, 75% sure, that 01 is the best -- Nesher 16:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I was gonna vote for #2, although #1 is my second choice. --Bachrach44 16:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: R' Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg's picture

message: Dear everyone! I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism. Please put in on your watchlists, and please add relevant AfD's as you find them. Cheers. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism]]

message: There is now an article on Savora about the Savoraim -- can anyone review it and add to it? Thanks. IZAK 11:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Savora 

message: User:RK is a strong long-time editor who basically writes from a strong Conservative Judaism POV. Recently he has made some serious edits to the Talmud article. It would be instructive to see what he is writing and add your views to the article/s. Thank you. IZAK 11:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:RK 

message: OT: Before somebody decides to AfD this, can anyone please provide a source to cleanup-verify this article? Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Kartchin (Hasidic dynasty)]]

message: OT: Kapparos, rescued by me from WP:DEP this morning, needs sources. Thanks for your help. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Been a Dead-end page since August 30, 2005! For shame, people! - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  added some references and a piece on the historic controversy. what else are you looking for? Rabbi-m 05:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  my Moroccan and Syrian friends tell me it is practiced and that the Kaf Hachaim approves, so I added that in. Rabbi-m 05:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Kapparos]]